Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I thought you were leaving forever, OP?

At 7/11/14 06:55 PM, SansNumbers wrote: I thought you were leaving forever, OP?

Really? Did it ever occur to you that I wasn't going to leave--that I was going to continue to fight for the city I was born and raised in because I don't like the direction it's currently headed?

Gory just move to the Bronx its cheaper though you have to deal with the crazies. Also Staten Island is an option.

I gotta agree with Luis that some degree of gentrification is good. I've seen ghettos turn into decent places to live in where I'm from but with it came community centers, after-school programs, etc. It sucks for any family businesses or local bodegas that are directly affected by chain stores or big corporations buying them out, maybe there's some way to petition to the mayor to keep things like that?

But like someone else said, all the people that lived in the ghettos don't just disappear. They move into decent neighborhoods and any delinquents/small time criminals fuck it up for the rest of their time there.
It's already happened to my neighborhood, and it does suck but hey, maybe in a few decades or so gentrification will happen in my town and then the ghettos will go back to being the ghettos.

It seems like just one fucked up cycle

NYC should increase its minimum wage so that people can afford to live there. It could also do a lot more, policy-wise, to provide incentive to get affordable housing in all these new developments. There are laws like that here in MA so it isn't as much of a problem. Whenever a major development is made, it has to somehow also result in a certain percentage of 'affordable housing'.

But, your idea of somehow driving away people that aren't moving there is pretty crazy. Turn the place into a shithole and the only people that stay are the people who literally can't afford to go anywhere else because they're crippled by their poverty, which won't be improved by the place they live being turned into a shithole.

I think you're conflating two problems here that irk you: other people coming into NYC (which is unreasonable and cannot be solved) and gentrification driving the poor inhabitants of a neighborhood out forcibly (which is reasonable and can be addressed). I think if you want to have any success, you should get your neighborhood organized to the effect of the latter and not the former problem.

Because, honestly, I fucking hate New York City but I'd consider living there just to spite you.

At 7/11/14 09:07 PM, ToddM wrote: Gory just move to the Bronx its cheaper though you have to deal with the crazies. Also Staten Island is an option.

I see you're from Milwaukee and I'm not sure about your level of familiarity as far as NYC is but here goes...

Staten Island, as it is right now, needs to be either left alone or go further downhill. I vote for further downhill. I said in my first post that the Fresh Kills Landfill there needs to be re-opened, because I truly think it does. They're in the middle of building a park there which will be about 3 times the size of Central Park. We have enough parks in NYC as it is, and pretty parks do have an enormous effect on property values. I should know as a bit of an insider here...I'll say no more.

Let's focus our attention now to the North Shore of SI, especially on St. George. Right next to the ferry, there's a large scale project currently underway to "revitalize" (not in my world at least) SI and create an outlet mall and a huge as wheel (one of the world's largest, in fact) next to the ferry. The intent is to encourage millions of tourists to come to SI and if anyone thinks that's a good thing, fucking ugh. There's no doubt that will spread to the rest of they will want to stay there and take over even historically ghetto neighborhoods such as Stapleton and Clifton, then spread all the way to the South Shore and then there you have it--Staten Island, currently the least populous borough of NYC, is theirs.

Going back to the Bronx now...I'm as familiar with it as I am with the rest of NYC. Yes, most of it is much cheaper than the rest of NYC, but it could go even cheaper than it is, and that's why I encourage far lower living standards and conditions that will hopefully spread throughout the rest of the city. However, I've seen places like Mott Haven and Port Morris have clear undesirables that were once not normal, and whenever I hear the word SoBro used as a way of saying the South Bronx, my homicidal side immediately comes out.

Also, since when is "dealing with the crazies" a bad thing? It never was, is or ever will be.

At 7/11/14 09:37 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote:

At 7/11/14 09:07 PM, ToddM wrote:

Also, since when is "dealing with the crazies" a bad thing? It never was, is or ever will be.

