It seemed appropriate to me because it reflects a lack of understanding - often exhibited by someone very far-removed from the situation under discussion - that the resources to solve the problem simply don’t exist.
Don’t have bread? Simple: let them eat cake.
Don’t have a decent police force? Simple: just increase the budget for the police force.
It’s not quite right – Polyanna is a closer match in shades of meaning*, and it also gives me an opportunity to make the “Polyann(a)”- “Susanann” connection.
*You use “Let them eat cake” when someone completely misunderstands the situation, not when they’re being hopelessly optimistic to the point of ignoring facts.
There may have been a bit of sarcasm or satire in the post you are answering here.
(And let’s not use this thread to denigrate Susanann; use this one.)
Sorry, I thought I made it obvious enough.
Windsor, Ontario
1951 120,049
Detroit, Michigan
1950 1,849,568
The similarities are eerie.
Could we have an actual cite that the cities had comparable crime rates and the same jobs available? Not opinions or memories, but hard data?
Whose fault is that?
If Detroit wants to maintain a good economy, as Windsor did, based on education, manufacturing, tourism, government services, pharmaceuticals, alt energy, insurance, and IT then they should do it instead of burning up houses.
It is time to quit fooling around. The current status of Detroit is NOBODY ELSE’S! fault except the fault of the people of Detroit!
Detroit is EXACTLY! the way the people of Detroit want it to be, and if they did not want it that way, then they would not have made it the way it is . The people of Detroit created Detroit, the people of Detroit run Detroit, it is the people of Detroit themselves who make Detroit safe or dangerous. …they always have. If Detroit has corrupt mayors and a corrupt City Council, then it is because the people of Detroit WANT a corrupt City Council and a corrupt Mayor, else they wouldnt have voted for the crooks. 100 years ago when Detroit was a world jewel of a city, it also was the people of Detroit back then that made it that way.
The obvious answer to the OP* “Why All the Burned Out homes in Detroit?”* is because that is what Detroiters want. Likewise, “Why are there no burned out homes on the south side of the river?”…simply because the people of Windsor do not want to live in a bombed out netherworld of a city.
You can argue all you want, you can try to blame me or make all the personal attacks that you want, you can try to blame the auto industry or global warming or the tooth fairy, but the bottom line is that every city, including Detroit, is exactly the way the people of that city want it to be.
.
^AKA, because of Black people. Just say it already. We all know what you are trying to imply.
I think **Susanann **still does not realize that Windsor is not in the United States. In fact, it’s in that socialist nation, Canada!!1!
It’s difficult to argue with that logic.
However, if you do use that logic then you have to acknowledge it has other logical consequences.
For example, that means that every aspect of today’s world that you personally hate so much is exactly the world that people want it to be - and you don’t get to complain about it. Today’s world is your fault because you didn’t change it or prevent it from being changed.
That isn’t the logic I would use, but it’s inescapable from your logic so I certainly assume you will stick to it in future threads.
The American ideal is that we’re fiercely independent, that it’s a land of opportunity if you just work hard and smart. Sadly this doesn’t reflect the attitude of most of the voting public. The government in its current state is an extension of stupid people who vote for their short-term self-interest rather than for sensible government. The US government in its current state is certainly not an extension of myself.
I thought it was OCP that owned and ran Detroit?
Sorry, trying to lighten the mood a bit.
Thanks for reading post #56. And post #58.
Oh dear god, I missed two posts in a thread while trying to be silly…a travesty, I say!
Lighten up, Francis.
No, it’s time stop acting like fool and being naive. :rolleyes: Nobody runs for office on the platform that I’m a crook and I’m going to rip your city off blind. I don’t live in Detroit proper and had nothing to do with who got elected; yet I have to deal with it daily because I actually live here. One hundred years ago the auto industry was hot and sexy; Detroit rose up with it. It’s easy to have a great city when your tax base is increasing every year like it was from 1911 and onward.
A very small group of people with big ego’s drove the Detroit automotive business into the ground; not the working stiff’s Detroit. They just got stuck with the outcome of continued mismanagement; they didn’t choose to turn thier city into a slum.
Not a very good argument against socialism. (Unless you are being sarcastic).
Also, don’t tell our present government that we are a socialist country. They would not agree.
Absolutely-if crime was dealt with promptly and effectively, people wold not be leaving the city.
Do you think people WANT to have their cars stolen or their houses broken into?
The idea that people will somehow “accept” that their property belongs to criminals seems to be in vogue..along with the idea that “past injustices” make it “OK” for certain paople to induldge in crime, is another socialist fantasy.
When crime is not dealt with, people vote with their feet..and leave crime-ridden neighborhoods.
So, Detroit was doing great, jobs aplenty, then there was a mysterious crime wave and everyone left?
Ralph, please try to keep up. Have you even been reading this thread? What happened is that manufacturing in Detroit cratered, jobs disappeared, and so tax revenue for the city plummeted. Crime is a lagging indicator. Blaming Detroit’s problems on Crime is like blaming the lack of manufacturing jobs on all the abandoned buildings. Hey, there’s a lot of abandoned buildings, and no jobs, so the reason we don’t have any jobs is because there are too many abandoned buildings!
PEOPLE LEFT THE CITY BECAUSE THERE WERE NO JOBS IN DETROIT. Not because crime was too high.
Thank you, Lemur.
Not only that, but if you go back in history you find that people left rural areas and small towns, where there was little crime, to create the rise in population that made big cities big **even though the cities already had lots of crime in them.
Why? Because that’s where the opportunities were.
Susanann’s a Tea Partier who thinks that anything even remotely socialist is going to destroy America. I just find it very amusing that her example of a booming American city is in fact in Canada.
A New York Times op-ed from a professor who specializes in the subject.
Remember this the new time you hear that “The current status of Detroit is NOBODY ELSE’S! fault except the fault of the people of Detroit!”
This is another good cause of so much of the city deteriorating to unusability. People sit on properties, unwilling to develop or renovate them because there’s not enough demand. They won’t even sell cheap because of a belief that things will improve later and prices will rise.
Problem is, when you get a bunch of derelict buildings demand isn’t exactly skyrocketing in those neighborhoods and fair market prices will continue to drop until you have pay someone to buy these properties.
If you had bought a bunch of abandoned properties in Detroit in 1991, how well would that have worked out for you?