Yes, dtownlover, I agree that cities are for everyone, but it doesn't mean that those that can't afford to live in a certain area should get set-asides to be able to. You live where you can afford to live. That's all I'm saying. And I don't think it's "weird" to say that low income housing needs to be in one part of the city while the wealthy need their own neighborhood. The problem in Detroit is that much of the wealthy no longer live in the city. They're in Birmingham, the Grosse Pointes, West Bloomfield, and Northville. A city should have the rich, the middle class, and the poor. Each living in areas of the city where they can afford. If one becomes educated or skilled, then you can move to a more expensive area to live. That's been the American Way. Improve your lot in life and you get to enjoy the benefits of that.
Also, it's not like Brush Park is an established working-class neighborhood that needs the set-asides to keep long time residents from being forced out due to gentrification. No, Brush Park was a mostly abandoned neighborhood with a few dilapidated mansions, a senior citizens complex, a public housing complex [[Brewster Homes, and a dilapidated and then torn down public housing project [[Brewster - Douglass). Unless the plan was to bring back the people who lived in the Brewster-Douglass projects, then what's wrong with improving the lot of the area by bringing in people with money?
And no, dtownlover, I was not implying that the poor citizens in the building that housed the Saucy restaurant only need to eat at greasy spoons or coney islands. I simply meant what I meant, and that is: the senior citizens of the building probably couldn't afford to go Saucy because they didn't have the means to frequently patronize the restaurant. Besides, I love "coney islands."
Bookmarks