Re: Obama Proposes: US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

On Jun 20, 11:12 am, Rick Powell <rkpow...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . . Among the items
cited for this animus:

* Increased crime
* Attraction of the "undesirable element"
* Nuisance from having commercial/industrial activity nearby
* Increased impacts to school districts
* Density = traffic congestion

Of course, there are answers for all these concerns, but there is not
yet (IMHO) an educated public ready to receive them.  . . .

The sad part is almost all of these reasons, as demanded by the
public, are usually pure B/S and emotional knee-jerk reactions. Bike
paths are a particular 'bogeyman'.

Ironically, in poor old suburbs, sometimes those concerns are
legitimate, but the poor areas welcome any and all development first,
and worry about impacts later. They're desperately trying to save
their dewindling tax base and create more jobs. A tatoo parlor pays
taxes, while an empty boarded up building does not.