I have some family friends there that feel the same way as you do but they have there much longer than you have been alive. My city has had some gentrification but we welcome it as the areas being gentrified were really industrial and was an eyesore. The crazies are the ones doing the muggings and open drug use is what I mean.

At 7/11/14 09:18 PM, Evark wrote: NYC should increase its minimum wage so that people can afford to live there. It could also do a lot more, policy-wise, to provide incentive to get affordable housing in all these new developments. There are laws like that here in MA so it isn't as much of a problem. Whenever a major development is made, it has to somehow also result in a certain percentage of 'affordable housing'.

The first part is kind of makes sense as an alternative solution to everything I was proposing, and still strongly believe in.

In NYC whenever a new development is made, developers aren't mandated by law to create affordable housing. They do, however, get tax credits if they allocate 20% of their units for "affordable housing." Selection is based on a lottery system, then an interview, then formal paperwork. That makes the other 80% unaffordable housing, and the inhabitants of those 80% are just perpetuating the problem with every step they take and every dollar they spend. It's disgusting. They're disgusting.

Also, given how much poverty there is in NYC, competition for each unit designated as "affordable housing" by HPD is intense. Just 20% in each new development for developers that want the tax credits, and even if there were 100%, it still wouldn't be enough to meet the demand. The best solution is to spread the wealth and make conditions deteriorate over time.

At 7/11/14 08:57 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote: Really? Did it ever occur to you that I wasn't going to leave--that I was going to continue to fight for the city I was born and raised in because I don't like the direction it's currently headed?

I was talking about leaving these forums, unless you also are in which case I can understand why you didn't.

At 7/11/14 09:37 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote:

At 7/11/14 09:07 PM, ToddM wrote: Gory just move to the Bronx its cheaper though you have to deal with the crazies. Also Staten Island is an option.

I see you're from Milwaukee and I'm not sure about your level of familiarity as far as NYC is but here goes...

Staten Island, as it is right now, needs to be either left alone or go further downhill. I vote for further downhill. I said in my first post that the Fresh Kills Landfill there needs to be re-opened, because I truly think it does. They're in the middle of building a park there which will be about 3 times the size of Central Park.

I'd assume you and maybe a very select handful of people would prefer a dump over a park. You can't please everyone, after all.

Pretty parks do have an enormous effect on property values. I should know as a bit of an insider here...I'll say no more.

Yeah that's fairly obvious.

Let's focus our attention now to the North Shore of SI, especially on St. George. Right next to the ferry, there's redevelopment and shit and I don't want that n shit and it's bad because I don't want it uuuuuuunnnnnnnnhhhhhhhhggggggg

ok

Going back to the Bronx now...I'm as familiar with it as I am with the rest of NYC. Yes, most of it is much cheaper than the rest of NYC, but it could go even cheaper than it is, and that's why I encourage far lower living standards and conditions that will hopefully spread throughout the rest of the city.

Hmm. Unfortunate that it most likely wont happen anytime soon. There's only more and more people being made on this planet at this very moment, and the potential for expansion and re-development is still going to be quite high, at least from my uneducated perspective.

Maybe some people would like to live in ghettos, but for the most part, I think more people are in favor of redeveloping such areas. People should be able to feel somewhat comfortable if they are alone in the middle of night on the streets of their own neighbor hood, or even the security that they're less likely to be broken into and robbed in their own home solely because of their location. It's an unfortunate side effect that the value of properties for buyers does go up in areas affected by redevelopment, but you get what you pay for after all. I don't think cheaper housing is quite a justifiable trade off for most people when crime tends to be higher in those areas.

You could also take advantage of the fact that this re-development is occuring. If it ever happens in your area and you happen to own any property (unless you're a renter, which I will assume) then you could flip the property you own for a substantial gain relative to it's value before, then move to a cheaper area from there.

Also, since when is "dealing with the crazies" a bad thing? It never was, is or ever will be.

That is a topic up for debate and opinion; I don't think most people, especially most women, would find that at all desirable in the slightest.

At 7/11/14 09:37 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote:

Also, since when is "dealing with the crazies" a bad thing? It never was, is or ever will be.

