You're missing the point. ENY is more dangerous because it is poor. When Crown Heights was poorer, it was also dangerous. Obviously, not all poor people are criminals. But demographically, a big part of the reason it is safer now is because there are fewer poor people around.
It's not because the 77th somehow became more competent at rooting out crime. People who are gainfully employed are less likely to go around robbing others. When ENY gets gentrified, there'll be less crime there, too. I'm not holding my breath.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't doubt or deny the link between poverty and crime (ask MHA). But you asked why people would want to stay in Crown Heights. The answer is because it is, and for decades always has been a better place to live than Brownsville/ENY. People don't move out of neighborhoods where rent is rising until it becomes affordable for them... but rising rents doesn't have to mean wholesale gentrification.
Which of the mayor's policies do you believe are behind the change in Crown Heights?
Where do we start? The Downtown Brooklyn plan? Stop and frisk? Bloomberg's 100+ rezonings? Bloomberg's own assertion that NYC is a "luxury product"? The push for the conversion of NYCHA facilities into private (and often luxury) residences (already started with the PJs down by Pike St in lower Manhattan)? The gutting of NYC's middle class during dude's triple tenure?
I get that NYC is a unique city, but there is no reason a family of 4 with an income of ~$50K should be living essentially in poverty here, with no path to owning property or building wealth. Thats a normal American family
I'm not sure how a government policy or city plan can influence socioeconomic diversity in a way that doesn't create more problems than it solves. How would you propose we go about it? Rent controls? Public housing? Racial quotas? Expropriation of the propertied classes?
Lets not get into this game of class warfare. That is not what I am about. The issue I am seeing is that the middle class in NYC is being gutted and gentrification is happening too quickly. You want some ideas... for starters, how about putting a cap on the number of permits that can be filed for "luxury" apartments? Seems like every new development to go up in the last decade was luxury- problematic in a place like CH, considering how rising rents are already pushing out the non-rich. If there are 8 million people in the city why only enable construction to cater to 1% of them?
I dont have a ton of ideas on how to fix the problem... the first stem to solving a problem is identifying it. Thats the phase I am in now with this.
I think that undercurrent of "Manifest Destiny" part is probably in your head.
I'm really not sure what it is that wasn't equitable, and for whom. You seem to be talking in broad generalities about some group versus some other group, as if this was like the Indians selling Manhattan for a bucket of beads to a bunch of Dutch traders.
There are thousands of parties involved. Tenants, landlords, buyers, sellers, all individuals with their own stories and situations. All neighborhoods are governed by economic trends which have countless factors. The demographics of this neighborhood have changed fundamentally numerous times already. It's a normal part of life in a free society.
Who is to say which is the "correct" community, people, and businesses for a particular place? And what would be the social interest in attempting to influence this one way or another, besides ensuring equal protections under the law?
Im not going for that bait either. I never said there was a "correct" anything for the neighborhood. I am just saying there has to be a balance. No thriving city has nothing but rich people. A "luxury city" is not sustainable, at least not on the scale of NYC. The people who pick up garbage, teach, operate the subways, drive cabs etc. need somewhere to live and are being pushed out. If the free market were to run unencumbered NYC would get to a point where the only people left would be the folks who can afford $3K/month rent and $1M condos. So I just think some kind of concerted effort has to be made to represent everyone's interests and plan for more than beefing up the tax base.