fat-ass-bike wrote:
The 'best' mid-sized city is one that can cater to everyone's needs - everyone's socioeconomic standing with 'best' services, infrastructure, transport, housing, schooling, job opportunity, medical care etc etc.
The question isn't about how to be the more affluent city with private clubs and gated communities - That's simply not reality and more to do with elitism. A 'best' city is more about equality not inequality for its residents.

This said, I believe its policies in politics that cause the equality or inequality of outcomes and opportunities for its community - which in turn promotes a 'best' city.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Does gentrification reduce crime when the poor are forced out ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ro ... will-reduc_b_4296151.html

Of course, and it is stupid to suggest otherwise. Visit gentrified neighborhoods before and after and ignore dumb articles from liberal rags.

I do agree with the article in that being close to poor people is generally bad.

I wish you good health devilsadvocate, as many I know have lost their's and unable to work even though they are highly qualified in a trade, professional or have served this nation. Sickness and / or injury place these types of people in your 'poor' category and I would place them and others with other physical or mental aliments in the same boat. I also don't consider any of them as criminals because of their misfortune.

JC has done very little to cater for the low end of our socioeconomic scale, yet these are the same people that make your coffee, pack your bags at the grocery store or fill up your cars. Where do you expect we get cheap labor from ? We can't do what Nike does and manufacturer abroad !

I suggest that the true evaluation of a great city is also based on how they manage and provide for their lower income communities - JC lacks that balance

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Does gentrification reduce crime when the poor are forced out ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ro ... will-reduc_b_4296151.html

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Welcome to devilsadvocate's vision of JC:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
I'd like more manufacturing industries / corporations being lured into JC to increase job opportunities for blue collar and semi-skilled employees - I believe these are the types of growth developments worthy of tax abatements as it employs and gives hope to struggling (welfare) families with limited prospects and opportunities - In return, I believe it reduces crime, domestic violence and anti-social behavior in our community.

jrsygrl wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
I drive around JC often, and I hardly ever spend more than a minute or two looking for a spot anywhere in the downtown areas.

That has definitely NOT been my household's experience (live in JC, don't work in NYC), nor that of our neighbors.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
What does make for a great mid-sized city? Perhaps we need to start by comparing JC to cities elsewhere in the US that are supposed to be - http://realestate.msn.com/americas-10-most-exciting-midsize-cities

What do they have that JC doesn't (or that JC doesn't have enough of)? Having been to a few of them, the first thing that comes to mind is they have an "appeal" that JC simply doesn't, upon hearing about them. Of course, in all these places it may be the 'downtown' that gives the city it's character/appeal to visitors and/or people who want to move there http://cardi.cornell.edu/cals/devsoc/ ... /successful-downtowns.pdf and true, JC has a great downtown.

But something is missing in JC; I'm not sure what but if I had to hazard a guess its that, compared to other "great" mid-sized cities JC just has too many rundown, architecturally/environmentally unattractive, poor, unsafe/unsavory, and hard to get to areas.

greenville wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
I disagree, I would not let a 7 year old travel half a mile alone, but parents in JC do it all the time, I see 7 and even 5 yo without a parent or guardian in the park in my area which to me is not acceptable. I started traveling alone by subway when I was about 10.

I don't have kids, and have no desire to have any but To each it's own.

Well yeah, you live in Greenville. I don't let myself go there and basically feel like anyone under 18 being there is automatic cause for charges against the parents!

Yeah you sound like one of those people that likes to swim in their own excrement advacote, living in downtown I bet you that you already have, LOL!

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Valiant effort Diva, but look at the list again. Many cities that are totally car free have less than 1000 people in them. For larger cities, car free zones are relegated to a few streets. Aren't they already doing something similar in the Newark Ave/Grove plaza?

As someone who lives downtown and needs a car to go play hockey in other cities, etc., being completely car free is far from feasible. At least for a city our size. But I get the intent and agree with it on some points.

Quote:

craigslistdiva wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I have been to many cities in the USA, my husband and I travel by car. Every place we visited had parking available including restaurants, stores, parks, museums, etc. The lack of parking lots will hurt JC, tourists do not travel by bikes.

Well obviously these cities (worldwide) have no idea what they are doing. Let's buy a few more cars so we can add more parking, less green space, add more pollution, cause more traffic issues etc

Yvonne, we are trying to bring/keep JC in the 21st century, not regress to the mid 50s and 60s.