Which burrough is Daredevil in? I always wanted to meet him.

At 7/11/14 10:27 PM, Urban-Champion wrote: You could also take advantage of the fact that this re-development is occuring. If it ever happens in your area and you happen to own any property (unless you're a renter, which I will assume) then you could flip the property you own for a substantial gain relative to it's value before, then move to a cheaper area from there.

Yes, I am a renter.

Property flipping is what keeps property values up in newly gentrified neighborhoods. People do it all the time--the seller reaps all of the benefits and if the property is leased out to lower income tenants, they get fucked. Then when the seller moves to a cheaper area, likely in another state, they are likely to fuck their new community over too with their newfound riches. Such activity should always be discouraged, and wherever current property values are now, we want them as low as possible. I'll keep saying it over and over: lower, not higher. It's for the greater good, and it's the right thing to do.

At 7/11/14 09:18 PM, Evark wrote: But, your idea of somehow driving away people that aren't moving there is pretty crazy. Turn the place into a shithole and the only people that stay are the people who literally can't afford to go anywhere else because they're crippled by their poverty, which won't be improved by the place they live being turned into a shithole.

I'm not sure why I forgot to reply to this part of your post earlier, but I did and that changes now.

The only residents that I hope will be driven away by deteriorating conditions are the transplants, not the natives who've seen it all. And yeah, we'll just be left with brothers and sisters all from here stuggling equally without worrying (hopefully) about the big guys that think they're doing us good by "saving" us. I am one of those people that think Detroit should have been left alone in its state of disrepair and debt and because there are hipsters there that have done and continue to damage there, well, that's a problem. If we become the next Detroit, I say we are to be left alone and only to get help if we solicit it. No more, no less.

At 7/12/14 01:59 AM, GoryBlizzard wrote: The only residents that I hope will be driven away by deteriorating conditions are the transplants, not the natives who've seen it all.

Unfortunately, when the neighborhood goes to hell, everybody wants to leave equally. Your hope is misplaced.

And yeah, we'll just be left with brothers and sisters all from here stuggling equally without worrying (hopefully) about the big guys that think they're doing us good by "saving" us. I am one of those people that think Detroit should have been left alone in its state of disrepair and debt and because there are hipsters there that have done and continue to damage there, well, that's a problem. If we become the next Detroit, I say we are to be left alone and only to get help if we solicit it. No more, no less.

Which is silly, because I'm sure very few NYC residents will agree with you. Additionally, there is no extra right in policy-making afforded to people who have always lived in NYC vs. people who have relocated there. Additionally, how can you say that it's only non-NYC-natives that are driving this development? NYC is one of the wealthiest cities on earth... there are many NYC natives that have done very well for themselves with business dealings both inside and outside the city. If Donald Trump bought your building and developed it, would you support simply because he was born in Queens and lives in Manhattan?

I'm bringing these things up to help you see the futility of fighting redevelopment with destruction. If you want to do something about it, you need to adopt a more positive message than gentrification, which has already adopted "We make areas nicer, resulting in less crime and increased property values." You could get involved in something positive that doesn't see you directly opposed to gentrification, but supplementing it for the impoverished, working class. If nobody can afford to live in NYC, who will make food, maintain sewers, maintain trains, drive taxis, bounce bars, serve drinks, or what-have-you? I'd seriously consider joining or starting a campaign to increase the minimum wage, because that would have the effect of actually making things better for the poor.

At 7/12/14 11:59 AM, Evark wrote: Unfortunately, when the neighborhood goes to hell, everybody wants to leave equally. Your hope is misplaced.

Not me. Not the real hood people. And if I'm end up being the only one left, I don't have any problems with it.

Which is silly, because I'm sure very few NYC residents will agree with you. Additionally, there is no extra right in policy-making afforded to people who have always lived in NYC vs. people who have relocated there. Additionally, how can you say that it's only non-NYC-natives that are driving this development? NYC is one of the wealthiest cities on earth... there are many NYC natives that have done very well for themselves with business dealings both inside and outside the city. If Donald Trump bought your building and developed it, would you support simply because he was born in Queens and lives in Manhattan?

