The Albert

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

The displacement of the senior citizens is actually a further argument for home ownership. When you don't own your home, the actual owner can rightfully make you leave when your tenancy no longer suits their interests, pursuant to the terms of the contract. Locating income-challenged individuals downtown, where it has been hoped for 40 years that a rebound would occur, was also bad planning. Should the rebound occur [[which it is), it provides incentives for the property owners to put out the existing tenants for ones who can spend more money. The fault lies not with the property owners who want to make money [[as does everyone in the city of Detroit, including the posters on this board), but rather with A) poorly planned housing policy and B) people who made life choices that did not put control of their later years in their own hands. Thankfully, no one has been rendered homeless by this situation. But renting is never more than temporary. I can't fathom how it is an unpleasant surprise that temporary comes to an end.

[EastsideAl]

B) people who made life choices that did not put control of their later years in their own hands.

It may just be your youth, and maybe you're not aware of it, but you can really come off like a cold-hearted, judgmental, condescending jerk sometimes. How in the world do you know what "life choices" people made, or even what life options were available for them?

You seem completely unaware that a lot of people work hard all of their lives, act right, make decent decisions, and still end up with the short end of the stick. Particularly here in Detroit. Or of the basic American history that many people, obviously through no fault of their own, were born with a skin color that deeply limited their options. Particularly so for people of the age of these seniors.

As for home ownership, this being Detroit I assure that many, if not most, of the seniors in these buildings have been home owners. Certainly the two people I was close with who lived in downtown seniors apartments were. But home ownership, particularly in Detroit, is often not the avenue to solvency and security that your American dreams imagine it to be. In fact, it can be exactly the opposite.

But you just go right on believing in your libertarian fantasy land that all bad circumstances people find themselves in are a result of their bad decisions and lack of personal responsibility [[because, hey, otherwise they'd be well-off like me!). Since it seems somehow to allow you to feel perfectly comfortable with old people who've lived and worked in this city most of their lives being summarily thrown out to an uncertain future, so that they can be replaced with a "better mix" of more "active" younger and much more fashionable [[and rich) people.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

It may just be your youth, and maybe you're not aware of it, but you can really come off like a cold-hearted, judgmental, condescending jerk sometimes..

I'm not particularly young. That's my personality. I do try to be cold-hearted in analyzing facts; emotions never fixed anything [[although they have led to a lot of spending!). And I am judgmental, as everyone is. I just don't usually feel the need to pretend I'm not. As for condescending, well, you wouldn't understand...

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

But you just go right on believing in your libertarian fantasy land that all bad circumstances people find themselves in are a result of their bad decisions and lack of personal responsibility [[because, hey, otherwise they'd be well-off like me!). Since it seems somehow to allow you to feel perfectly comfortable with old people who've lived and worked in this city most of their lives being summarily thrown out to an uncertain future, so that they can be replaced with a "better mix" of more "active" younger and much more fashionable [[and rich) people.

The points I made in my initial post in this thread are valid, your perceiving them as mean notwithstanding. I made several points, among them: when people don't plan for and provide for their own future [[reasons are not relevant at that point), they leave their circumstances in old age to others. I don't think it ever made sense for seniors to be housed in and around downtown in general, Capitol Park in particular. When it was "affordable" it was entirely unsafe and lacking amenities; now that it safer and growing, it is too expensive to house them there. As I also said in my post, fortunately no one has been rendered homeless. They may not have wanted to move, but when others are making the arrangements, that wasn't their choice to make. Also, it is entirely appropriate when reviving an urban neighborhood to consider what kind of residents are likely to patronize the businesses that are trying to get underway. Detroit wants downtown residents and workers who shop and dine out. That isn't the limited-income senior crowd. There is no moralizing there, just acknowledging reality. Seniors are free to buy and rent downtown like anyone else. If they are footing the bill. If someone else is paying all or part of the bill, well, that someone else has a say in the matter. And for the record, I have a number of relatives in the 75+ bracket, 2 of whom live in Detroit, and I assist in their care. My mother, as well, although not quite there yet, is in active preparations for her later life financial, housing, and health needs. I am more than familiar with planning and caring for elderly people. Which is one reason why it is glaringly apparent that Capitol Park was never a good choice. It might have been a good choice for the buildings, so they never became vacant, but it wasn't good planning or care for the residents.