Just for your record - here's a list of car free cities/area world wide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_car-free_places

immigrationlawyer wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I have been to many cities in the USA, my husband and I travel by car. Every place we visited had parking available including restaurants, stores, parks, museums, etc. The lack of parking lots will hurt JC, tourists do not travel by bikes.

huh...
I can't wait for there to be less parking and hopefully cars in JC. You're living in the past, lady. Times have changed.

donnajc65 wrote:
look, there is plenty of pride in JC. Those of us who grew up here remember a much different city before we were saved by the"suburbanites" who moved in and saved us. That pride still exist in neighborhoods like hudson city, the west side neighborhoods and Greenville. The city is a diverse, hard working city, with people who still care about the city. And most residents are proud of the how the city rebounded and how its being rebuilt. If you look for crap, your find it, if you look for pride, your find it!

user1111 wrote:
I disagree, I would not let a 7 year old travel half a mile alone, but parents in JC do it all the time, I see 7 and even 5 yo without a parent or guardian in the park in my area which to me is not acceptable. I started traveling alone by subway when I was about 10.

I don't have kids, and have no desire to have any but To each it's own.

craigslistdiva wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:

Now, as to what the city needs I have to say the role of parks isn't mentioned nearly enough. There are no equivalents to Central, Riverside or Prospect Parks. We keep adding more people but no additional green space. We have the embankment standing idle and such, but while much effort is being spent on green lighting new development, nothing is being done to move the ball on green space. Then there's the infrastructure, including both public transport and roads. Our current situation isn't cutting it and we're just piling in more people. Agree on stores, though really I'd be happy to chop the list down to just Whole Foods.

Oh, also annoyed that people here are so intolerant of offleash dogs. Not that this has ever stopped me or anything.

There are a lot of great parks in JC. Liberty State Park (LSP) is absolutely gorgeous and literally steps away. The only thing I would change about LSP is the GORGEOUS abandoned railway station. They need to revamp that and make it into a restaurant or some sort of venue that can host concerts or something. It may just be a little economic stimulus for the area.

As for dogs, people need to pick up after their pets.

VanVorster wrote:
Middle class or affluent blacks are not impervious to racist incidents or racism in general (e.g. Oprah shopping) and most blacks will tell you that. So what if Obama grew up in Kansas, Hawaii and Indonesia. If anything, I like the fact he didn't grow in a cloistered world like the majority of the GOP (Ann & Mitt Romney). I grew up in basically an all white middle-class neighborhood with swim & tennis clubs, nice parks, etc. and we could only afford to live there because both of my parents worked in contrast to the other families. And yes most of my friends were white growing up and we got along but that doesn't negate the fact that I knew from a very early age that my race would be an issue for some at times. Being from Greenville doesn't make you authentically black as the black experience runs the gamut.

Forest, a celebrity, was reminded that his color matters to some or a means to profile. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02 ... -york-deli_n_2719712.html

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
I'm not saying they're massive racists, though, if whites displayed that kind of preference they would clearly be labeled as such. But I am saying that they displayed significant support for Obama due to race.

For Colin Powell, he even gave a huge donation to McCain UNTIL Obama became the Democratic nominee. Your Palin argument is quaint and I hated her too, but I don't see evidence that this is what was behind Powell's decision.

For Rice, she was intentionally vague on her choice and gave a tearful congratulations yet in 2012 suddenly supported Romney, most likely due to a) the possibility that she would be the VP pick (which, probably would have been smart), and b) interest in remaining in Republican politics. Pretty clear what was going on.

My point with these examples is that you have near unanimous support in a minority population the likes of which would be considered clear proof of racism if it was applied to white voters in a similar situation. In fact, racism was blamed for whites preferring Romney, not even close to on a unanimous basis.

If ifs-and-buts were candies and nuts... Maybe you can build your strawman with the other numpties on here that like building strawman arguments.

Women nearly unanimously voted for Obama. Do you think it is because they are racist too? Everyone that voted for Clinton voted for Obama. Gee, that's surprising! Next you'll tell me that everyone that declares the color blue as their favorite color owns a blue shirt...

Pebs, if you think 55% is 'nearly unanimous' I suggest you take a remedial math course. And married women voted for Romney 53-46%. You know, the women who have husbands and kids.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
I'm not saying they're massive racists, though, if whites displayed that kind of preference they would clearly be labeled as such. But I am saying that they displayed significant support for Obama due to race.

For Colin Powell, he even gave a huge donation to McCain UNTIL Obama became the Democratic nominee. Your Palin argument is quaint and I hated her too, but I don't see evidence that this is what was behind Powell's decision.

For Rice, she was intentionally vague on her choice and gave a tearful congratulations yet in 2012 suddenly supported Romney, most likely due to a) the possibility that she would be the VP pick (which, probably would have been smart), and b) interest in remaining in Republican politics. Pretty clear what was going on.

My point with these examples is that you have near unanimous support in a minority population the likes of which would be considered clear proof of racism if it was applied to white voters in a similar situation. In fact, racism was blamed for whites preferring Romney, not even close to on a unanimous basis.

If ifs-and-buts were candies and nuts... Maybe you can build your strawman with the other numpties on here that like building strawman arguments.