It's been my observation that the vast majority of those driving the redevelopment of NYC had nothing to do with NYC to begin with, but came here for college or something then never left. That doesn't apply to everyone, but it's the story I hear the most often. The other main group of outsiders are successful investors that just have to leave their footprint in every single major city or affluent community such as the Hamptons, Palm Beach, Palo Alto, Hollywood...whatever. As for Donald Trump? We all know he's from here. However, Donald Trump is one of those few NYers that almost no one, in or out, has respect for. He's not a rags to riches type of guy--he inherited his initial wealth from his father Fred. Just yesterday, I was talking to 2 of my neighbors about the likelihood that he and another big developer here, Larry Silverstein, might take over our apartment complex and/or another big part of our neighborhood. We know that our rents are going to go up 9% next year and even for those in cushy rent stabilized units on fixed incomes, they're more than likely going to have to hit the streets or live in the basement of a generous relative.

I'm bringing these things up to help you see the futility of fighting redevelopment with destruction. If you want to do something about it, you need to adopt a more positive message than gentrification, which has already adopted "We make areas nicer, resulting in less crime and increased property values." You could get involved in something positive that doesn't see you directly opposed to gentrification, but supplementing it for the impoverished, working class. If nobody can afford to live in NYC, who will make food, maintain sewers, maintain trains, drive taxis, bounce bars, serve drinks, or what-have-you? I'd seriously consider joining or starting a campaign to increase the minimum wage, because that would have the effect of actually making things better for the poor.

It's not that I haven't thought about increasing the minimum wage and partaking in movements geared towards raising it in NYC. NYC's minimum wage is the same as the rest of NY state: $8/hour, which it has been since only the beginning of this year. That doesn't even come close to supporting the cost of living for any working class individual. Those actively campaigning for minimum wage increases want at least $15/hour, but even that doesn't go far enough. If we were to go that route, at the very, very least, we need $50/hour.

Think about the trickle down effect that raising the minimum wage will have. Businesses will have to charge more in order to pay their employees the high wages they need so they can afford to live in NYC. That means say goodbye to the dollar slices and cheap apple pies at McDonald's. The homeless population, which is already high as it is, will boom. They will need to beg for way more just to be able to survive for one extra day, and you'll see a lot more bodies on the street.

It is for these reasons that we might not have a way out of turning NYC into a completely undesirable dump. It might not be what everyone wants to hear, and I fully realize that, but this is what happens when the original character of any city or community is destroyed by unwelcome external forces.

At 7/12/14 02:29 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote: Rage against the machine

at GoryBlizzard

you're pretty much right, the only way you're going to detract market value from your communities is by either greatly broadening tax scheduling to dissuade people from investing, or exacerbate crime and destruction of wealth to make an inhospitable climate for investment.

the only reasonable option is to convince everyone affected to orchestrate legislators for gentrification out of power and implement fiscal measures that would maintain the existing structure of your community.

if not enough support exists, you'll have to work around the conditions.

At 7/12/14 04:45 PM, Head-Full-Of-Acid wrote: the only reasonable option is to convince everyone affected to orchestrate legislators for gentrification out of power and implement fiscal measures that would maintain the existing structure of your community.

if not enough support exists, you'll have to work around the conditions.

That should be how it works. Somewhere along the line, people got greedier and greedier to the point of no return.

It's hard to say where things got to where they are now. Giuliani was elected on the basis of his whole "tough on crime" stance, and he and Bratton (who's back as police commissioner now after almost 18 years of being out) took advantage of the 3,000 or so cops hired under Dinkins' Safe Streets, Safe City program. There's a lot of blame to go around. It's not nearly as simple as blaming who's on top or our legislators, although they're the worst. Everyone who thinks crime is the devil, that all squeegee men are bad and the affluent need to take over deserves part of the blame too. Just how much of it depends on how much damage you cause.

