BigRedBuster
Active member
OK...you're a city manager. The city wants to build something. Are you going to tear down a nice neighborhood or a crappy neighborhood to do it?4 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:
I've got a lot of thoughts about this but one is that there are plenty of times in our history of urban development where it wasn't low income/crime infested/run down places getting razed to the ground - it was healthy minority middle-class neighborhoods who didn't happen to have the means to organize and fight and be represented in their governments.
This video includes some bias and conjecture, but also informative as a starting point:
My point is, which neighborhood is torn down, most people would agree with. The issue is, what can be done with the residents from that neighborhood that allows them to be negatively affected the least.
Your first comment sounds like they had two neighborhoods to choose from that are equally as nice and always chose the minority neighborhood. Obviously, that is a problem. But, that's not what I'm talking about.
Last edited by a moderator: