Another City Employee Moves Out

[AllanY2525]

Getting people to move into the city and become home owners is a problem
that has many, MANY facets.  Some of them are "catch-22" issues.... in order
to lower the crime rate, the city needs adequate police and fire protectiom
throughout the city.  In order to have that, the city needs a budget large
enough to PAY for more police officers and fire fighters.

In order to have the budget to pay for more and better public services like
these, the city needs to have a tax base that produces sufficient revenues
which, in turn requires that the city have enough working, middle class
tax payers to provide those revenues.

And then there is the lack of good paying, living-wage jobs.  No person who
has a family, etc. and wants to realize the American Dream of being a home owner
can do so with a job that pays $7 to $10 an hour - and NO BENEFITS.

The city of Youngstown has all but eliminated the Westlake Terrace projects.
Anyone who drives through the Arlington Heights neighborhood can clearly
see that what was once a large low-income housing project has dwindled
down to just a mere fraction of what it used to be, and that there are new
single-family, duplex ("Townhouse" type) and multi-unit dwellings where
those projects used to stand.  The city has already "gotten the message"
with regard to this problem, folks.

Youngstown MUST continue to get rid of "dead" neighborhoods - the last
major city-wide plan that was done in the 50's estimated 200 to 250 thousand
people would be living in the city by the year 2000 - now the city has about
75,000 (+ or - ) people - it simply CANNOT sustain all of the un-needed
infrastructure that it now has.

Instead of just giving people in subsidized housing a "one-way ticket to
anywhere but here" the city needs to continue to bring jobs to the area,
and make every reasonable effort to turn these people into TAX PAYERS.

Once there are sufficient living-wage jobs to go around, THEN the city has a
legitimate reason to start cutting back on housing subsidies for those who are
not working and making ENOUGH money to be a home-owner, etc.

One of the MAIN reasons there are so many renters in Youngstown is that
most of them simply CANNOT AFFORD to own a home.  By the time you add
in mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance, gas, water, electric, and
maintenance and repairs, most folks just cannot foot the bill as a home owner
in Youngstown.

Simple economics here, folks.  I know of people in Youngstown who get housing
subsidies - AND THEY ALREADY HAVE JOBS - they just cannot earn enough of a
living to afford it on their own.  I know of one younger couple where BOTH of them
work, full time,  PAY their taxes -  and yet they STILL cannot afford to be home
owners. 

We have to be careful about lumping all people who receive housing subsidies into
one category - and then unceremoniously labeling them all as "un-desirables", or
"lazy", etc.

[Youngstownshrimp]

Living in the City has been good for my wife and I for the last 16 years.  You cannot duplicate the historic homes in the city and the longer we sit, the migration of the entitled criminals is progressing into Boardman, Liberty and Austintown.  Coupled with the policy of bulldozing towards progress, more and more property is reverting back to nature, I give it another ten years and soon we will be rural.  At the eastside farm, I see more and more wild turkeys, bucks, beaver, falcons, muskrat and hugh storks.  Hell, I use to have to travel all the way into western Pa. or Kinsman just to glimpse a gobbler.

[Rick Rowlands]

Give the people on subsidized housing a one way ticket to anywhere but here.  Its not PC to say, but we'll never rise above the crime while we have communities of criminals spread about the city.  But I am resigned to the fact that they are probably here to stay.

Yes I do think that portions of the city should be replatted as modern housing developments with limited access, perhaps even gated communities.  Whatever it takes to get people to live within the city again.

[northside lurker]

Racism? Really? Could you elaborate on how racism was a factor.  I always thought that it was a combination of postwar prosperity, private automobiles, and a positive portrayal of suburban living as being the main reasons for suburbanization.

Here are some references for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbusting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

Hey, I won't lie to you.  Its GREAT living out here. We have an acre of land, virtually no crime, govt.doesn't bother us much, not many people around, and the only gunshots that we hear are from the neighbor shooting at targets.  City living is a completely different reality.

I think it's great living in the city.  Having lived in suburbs all my life, until 2002, it's not really that much different, except that I don't have an acre of yard to maintain.  Because I maintain my house, and don't keep large piles of junk (garbage, non-op cars, etc.) laying around, the government doesn't bother me much, either.  I heard more gunfire out on my aunt and uncle's farm this last Easter than I have in the 8 years I lived in my current neighborhood.