Some of our most powerful elected representatives don't think about the lives that will get turned upside down when they vote for projects that only make our current problems way worse, like the NY Wheel project in SI that I mentioned earlier. It's hard to get more disgusting than that. They just think about the tourism numbers and the $$$ that comes in. That mindset, and not the ghetto/destruction/drugs mindset, is what will ultimately be the real killer of humanity as we know it.

At 7/12/14 07:33 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote: It's hard to say where things got to where they are now. Giuliani was elected on the basis of his whole "tough on crime" stance, and he and Bratton (who's back as police commissioner now after almost 18 years of being out) took advantage of the 3,000 or so cops hired under Dinkins' Safe Streets, Safe City program. There's a lot of blame to go around. It's not nearly as simple as blaming who's on top or our legislators, although they're the worst. Everyone who thinks crime is the devil, that all squeegee men are bad and the affluent need to take over deserves part of the blame too. Just how much of it depends on how much damage you cause.

So let me get this straight, you blame Giuliani and Bratton for cleaning up the streets and fixing dilapidated parts of the communities, in other words doing what they're supposed to be doing? The criminal underworld did far more damage to New York than those politicians who cleaned up those streets, which is no surprise why New York was considered a wretched hive from the late 1800's to the 1980's. It's almost like you want to turn NYC back into Ronanpur before you allow modernization to places that really need it.

Some of our most powerful elected representatives don't think about the lives that will get turned upside down when they vote for projects that only make our current problems way worse, like the NY Wheel project in SI that I mentioned earlier.

If they have any objections to this, then they should get out and vote for a candidate that would protect their interests, futile as that sounds. The problem is that most people (who aren't in deep poverty and aren't complete dumbasses) don't really care about them anyway, and they are often a roadblock to progress, which they don't like.

It's hard to get more disgusting than that. They just think about the tourism numbers and the $$$ that comes in. That mindset, and not the ghetto/destruction/drugs mindset, is what will ultimately be the real killer of humanity as we know it.

Ha! That might the biggest load of crap I've heard so far in this thread. Humanity survived atomic bombings, global plagues and unfunny comedy from Dane Cook, tearing down crime-ridden ghettoes that drag a city's reputation down only benefits humanity. Obviously, I see that your logic is now getting more and more faulty by the post in this thread.

At 7/12/14 04:12 PM, Spedmallet wrote:

At 7/12/14 02:29 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote: Rage against the machine

at GoryBlizzard

At GoryBlizzard

At 7/12/14 08:46 PM, orangebomb wrote: So let me get this straight, you blame Giuliani and Bratton for cleaning up the streets and fixing dilapidated parts of the communities, in other words doing what they're supposed to be doing? The criminal underworld did far more damage to New York than those politicians who cleaned up those streets, which is no surprise why New York was considered a wretched hive from the late 1800's to the 1980's. It's almost like you want to turn NYC back into Ronanpur before you allow modernization to places that really need it.

Yes, they unfortunately set us out on a path and ordered everyone below them to implement their plans to go overboard in terms of lowering crime--most of which didn't bother people, because we got used to most of what we saw. That lowering of crime led to what we see now and the only way to stop it is to go backwards.

Squeegee men were just trying to make an honest living. If the drivers from who knows where were annoyed, too fucking bad. It was an accepted way of life for a long time, and so was crack. Honest businesspeople were of all types were (and continue to be) encroached upon by new unwelcome undesirables.

Also, NYC wasn't exactly considered a wretched hive from the late 1890s to the 1980s. It went through different phases. Without a doubt, Robert Moses overdeveloped the hell out of it and an equivalent of him today would be dangerous beyond belief. At least his influence waned over time when people finally started to wake up at least a little bit. Many people thought he was a legendary visionary, but he was racist, hated public transit and one of his few good deeds was ordering the building of many housing projects. If 100% poor housing existed in place of all luxury condos and future new developments, I'd be a bit more forgiving, but I don't see that happening.

