2 ms·
This is exactly the point. The goal is to take poorer people and problems (need for school funding, crime, older infrastructure) and concentrate them in a locat
by matthewdgreen 4y ago
This is exactly the point. The goal is to take poorer people and problems (need for school funding, crime, older infrastructure) and concentrate them in a location where you can say “hey, they need to solve their own problems.” Then all the suburbs get great services and low taxes, while all the social and infrastructure problems can be ignored. The suburbs then fight like hell to make sure they don’t pay a dime for any of this stuff, while working hard to ensure that public transportation never exists to allow people to access the economic opportunities in the suburbs (AKA “bring crime into their neighborhoods.”) Cities can raise taxes to pay for their needs, but businesses and wealthier people just move across the city line. The poverty and lack of education inevitably breed local political corruption, and everyone outside the city gets another opportunity to feel righteous about writing the poorer cities off.
- granshaw 4y agoThis so eloquently describes the whole picture, esp in red states
- sokoloff 4y agoThat might be a valid explanation for some of the more difficult and expensive problems, but providing water and sewer services to a low-6-figure population is hardly a problem requiring innovation or massive amounts of money per person. My own city has about 28% fewer people than Jackson, yet is able to run a sewer and water department whose operation is funded overwhelmingly by water/sewer bills (averaging $115/resident last year) and capital projects funded by a Water Fund the city has banked (averaging $50/resident last year). These are not “gotta call Uncle Sam for help” figures.