Just some thoughts

[jay]

It is unfortunate that bad neighbors force good neighbors to move away.  Maybe the emphasis should be on finding a way for a neighborhood to rid itself of problem people.  But how can this be done legally?

[northside lurker]

A landlord has many legal reasons to choose who they will allow to be their tenant.  Maybe they have poor credit history, or they have a criminal record?  I know that the ACLU would get involved if a person felt they were being discriminate against because of race, religion, etc.  I don't know exactly what criteria can and cannot be used to make that decision.  (I would look that up before I became a landlord, though!)

I do have selfish reasons for sharing my idea.

My neighborhood is on the edge of becoming one of the bad ones.  I don't hear gunshots or anything, and I'm not afraid to be outside after dark.  But, there are a couple small-time drug houses up the street, (so I'm told) and there are some houses that are boarded up.  These were houses that were sold cheap, were never able to be sold, or were foreclosed on.  I started a thread recently about a house that is currently for sale that has an unbelievably low asking price.(in fact, I'm going to go post an update after I post this reply)  Overall, it's still a great neighborhood.  In the summer, kids still play hide and seek after dark, and when there's snow, they go sled riding in the park.  It's very nice and quiet 99% of the time.  If upstanding citizens moved from the "warzone" parts of Youngstown to my neighborhood (for example) this neighborhood would come back.

[Micky]

I think your idea is wonderful! 

But the ACLU would put a stop to it in a hurry.  They would say that it's discriminating against certain groups of people but the "good" citizens have been discriminated against long enough.  I don't see them coming to fight our cause.

[northside lurker]

I've been reading the troubles (gunshots, fear of leaving their home after dark, etc) that other members have been facing here, and have been appalled.  I wish I could think of a solution to the problems facing these neighborhoods.

I have said before that part of the problem is a lack of density of "good" people.  The new problem areas occur because there aren't enough good people to fill all the housing stock this city has.  The cost of homes in good neighborhoods are even dirt cheap.  So, someone who is only interested in the bottom line buys that property as an investment.  They have no interest in the area, they just want to have a steady cash flow for as long as possible.  Then, when they have squeezed out as much as they can from it, they sell it even cheaper to the next guy who may clean it up a little and do the same thing.  This is a downward spiral.

Also, part of the 2010 plan is to sort of "decommission" parts of the city that have become nearly vacant.

Today, I put these two concepts together.  What if those people who live in the bad parts of town move to the better parts of town?  Unfortunately, the bad parts may get worse as they empty out, and they will be "decommissioned" as part of the 2010 plan.  But, as property becomes more sought-after in the better parts of town, the value in those areas will go up, and there is less opportunity for the slum-lords to "infect" that neighborhood.  As more people who care about their neighborhood move in, the bad element gets pushed out.

The city can save money by providing infrastructure to less area, and the increased population density creates demand for properties in good neighborhoods that no one wanted previously.

I would like to hear what other people think about this.

I'm sorry if this post reads as half-baked.  I had to work quickly during my break at work.