If they have any objections to this, then they should get out and vote for a candidate that would protect their interests, futile as that sounds. The problem is that most people (who aren't in deep poverty and aren't complete dumbasses) don't really care about them anyway, and they are often a roadblock to progress, which they don't like.

Being impoverished ≠ lack of intelligence. It's more like a lack of luck, no inheritances from upper generations, and hooks. Also, I find that most people in politics are usually in it only to serve their own interests and rarely those of their own constituents. It's alarming to see how much political corruption there is in our own area alone, let alone the rest of the state. For many of us, the best progress there is would be no progress at all. Perhaps there was a time when some development was actually beneficial to the city...that time is no more. We're long past it. And now we need to protect what we have and not kill off remnants of our past that future generations will have no idea once existed.

Ha! That might the biggest load of crap I've heard so far in this thread. Humanity survived atomic bombings, global plagues and unfunny comedy from Dane Cook, tearing down crime-ridden ghettoes that drag a city's reputation down only benefits humanity. Obviously, I see that your logic is now getting more and more faulty by the post in this thread.

I've lived my whole entire life here so take me at my word--everything I say is right. They are not the only possible solutions, which is why I made this thread for brainstorming, but my experiences have taught me a lot and this place needs to be much less welcoming to people that don't belong here in any way, period.

At 7/12/14 09:51 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote:

Squeegee men were just trying to make an honest living. If the drivers from who knows where were annoyed, too fucking bad. It was an accepted way of life for a long time, and so was crack.

You lost me at saying crack was an accepted way of life. The early 1990s crime wave was due to crack all over the country. Milwaukee was hit very hard and had one of the higher murder rates in 1991 along with the other major cities.

At 7/12/14 10:32 PM, ToddM wrote: You lost me at saying crack was an accepted way of life. The early 1990s crime wave was due to crack all over the country. Milwaukee was hit very hard and had one of the higher murder rates in 1991 along with the other major cities.

I really hope I'm not the only one that think crack isn't wack or that there's hope in dope.

Yes, the crack epidemic was indeed nationwide, and it started going as far as it did in the early '80s. It helped more than it hurt, and it takes experience and a long-term historical lens to fully get this. When you're living in the moment, and you see graffiti and barely functioning and abandoned buildings around you, you feel tempted to fix those things. People that see crack dealers want to dispose of them. Me? It's not an issue. Any set of factors that, when combined together, bring the monetary value of any community down to make it habitable only for those that are deserving of residency are welcome.

Also, while smoking crack is no longer near as widespread it once was, I do run into people smoking crack in public sometimes--just not enough. The last time was about 2 weeks ago in Brooklyn.

I just want to distance myself real quick from Gory's desire for a dystopian society filled with crackheads and graffiti. I do not share his vision. I share his frustration stemming from self-interest. He's pissed that his neighborhood is being uplifted because it negatively effects him and I completely understand that and sympathize with him.

I on the other hand am pissed because other neighborhoods are being gentrified at the expense of my own. Displaced residents of other areas are moving into my community, and a lot of them appear to share Goryblizzard's enthusiasm for hard drugs and violence. Which are two things that I completely despise.

At 7/13/14 01:26 AM, Me-Patch wrote: I just want to distance myself real quick from Gory's desire for a dystopian society filled with crackheads and graffiti. I do not share his vision. I share his frustration stemming from self-interest. He's pissed that his neighborhood is being uplifted because it negatively effects him and I completely understand that and sympathize with him.

It's not just my neighborhoods but many neighborhoods citywide. Let's also say many downstate communities which go beyond NYC's borders are also experiencing similar change for people in my income bracket and have been living there either a long time or their entire lives.

I on the other hand am pissed because other neighborhoods are being gentrified at the expense of my own. Displaced residents of other areas are moving into my community, and a lot of them appear to share Goryblizzard's enthusiasm for hard drugs and violence. Which are two things that I completely despise.

And well, there you have it. Dangerous collateral consequences that everyone will soon feel in one way or the other. The whole issue is complex to address and will take time, but it can't be ignored.