attacked and mugged...

BoogieKnight wrote:
breatheasy thanks for answering, you're right my "WTF" was uncalled for, got caught up in the moment I suppose

I get what you're saying (and carnivore) about increased desirability leading to increased rents - it's just a shame that it seems that poor neighborhoods and residents are doomed to suffer crime-ridden streets.

But doesn't it seem inefficient somehow, not every poor person is a crook, so why do we have to get rid of poor people when we drive crooks out? Get rid of the knuckleheads and old, new, poor, rich residents all breathe easier (I stole your tag )

Haha not a problem, thanks for being civil :P I don't post on here often (or any internet forums, for that matter!) because I usually see a lot of people just wasting their time fighting with eachother. But yeah, it is a shame, and it is ineffiicient, but its the way things work, like carnivore said. And I'm not even saying I'd like crime to stay in order to keep the neighborhood cheap, or some shit like that.. I was just kind of making an off-shoot of how a whole type of people begin to infiltrate an area, and then the neighborhood must become safer on their account. Someone else said, well, it's not on OUR account, but just in general all neighborhoods deserve to be safe and with low crime.. of course thats all well and good in theory, but the police are cracking down and moving in because of the people that are moving in... and it most likely has to do not just with money but race, too. So it's a shame, that white yuppies gotta be present for someone to care about safety, you know what i'm saying? But, you know, it is what it is. Just airing out my voice a bit.

Also, I guess I also mean that I wouldn't like to see more cops, but rather more youth programs, more counseling or drug programs. I'd rather see people get help then get arrested, that's all.

Not at all. I'm saying that a side-effect of increasing neighborhood safety is increasing desirability. And increasing desirability leads to increased rents. It has nothing to do with who deserves what and everything to do with supply and demand (damnit, I'm starting to sound like escap).
Interesting article in the Times recently about the huge housing shortage in Cuba. Seems they're short about 250,000 dwelling units. The trouble is: the state owns all of the property and you can't move without the gov't's permission. One of the side effects is that people can get divorced easily in Cuba (and many do) but they can't find new places to live. The article cited one case where a couple had been living together for 18 years after they were divorced because they couldn't find places to move to.

Such a system in the US would certainly cut down on the rampant movement of yuppies into Crown Heights and also keep the rents at state set levels. Any takers?

It seems to me that we wouldn't be talking about gentrification if things in the neighborhood hadn't already improved. People with stuff to lose generally don't move into a wild area. And where is that so-called yuppie? I see a bunch of them in Park Slope and Prospect Heights, but not here.

It seems to be a code word for race. And I can tell you that my skin color does not qualify me to be a yuppie. I'm here because I got priced out of my old neighborhood and I'm pretty sure the black homeowners that are my neighbors make more money than I do.

When I first moved here, I got a bit of the "YOU GENTRIFYING YUPPIE" vibe from people, but that quickly disappeared when people realized that I was just struggling to get by like everyone else.

This whole oldbie/newbie debate is disingenuous and distracts from the real problem. If my white face at council meetings is what it takes to get cops and programs into this community, then that is a really sad comment on race relations in this city: that a problem is not considered serious unless it happens to white people.

OP: I feel your pain about not having your attack "count". I come from the supposedly safest city in the country. I KNOW that the only way it could be called that is because the cops jigger with their crime stats, because growing up in that town was a nightmare for me. They didn't count a rape attempt and one time I called them while some fruitcake was trying to break into my house (and I was a child alone) and they not only didn't come, they LAUGHED at me. I ended up having to fend the guy off myself with a baseball bat. Safest city in the country my ass. I've had less stuff happen to me in New York City than I ever did there. Worst thing that happened to me here was getting pickpocketed twice.

Hmm... it seems to me that they treated your assault as if you were being pickpocketed. Pickpockets don't usually threaten their victims. Arrgh!

Apologies for the rambling: The Crown Heights Mediation Center on Kingston has programs too, I think mostly job placement, but I could be wrong.

breatheeasy wrote:
I've never been mugged, robbed, chased, harrassed, followed, threatened, yelled at, looked at crooked or anything of the like in Crown Heights. But if I did, like restless said, and I went crying to my parents or ANYbody, they'd tell me "you moved there." And they'd be 100% right. And no it's not siding with criminals, and like I said I'm not looking for some debate I'm just saying that I don't UNDERSTAND at all how someone moves somewhere, and then decides it must change on their account.

So, it's only the newcomers who care and complain about crime and think that it should change? The people who have lived in CH for years and raise families in CH don't care about the crime there, take it for granted and don't want it to change? Because they live there, they deserve it or is it only the newcomers (in coded words "WHITE") deserve it because they knew that it was high crime (in code words "BLACK") and should have known better and not be surprised by it?

Bizarre.

neene wrote: about a year ago errol louis wrote a column about a neighborhood in queens that banded together to prosper and create a solid community. i can't find it now but it seemed like a good model to me, errol if you read this, can you post a link?

My column took a guess at how/why Southeast Queens, a mostly black working class neighborhood like Crown Heights, has prospered. I still think they are a model of how to improve our area.

Here is the link: http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/opinions/2006/10/06/2006-10-06_follow_this_example__the_bla.html

And of course, you let prospective tenants know about the ghastly crime rate on Franklin, do you?

Or do you compromise your ethical standards there and then come onto this board to vent?


:roll:

Subject: Re: GEAR UP

RUDEAWAKENING wrote: SORRY TO BURST YOUR BUBBLE, BUT FRANKLIN IS A TWO GUN NEIGHBORHOOD STILL . IT IS INFESTED WITH DRUGDEALERS AND LOTS OF DRUG TRAFFIC. THEY TRY TO EXPLAIN THAT IT IS SAFE. BUT IT IS NOT. BUT THE RENT IS CHEAPER THAN IN PARK SLOPE OR EVEN BROOKLYN HEIGHTS. SO YOU TRADE THE SAFETY FOR CHEAPER RENT. BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE IT IS NOT AND WILL NOT BE PARK SLOPE ANYTIME SOON. ESPECIALLY AFTER WASHINGTON, EVERYTHING ACROSS. AN I KNOW BECAUSE I WORK FOR A REAL ESTATE AND I PUT THE PEOPLE THERE.

*********************

Are two guns a requirement if I want to move in the neighborhood?

five dollars sez RUDEAWAKENING and LIVERENTFREE are the same person.

Errol wrote: [quote=neene] about a year ago errol louis wrote a column about a neighborhood in queens that banded together to prosper and create a solid community. i can't find it now but it seemed like a good model to me, errol if you read this, can you post a link?

My column took a guess at how/why Southeast Queens, a mostly black working class neighborhood like Crown Heights, has prospered. I still think they are a model of how to improve our area.

Here is the link: http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/opinions/2006/10/06/2006-10-06_follow_this_example__the_bla.html

Of course Black neighborhoods can prosper. There are quite a few good Black neighborhoods in the tri-state area. That's why the whole "what did you expect" speal is a load of racist crap.