4 ms·

> "minorities are more likely to live in areas where new highways would normally be built". This has to be the most cynical and cruel sentence I have read toda

> "minorities are more likely to live in areas where new highways would normally be built". This has to be the most cynical and cruel sentence I have read today. If your system mandates uprooting people's lives then its just not a good system, is it? If your normal is to disrupt people who are already downtrodden then its a bad cruel system even in isolation.

refurb 2y ago
Should we avoid infrastructure development if it’s poor areas? It’s not like they don’t get compensation. Americans are so soft. They admire places like Japan, Singapore, even Europe when it comes to infrastructure. Do you think those places say “it would be great to have new infrastructure, but we’d need to displace low income people so I guess we won’t”. No, they say “hey, we’re putting in new infrastructure so you’re going to have to leave. We’ll pay you for it and provide assistance, but you’re going to have to move”. And you know why they have nice infrastructure? Because they accept it as progress.
- newswasboring 2y ago
  > Should we avoid infrastructure development if it’s poor areas? Yes! If you can avoid it, yes. Pressure should be applied to areas not already struggling. Just to reiterate my original point, which you didn't address, if your system consistently results in disruption of the lives of the under privileged, it's a bad system. Also if caring about people is soft, I'm glad I'm soft.
  - refurb 2y ago
    Great, then don't expect any new infrastructure to be built. Congrats, you've just become the US. There is always someone who is going to suffer when new infrastructure is built in an urban area. It's 100% unavoidable. If you say "I'll make sure that never happens", then you just won't build new infrastructure.
    - newswasboring 2y ago
      Either you are being intentionally dense or are just not reading carefully enough what my point is. Yes there will always be someone who is going to suffer. That is not the point. My point is if the system consistently and predominantly makes the underprivileged suffer its a bad system. This isn't even controversial dude, there are wikipedia articles about some of these systems.
7speter 2y ago
Meh, I’m a minority who lives a few blocks away from i95 with my father and we make ends meet in the house he mortgaged 30 years ago this year, but all I ever hear about is that only rich people live in houses in NYC and all those nimby’s should get their houses bulldozed away for “dense residential” (I can literally see the projects in my backyard). So we’ll lose anyway (rising property values? Ohhh a tax bill I won’t be able to afford when my father passes, yay) you take it. I’m sure you all won’t know what to do with this comment and I’ll end up in the grays anyway.

refurb 2y ago

Should we avoid infrastructure development if it’s poor areas? It’s not like they don’t get compensation. Americans are so soft. They admire places like Japan, Singapore, even Europe when it comes to infrastructure. Do you think those places say “it would be great to have new infrastructure, but we’d need to displace low income people so I guess we won’t”. No, they say “hey, we’re putting in new infrastructure so you’re going to have to leave. We’ll pay you for it and provide assistance, but you’re going to have to move”. And you know why they have nice infrastructure? Because they accept it as progress.

newswasboring 2y ago
> Should we avoid infrastructure development if it’s poor areas? Yes! If you can avoid it, yes. Pressure should be applied to areas not already struggling. Just to reiterate my original point, which you didn't address, if your system consistently results in disruption of the lives of the under privileged, it's a bad system. Also if caring about people is soft, I'm glad I'm soft.
- refurb 2y ago
  Great, then don't expect any new infrastructure to be built. Congrats, you've just become the US. There is always someone who is going to suffer when new infrastructure is built in an urban area. It's 100% unavoidable. If you say "I'll make sure that never happens", then you just won't build new infrastructure.
  - newswasboring 2y ago
    Either you are being intentionally dense or are just not reading carefully enough what my point is. Yes there will always be someone who is going to suffer. That is not the point. My point is if the system consistently and predominantly makes the underprivileged suffer its a bad system. This isn't even controversial dude, there are wikipedia articles about some of these systems.

7speter 2y ago

Meh, I’m a minority who lives a few blocks away from i95 with my father and we make ends meet in the house he mortgaged 30 years ago this year, but all I ever hear about is that only rich people live in houses in NYC and all those nimby’s should get their houses bulldozed away for “dense residential” (I can literally see the projects in my backyard). So we’ll lose anyway (rising property values? Ohhh a tax bill I won’t be able to afford when my father passes, yay) you take it. I’m sure you all won’t know what to do with this comment and I’ll end up in the grays anyway.