4 ms·
> Carmel did not invest in poverty. Carmel pushed it out of town. Now it is extremely wealthy per-capita. I suspect this doesn't mean that everyone working the
by pyrale 2y ago
> Carmel did not invest in poverty. Carmel pushed it out of town. Now it is extremely wealthy per-capita.
I suspect this doesn't mean that everyone working there is paid handsomely. The city instead focused on being the rich neighbourhood of a larger urban area. So, basically, it's easier to be competent when money is not an issue.
- indymike 2y ago> creating being the rich neighbourhood of a larger urban area When I was five, Carmel was a nothingville with two stop lights we lived in a house my dad could afford buying as a college student. It had all the growth problem of a small Indiana town during the industrial decline of the 70s and 80s. That it got escape velocity from being another broke Indiana town is pretty remarkable. > easier to be competent when money is not an issue If it was easy, then everywhere could do it - and the Carmel miracle was getting the money needed to fuel it's growth. There was a strategy, and a very long-term focus on building a nexus of business and attracting the right support people (i.e. investors, healthcare, education, lawyers...) to attract the kind of people that those businesses needed. The mayor used a book "The Geography of Jobs" as one of his guiding strategies.
- EasyMark 2y agoI think the point is did the city simply evict the poor people and build nice things to attract rich people? Forget all the escape velocity stuff, I assume they’re talking about gentrification. So what is the diversity of Carmel? Were some of the poor people elevated because they lived in a growing city, or they were they simply pushed out because doctors, lawyers, execs, and engineers moved there because they set up pretty parks and good schools for kids?
- allturtles 2y agoI don't think gentrification really makes sense as a mental model for a rapidly growing suburb/exurb. Carmel's population has gone up 4x in the last 30 years. What has been 'evicted' is mostly farms. Almost the entire population is 'new arrivals' relatively speaking. There was no pre-existing working-class population to displace.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- inquirerGeneral 2y ago[dead]
- lazide 2y agoRevenue makes up for many sins. And increasing revenue means you don’t need to be as paranoid to never make any mistakes. Everyone knows this, which is why it’s actually really hard to always have increasing revenue, especially increasing faster than costs.
- supertrope 2y agoPoverty and crime are like a balloon or heat. It's relatively easy to squeeze it somewhere else and very hard to actually eliminate it in place.