Has anyone ever held LBP's nose to the grindstone regarding Pontiac?

[ghettopalmetto]

I never said we shouldn't try and improve Pontiac. Obviously we should try to improve all communities. I am, saying, however, that in our capitalist framework you need low income areas, and the "solution" of turning Pontiac into a Royal Oak would be harmful, not beneficial, to reducing income inequality.

Pontiac isn't a hellhole. It's far, far better than most of Detroit. Most of North Pontiac looks the same as Waterford. And obviously we should strive for improvements, I just disagree with the "help the poor by gentrifying their city" solution. Concentrate on schools, services and safety, and f--- subsidies for downtown Pontiac, which serves no useful purpose. The immigrants revitalizing Pontiac have no stake in downtown.

The more you write, the more you expose how shallow and naive you really are.

Why do there even NEED to be "low-income" neighborhoods? Are poorer people not worthy enough to live in "regular" neighborhoods? And must you go out of your way to cordon off an area in which The Poors are allowed to live and fend for scraps?

Nobody ever discussed turning Pontiac into Royal Oak. Well, nobody except you. Such a thing is wholly unnecessary. But since you are clearly only aware of two possible urban environments [[POOR and CHAIN D'BAG), I don't expect you'd understand what a decent, modest, blue-collar neighborhood looks like. Or the fact that even worker bees like nice things too.

No one is talking corporate gentrification of Pontiac...except you.

[gnome]

GP is making vague philosophical concepts and applying them to specific realities that do not jibe.

bham, likewise tries to shoehorn personal worldviews that bear little resemblance to facts.

[Danny]

L.B. Patterson is always ignore Pontiac because of its African American community presence. He also ignores Royal Oak TWP, Oak Park, Lathrup Village and Southfield,too. He will discuss about it on local or national media until the time is right.

[Bham1982]

The more you write, the more you expose how shallow and naive you really are.

Why do there even NEED to be "low-income" neighborhoods? Are poorer people not worthy enough to live in "regular" neighborhoods? And must you go out of your way to cordon off an area in which The Poors are allowed to live and fend for scraps? .

Obviously, no, we don't need low income neighborhoods, but we do need low income housing. There are two ways to provide this, via subsidies, or via the market. If you don't want a market solution, then you want a non-market one, which in the U.S. framework means public housing and Section 8 in more affluent communities. This is a non-starter locally, so, no. Never going to happen.

Nobody ever discussed turning Pontiac into Royal Oak. Well, nobody except you. Such a thing is wholly unnecessary. But since you are clearly only aware of two possible urban environments [[POOR and CHAIN D'BAG), I don't expect you'd understand what a decent, modest, blue-collar neighborhood looks like. Or the fact that even worker bees like nice things too.

No one is talking corporate gentrification of Pontiac...except you.

No, the thread starter proposed turning Pontiac into Royal Oak. I'm obviously responding to the thread topic, not someone's unstated thoughts. And Pontiac is already semi-decent and blue collar in the northern parts. If you made it more decent, you would make it less affordable, so there's your choice.