Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
... there aren't any neighbors. They all went to Phoenix or Florida or some such, or are living with family.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Jun 19th, 2009 at 06:42:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I'm responding to UNY's scenario, where the $1 houses are crack dens, i.e. occupied. Those are the sort of neighbours I'm talking about.

If you can manage to start with a clean slate, occupant-wise, then what you suggest can be done. Up until a few years ago in the UK, tenants of social housing couldn't be evicted no matter how atrocious their behaviour, and there were cases where loutish families trashed entire neighbourhoods.  There was nothing, however, to stop councils knocking their own property down.  I do know of one gone-to-the-dogs street where a council applied (to itself) for permission to bulldoze the lot, rehoused all the tenants (the "problem families" going to the empty houses next door to other "problem families" elsewhere in the city) and then..."changed" its collective mind, did up all the houses and put in new tenants, turning a dangerous street into a sought-after one.

It worked. There are problems with it, obviously, insofar as somebody has to decide who are the deserving and undeserving poor. If it's applied solely to "families who have 200 other families living in fear of a brick though their window", then I think few would argue, but it's obviously a system open to prejudice and abuse.

(The other problem that tactic created (of concentrating social issues) no longer applies because councils are no longer required to house antisocial tenants, and such families are now simply evicted.  Where they go, I have no idea.  There were a couple of high profile evictions and the issue just slipped off the radar. )

by Sassafras on Sat Jun 20th, 2009 at 03:27:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There are problems with it, obviously, insofar as somebody has to decide who are the deserving and undeserving poor.

That's never stopped British social workers...

A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 20th, 2009 at 03:56:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, it doesn't stop them.  But the whole UK benefit system, really, demands that you constantly prove you are "deserving". Assessments of needs, for instance, are just an extension of that culture.
by Sassafras on Sat Jun 20th, 2009 at 04:35:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... of a situation like Flint, Michigan, where there were already entire vacant neighborhoods before the foreclosure crisis began picking up steam.

And, of course, a cooperative buying the property would be under fewer restrictions on what who it will accept for membership than a city or town council.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Jun 20th, 2009 at 02:30:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

DUP decline continues

by Frank Schnittger - Aug 29
16 comments

Islamic State Khorasan Province

by Oui - Aug 24
84 comments

The American Dream

by Oui - Aug 22
29 comments

Occasional Series