Kid shot by cops? Just on the news...

Carlton Banks wrote: Realize that some of your generalizations/assumptions are little offensive. Not everyone lives in a 2 bedroom with 6 family members. There are many hardworking, stable families living in the area. There are artists, teachers, city employees... You seem to think everyone has 12 kids and no job. No one thinks dealing is good other than the actual drug dealer and his/her clients. I guess that goes back to your "Good Times" statement... You seem to be a little out of touch with the people we're talking about..

Carlton, either I'll have to work on the clarity of my writing or you're thin skinned. My hypothetical large family in the $300 2 bedroom apt. was an attempt to give a visual image to the precarious situation of those we'd described as "At-Risk".

Too many people living in an apt. that most others would determine to be too small for that number. The $300 would be the most they can afford. The apt. is not a protected apt. They would be hard pressed to find a similar sized apt. for even twice that amount if they were forced out. A dire situation.

It was not meant to be read as how most poor and middle class people live. In a discussion of the most at-risk - loosely defined by us as kids and adults from broken homes, not educated, not working, prone to criminality and hopelessness, etc. - it would have been silly[and perhaps "a little offensive"] if I'd described a NYC teacher's family living in a comfortable apt.

Carlton Banks wrote: I'm not sure where you read in my post that the only ones that get ahead are "the newcomers and lucky oldtimers". I'm pretty sure I stated that my opinion is that most people (with the exception of those pushed out of the neighborhood) can benefit in some way. Maybe not immediately but over the long term. Schools will improve. Brooklyn Hospital is now in the midst of a massive capital campaign. New businesses will come and bring new jobs. For the local community. That being said, some kids and their parents will get pushed out.

No I wrote that "newcomers and lucky oldtimers" would come out ahead.

I was refuting your claim/hope that "most people (with the exception of those pushed out of the neighborhood) can benefit in some way".

Since I was focusing on the "At-Risk", and I'd already argued that the At-Risk were far likelier to be renters than owners, and the poorer renters at that, that they'd be the overwhelming majority of those "kids and parents [that ] will ge pushed out". I thought that the discussion was about the At-Risk and how they would be effected by gentrification. I did not answer in response to a discussion on how gentrification works for those not at-risk (It's great for them).

Carlton Banks wrote: To homeowner...

If you read my earlier posts I mentioned you would have seen the following:
"We need better parenting classes. Babies are having babies out there and have no idea what it means to be a good parent. On the flip side we need more sex education so that fewer teenagers/young adults are having babies."

This means we need to teach young kids early so they don't get pregnant in the first place and if they do you need to start parenting as well as prenatal classes sooner rather than later.

If I may jump in on homeowner's question, Carlton I want to point to something that I keep harping on in regards to At Risk kids and families....

You cannot "teach young kids early so they don't get pregnant in the first place" if they're not in school for that lesson.

If the kid's not in school because they don't want to, then historically you'd go to the parents/guardians, and they'd make sure that the kid showed up the next day. If the parents/guardians don't give a damn - then there's no kid to teach. This whole dynamic is what I'd ascribe to the "At-Risk".

There's no way to get the kid in the damn chair, short of taking the kid out of his parent's care/home and forcing him/her into some sort hyper-controlled school setting. That's a disturbing solution for a lot of people and for a lot of valid reasons [myself included] - but I can't think of a less onerous solution.

Kids and parents who take sign on for classes, mentoring, etc. quickly fall off the ranks of what we define as "At-Risk".

All others remain at At-Risk. They're getting shoved out of the neighborhood by market forces. Their currently crappy schools are going to turn into functioning schools - once they've been moved away into their new crappy school. Maybe they're just screwed.

Carlton Banks wrote: Ok... I never said there aren't negative aspects of gentrification and I don't think it works out best for everyone. What it does do is improve the services available in a community and allow for people of different socioeconomic backgrounds to coexist. Of course people are resistant to change but change is inevitable. They may begrudgingly coexist initially but the reality of the situation is one in which eventually (hopefully) they will learn to live together since there isn't really any other option.

The at-risk crowd we're talking about most likely will not have many choices with regard to their dwelling. Those who are in rent controlled housing will most likely stay as will those in public or section 8 housing. Do you think they are just going ship out everyone the Ingersoll/Whitman/Marcy/Atlantic Terminal/Farragut houses? They would probably like to but it's not gonna happen.