Now with the ruralization of some city neighborhoods and the fact that commute times are getting longer and longer, perhaps some suburbanites may want to build on larger lots in the city.  BUT, us suburbanites want LOW crime rates,

If more responsible individuals moved back to the city, and the poverty was diluted/decentralized, crime would likely drop.  (to get back to the original topic, it would help if people stopped leaving, too)

comparable public services (streets maintained, roads plowed in a timely manner, true police protection) or we will not be coming back to the city.

So its up to you city people to figure out how to provide those services and a safe area in which to live, and you may see some new residential development within the city.

If these services in the city are inferior, it's generally because the tax base isn't sufficient to fully support their efficient operation.  After all, the city has the highest income tax rate in the state, but still has budget shortfalls.

One of the first steps would be to eliminate the "crime anchors" by closing all subsidized housing projects and forcing the tenants out.  Another is to take these large tracts of former neighborhoods and turn them into new restrictive neighborhoods condusive to new construction and with limited access and perhaps its own dedicated police officers. 

I appreciate that you made some suggestions.  However, I don't think the city has the authority to close housing projects.  And, where would the people needing the subsidized housing go?  What do you mean by "restrictive" neighborhoods?  Are you suggesting that blocks are re-platted to have larger lot sizes, and/or rezoned so that only SFH's are permitted?  Limited access could be good, too.  Suburbanites seem to like living on dead-end streets.

[Rick Rowlands]

Racism? Really? Could you elaborate on how racism was a factor.  I always thought that it was a combination of postwar prosperity, private automobiles, and a positive portrayal of suburban living as being the main reasons for suburbanization.

Hey, I won't lie to you.  Its GREAT living out here. We have an acre of land, virtually no crime, govt.doesn't bother us much, not many people around, and the only gunshots that we hear are from the neighbor shooting at targets.  City living is a completely different reality.  Now with the ruralization of some city neighborhoods and the fact that commute times are getting longer and longer, perhaps some suburbanites may want to build on larger lots in the city.  BUT, us suburbanites want LOW crime rates, comparable public services (streets maintained, roads plowed in a timely manner, true police protection) or we will not be coming back to the city. 

So its up to you city people to figure out how to provide those services and a safe area in which to live, and you may see some new residential development within the city.  One of the first steps would be to eliminate the "crime anchors" by closing all subsidized housing projects and forcing the tenants out.  Another is to take these large tracts of former neighborhoods and turn them into new restrictive neighborhoods condusive to new construction and with limited access and perhaps its own dedicated police officers. 

[northside lurker]

Jay,

That does make sense but I'm sure the root of the problem (where it all started) wasn't people moving away from the city because it was a more desirable place to live.

IMO, "where it all started," the initial movement to the suburbs back in the 50's and 60's, was fueled by racism and America's love of "new" things.  This mass exodus from American cities caused a decline in property values and and tax base that caused real problems in cities.  These real problems encouraged more people to leave, which made the problems worse, and so on.

So how can we make the city a better place to live, when many of the city's problems that cause people to choose to live in the suburbs are caused by people choosing to live in the suburbs?

edit: My last sentence is worded poorly.  I'm trying to say it's the peoples' choice to live in the suburbs that is causing the city's problems, not the people themselves.

[Why?Town]

Jay,

That does make sense but I'm sure the root of the problem (where it all started) wasn't people moving away from the city because it was a more desirable place to live.

[jay]

As more people with good incomes leave, the economy of the city declines a little more.

[Rick Rowlands]

The only way to keep city employees in the city is to make it a better place to live than in the suburbs.  So simple even a caveman can figure that one out.

[Why?Town]

If the Ohio Supreme Court residency requirements are no longer being contested, would that not imply that they are in full effect meaning that cities in Ohio don't have the authority to dictate that their employees maintain local residency?

If this is the case, wouldn't smart people on city council be better off working on making the city a place where city employees would actually want to live?

An added benefit might be that non city employees might want to live there too.

[jay]

The last city of Youngstown employee living in my neighborhood just moved to the suburbs now that the residency rule is no longer being contested.


One would think that with all the smart people on city council someone would come up with a way to write an effective residency ordinance.