I never said you were a horrible person. And you did you more than just comment on how you wished there was a larger middle-class market downtown. You took that argument and then spun it by saying you wished there wasn't mixed-income housing downtown. Those are two different things entirely.
I have nothing against more middle-class housing downtown. But I don't believe there is much of a demand there for it and it's why you're not seeing an expansive list of projects catering to those exact needs. But let's not pretend that's all you said. If you had, this argument would've been moot.
But your own words are pretty clear on this. You don't want low-income housing developments downtown - either on their own or mixed in with mixed-income developments. You're free to feel that way. Still, you've yet to articulate an alternative. It's easy to say the city shouldn't do it, but what is your replacement?
Because from my perspective, the only other viable option is once again forcing those residents to buy, or rent, in lower-income neighborhoods that aren't very nice, isolated from the city and have a pretty high crime problem.
Let's be honest, most middle income or better residents don't want to live next to someone who's poor. It's not unique to you. Your view is no different than a vast majority of people in this country. It's why we have gated communities and sprawling suburbs miles and miles from the least desirable neighborhoods. It's why there has been a push back from communities on this mixed-income development.
There is a mindset out there, and I'm not saying it's one you share, that the poor don't deserve some of the luxuries others have because they just happen to be poor. It's the logic behind education rationing, healthcare rationing and now housing rationing.
No one wants a tract of low-income housing built in their neighborhood. No one wants a low-income apartment complex built next door to their $435,000 home. So, to placate those who can't be bothered to interact with the less advantaged, we only allow certain areas of the city to develop the trashy apartments and the low-income housing. Then those areas become more known for the poor than anything else. We avoid 'em. We mock 'em. We talk ill of 'em. Rose Park, Glendale, Kearns, West Valley City - they're all places that no one would ever wish to live because we associate every one of those areas with poor people.
And why? Because that's where the poor live. They can't afford a typical home in SugarHouse or the University area. That's their fault! Make more money! Great. But let's be honest, not everything works out perfectly. We don't know every poor person's situation. We can't quiz them on why they're poor. But what we do know is that the resources that go to their communities are far less than the resources that go to the more affluent communities.
The west side of Salt Lake is often ignored because the political clout isn't there. Why isn't it there? Because most of the money is on the east side. The schools are underfunded, the parks ignored and the libraries often the last to be renovated.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50786628-76/health-west-residents-lake.html.csp
That's an interesting article on the dynamics of west-side Salt Lake City. We neglect those areas where the poor live because, and this is the most unfortunate aspect of it all, most people don't care about the poor. They might say they do, but do they really? Well, are you fine with lower-income residents living in your neighborhood? Right next door? In the same condo complex?
I think from this thread, it's clear that you really don't want them in the same condo project you live in because they haven't earned the right to live there. I can understand where you're coming from. No one likes to pay full price for something that's given to another half-price. But I also think if you price out people, if you make certain parts of the city only available to certain economic brackets, you do a disservice to the entire community as a whole.
What happens is exactly what has already happened. The poor cluster together in a certain area of the community that no one dare go and then are forced to live with not only the stigma of living there, but the trials that come with living there.
Mixed-income development helps integrate communities so that the poor aren't forced into just one area of the city. They're allowed to live downtown and on the east side. The city should do everything it can to make other areas of the city affordable and I have no problem with that.
Now, you might not like them living in the same condo as you, but again, what is the alternative? Just say, "Oh well" and ask 'em to move back to the other side of the tracks?
Honestly, the only other option would be to develop low-income condo projects in the same area and you have a higher chance of those deteriorating than when you allow some lower-income residents into a mixed-income development. And truthfully, no one is going to want a five or six-story low-income housing project built right next to their upscale condo tower.
It's the perpetual NIMBY mindset.
But when you live in a city, you understand things don't work the way they do in the suburbs. There are certain things that fly here that wouldn't fly out in Sandy. We've got homeless people and drugs and crime and gangs. We've got bars and some semblance of a night-life that means more people might be outside at night than you're used to - especially if you're living downtown.
When you move to the city, to the heart of the city, you concede it's going to be unlike anything you experience in Utah and we're tame compared to most cities out there. It's a vibe and a lifestyle that isn't suited for everyone. Just as the suburbs aren't suited for all.
It seems to me, you're the one who's trying to fit a square peg in the round hole. The city shouldn't adapt to your likes, you either need to adapt to what the city is or find another place to live. It sounds harsh and I'm not meaning to come off as dickish as that may sound, but it's true. Downtown is not for everyone and it shouldn't be for everyone. Downtown should be a healthy mix of low-income, middle-income and high-income residents who have no problem sharing the same neighborhood with someone who might not be in their economic class.
You can take that as me saying you're a snob or whatever, but if you don't want that, if you can't take that, then downtown is not for you. It's that simple. Nothing wrong with it. It's just probably not your thing. I mean, I wouldn't move to New York and then complain about the fact there's constant noise, lights, crime and action.
You know what you're getting when you move into a city center. It's a city center for a reason.
Prev
Linear Mode