While I agree the mix of commerce will shift to reflect the neighborhood's changing demographic, if there is demand for hair salons and chicken joints there will be hair salons and chicken joints. There was an oversupply of these types of places before, now the market has shifted to meet the demands of newcomers.

I agree...Some people living in non rent controlled apartments will be pushed out. In order to have a mixed income neighborhood some people have to leave and some people have to stay. That's obvious. The economics of buying a property are such that you need to maximize you monthly cash flow (i.e. rents) to be profitable.

Realize that some of your generalizations/assumptions are little offensive. Not everyone lives in a 2 bedroom with 6 family members. There are many hardworking, stable families living in the area. There are artists, teachers, city employees... You seem to think everyone has 12 kids and no job. No one thinks dealing is good other than the actual drug dealer and his/her clients. I guess that goes back to your "Good Times" statement... You seem to be a little out of touch with the people we're talking about.

Again you state the obvious... Yes there will be social tension. That's a given. After some time newcomers will recognize the "scary" guy on the corner and vice versa. Hopefully they can have some type of interaction and peacably coexist.

I'm not sure where you read in my post that the only ones that get ahead are "the newcomers and lucky oldtimers". I'm pretty sure I stated that my opinion is that most people (with the exception of those pushed out of the neighborhood) can benefit in some way. Maybe not immediately but over the long term. Schools will improve. Brooklyn Hospital is now in the midst of a massive capital campaign. New businesses will come and bring new jobs. For the local community. That being said, some kids and their parents will get pushed out.

As an investor I'm not a fan of rent control. It retards development and gives property owners no incentive to improve their holdings. That being said, in a city like NYC it does allow for low income residents to not be displaced. To be honest I'm conflicted on that issue.

There is already large scale government action in the form of the Empire State Development Corporation. They have designated downtown Brooklyn as the next area of major development (Atlantic Yards, Forte, Oro, the new Avalon Bay building, etc.). They are using eminent domain, zoning loopholes and tax abatements to drastically change the neighborhood. Hopefully these changes will bring about new infrastructure, mixed income housing and jobs... I've got to be optimistic because change is coming whether you like it or not...

To homeowner...

If you read my earlier posts I mentioned you would have seen the following:
"We need better parenting classes. Babies are having babies out there and have no idea what it means to be a good parent. On the flip side we need more sex education so that fewer teenagers/young adults are having babies."

This means we need to teach young kids early so they don't get pregnant in the first place and if they do you need to start parenting as well as prenatal classes sooner rather than later.

As for an incentive program, I said:
"I would lean towards an incentive based system rather than one based on punishment but that's debatable and you could probably structure a combination of the two."

This means I haven't put a great deal thought into how it should be structured but a combination of penalties and incentives may be effective.

okay, seriously, does anyone actually read a post this long? good lord my man!

I'm reading them too. I think it's great that people are actually talking in a way that isn't "race baiting" or whatever.

This is why anonymity can be so great. You can wind up actually saying the things you don't want bogging down your day-to-day...

Carlton Banks wrote: Boogie Knight, let's hear some solutions rather than harping on how you'll never get the kids in school.... I’m not talking about those who are already stuck in their ways... Skipping school, hanging out on the corner, etc. All you can do is make resources available for those that want them. You can't force the situation.…Given the "Good Times" comment …I know I keep harping on it but that was really ridiculous and indicative of your perspective on this.........So you don't seem to have any ideas or thoughts on solutions. Basically everyone is screwed except for the rich people (whether they are newcomers or old timers). I have a feeling you don't know any of these kids or their parents but the vast majority of them want their kids in school and the vast majority of these kids are in school (even if they are crappy schools). You seem to think these are wild animals we have to corral and lock up. That's really not the case...

I'm feeling that we've come to the end of the road on this one, as it seems that you and I are talking at cross purposes. So I'll just wrap up my argument and try to re-answer a couple of points you make above.

1) I've focused my discussion on the At-Risks - defined as broken kids from broken homes with broken parents. Poor, uneducated, nihilistic, prone to criminality. I've not been focusing on struggling poor and middle class, who although faced with serious problems, are actively working towards improving their circumstances. So poor kids in poor schools who still show up everyday and partake in mentoring and tutoring programs I do not include in the At Risk group. The kids of these parents who actively struggle to look after their families and themselves the best they know how - I do not include in the At Risk group. I 100% support all private and public programs that help these kids and their families get ahead.

2) I've argued that the existing private and public programs designed to help the needy and the struggling do not help those I define as At Risk - because those programs require that the At Risk seek those very programs out. In other words you have to attend classes/workshops/etc. for the programs to help - which the At Risks will not do because of a myriad of reasons. One has to want to help himself or have a loved one push them towards help. Since the At Risk lack both - existing programs are useless for the At Risks. Analogy - a seat belt is useless unless you strap it on or have someone do it for you if you can't. Seat belts themselves aren’t useless – not using them is useless.

3) Since the At Risks will not voluntarily seek or accept help - I argued that it may have to be forced on them. As we live in a country that prides itself on individual freedom, forcing citizens to do what's best for them would be problematic. I discussed the obvious problem of who gets to decide who's at risk. 3 points of concern mentioned in the posts were Education, Prenatal Care and Housing. I came up w/ 3 very problematic and onerous "solutions".
A) Cutting back on assistance programs (WIC, medicare/medicaid, Section 8, etc) if acceptable levels of school attendance and performance cannot be maintained or shown by At Risk children.
Mandatory enrollment in dorm like schools for constantly truant or under performing children
C) Mandatory enrollment in prenatal and life skill classes for teenage parents
D) Retroactive Rent Control status for all rental units paying less than $1400 a month, regardless of the number of rental units. Basically anyone in this city paying under $1400 a month in rent will automatically be given rent control status and all of its protections. This would apply even to brownstone owners who rent out one floor in their home. The rationale for this is that ongoing market forces and gentrification drive out long time residents from their homes due to escalating rents. These poorer residents are then forced from their neighborhoods right before their neighborhoods see a vast improvement in quality of life and amenities. Retroactive rent control would insure that no one can be forced from his or her apts. This would also serve to force mixed income living throughout the city.

Every single idea up there is crazy and would cause rioting if anyone tried to enact them. But they were offered as what seems to me the alternative to the status quo. The status quo as it seems to me is that those kids and families - which I defined as At Risk - are basically left to rot. They won't/can't take the help available to them and they'll be displaced as their neighborhoods improve. Every system we have in place now has failed them and will continue to fail them. Admitting that my ideas were problematic – but the only ones I could think of – I called for any other less onerous methods of alleviating the problems faced by the At Risks.

4) "Good Times" - 3rd times the charm (hopefully). Way earlier in this thread it was suggested by some posters that basically the media and popular culture were pumping out a lot of the nihilism that these At Risk kids were soaking up. So on top of the real problems that these families face at home and in the world, they were also being bombarded with negative messages from he media and world at large. I argued - No - that as mindless and corny as they may be at times the vast majority of all TV shows and movies have always hammered home messages of the stay in school-say no to drugs-be respectful-blah blah variety. I argued that I couldn't think of a single TV program that glamorized or promoted asocial behavior. Even most movies - including crime movies - end with either the white hats winning or if the bad guy is alive and not in jail, he is shown to be living sort a sad, ugly or miserable existence. I also mentioned that every message from schoolteachers and politicians and the like parrot the straight and narrow line. Since I'm an old man I used Good Times as an example of how the media presented the story of a poor working Black family living in the projects as upliftingly as possible.

My point wasn't that if you watch enough TV and movies that your life would turn out alright. It was more along the lines of if all you did all day and all night was watch TV and movies, you’d just be watching a bunch of square johns toiling away and trying to be happy. I argued that you’d be hard pressed to find a bunch of shows telling its audience that they should drop out of school and not work and deal drugs and drink too much and so on.

You wrote early on in your last post that "I'm not talking about those who are already stuck in their ways". If you’re not thinking about them, haven’t you written them off?

Those were the guys I had in mind while I wrote those bazillion words.

WNYC Reporter Bob Hennelly did an interesting piece this am on the thousands of cash settlements the city makes every year to settle lawsuits against the NYPD . . . he compares it with a program in Los Angeles where the PD uses that info to make their policing better and less liable . . . which all seems germaine to the topics of this thread.

There's a longer piece on the topic later today

The Brian Lehrer Show

Airs weekdays at 10AM
Since 2002, New York City has paid $500 million to settle civil claims against the NYPD. We’ll examine those payouts and see if any policies change after cops are found liable.

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2007/12/14

while looking for that link, I found this series about how the NYPD deals with the mentally ill. (and they have embeddable links now, wooo wnyc!)


Pt 2