Women nearly unanimously voted for Obama. Do you think it is because they are racist too? Everyone that voted for Clinton voted for Obama. Gee, that's surprising! Next you'll tell me that everyone that declares the color blue as their favorite color owns a blue shirt...

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

VanVorster wrote:
Condi didn't support Obama. she supported Romney and McCain. Colin probably switched allegiances because he saw what Cheney/Bush had done to this country, bogus wars based on false information and realized he was duped like the rest of us and didn't want to repeat the past. Devils, not trying to convince you as you're simply lost; and quite frankly, you're akin to a pestering fly you want to swat because it just won't go away but you're resigned to its presence. yes, we all biases, I'm just actually aware of mine and I don't dismiss what other people might experience.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11 ... lates-obama_n_141414.html

Yeah, she "hinted" but never even outright stated she would vote for McCain. Then she tearfully called up Obama. Not exactly what you would expect from a senior Republican. Yes, in 2012 she endorsed Romney, because she still has at least some political ambitions.

W/r/t Powell, I will just leave this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Po ... idential_election_of_2008

So he started by donating a maximum amount to McCain, so that kills your theory, but then suddenly had a change of heart. The quotes are particularly great.

Ok, if you're so aware of your biases why don't you tell us what they are? This should be good. I expect an answer resembling "I'm just too fair to white people."

So what you are arguing is that Rice and Powell are such racists that they set aside their political affiliation simply because a black guy was on the ticket... Um okay....

Is it not possible, in your mind, for someone to have certain political views that fall on both sides of the fence? Is it not possible to find that what is important today is not as important tomorrow?

I'm sorry, but the idea that Sarah Palin should be a heartbeat from the presidency is astounding to me. I'm guessing that Rice and Powell felt the same way. Heck, even McCain felt the same way by the time the election was over.

VanVorster wrote:
Well I'm from the Caribbean too and have had a different experience from you.


Oh, interesting. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/nationa ... urprising-growth-industry

VanVorster wrote:
Condi didn't support Obama. she supported Romney and McCain. Colin probably switched allegiances because he saw what Cheney/Bush had done to this country, bogus wars based on false information and realized he was duped like the rest of us and didn't want to repeat the past. Devils, not trying to convince you as you're simply lost; and quite frankly, you're akin to a pestering fly you want to swat because it just won't go away but you're resigned to its presence. yes, we all biases, I'm just actually aware of mine and I don't dismiss what other people might experience.

VanVorster wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
http://www.thetoptens.com/most-racist-countries/

The US wins every poll.

I don't find this surprising at all. Several of my black friends from college and grad school went abroad to raise their children/have families (Europe, Africa) and a few to the Caribbean. I think racism is just an intrinsic part of this country because it's in its DNA given its fraught history. I've always traveled abroad (Europe, South America, Central America, Caribbean, Canada) and I honestly feel less aware of being a POC elsewhere than I do in the United States. Many of my friends feel the same. I think because when traveling, foreigners take me for simply being American.

?Racism is so universal in this country, so widespread, and deep-seated, that it is invisible because it is so normal.?


? Shirley Chisholm

VanVorster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Heights, closed to 100% of black votes went to Obama in both elections, showing how they identify him. Of course, if close to 100% of white voters voted for the white candidates, it would be called racism.

So yes, black Americans overwhelmingly claim President Obama as their own, regardless of his bi-racial roots or where his father was from.

Um no, rather blacks had basic common sense in not casting their votes for McCain/Palin (the mere prospect of her being president if something happened to McCain is mind boggling) and Romney/Ryan (binders full of women, corporations are people, 47% of people are leeches when he hardly pays any taxes and a party that relishes going to war).

Also, sometimes mixed people identify as black in part because of how they are perceived and treated (I think Obama said something about him having trouble getting cabs in NYC when he was younger and saying the cab drivers weren't thinking, "oh my mom is white and I was raised by white people"). My father is basically bi-racial and that did not help him in the Jim Crow south. I swear the troglodytes on here, Geez Louise.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
http://www.thetoptens.com/most-racist-countries/

The US wins every poll.

seems legit

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
...
That's not a very nice way to talk about your mother...

My mother died January of this year. Care to keep digging?

Do I really need to refine my juvenile response to your juvenile statement?

No. But you need to keep your sociopath comments in check, and stop making things unnecessarily personal.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
...
That's not a very nice way to talk about your mother...

My mother died January of this year. Care to keep digging?

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
@ Pebble - you can't argue with xenophobes, isolationists, and frankly sociopaths that seem comfortable exploiting other nations while keeping the issues US policy has created at arms length.

The US buys the products of cheap overseas labor including child slavery. The US buys a HUGE amount of drugs from Central and South America, fueling problems in those countries. The kids fleeing those countries are simply fleeing the problems that the US has directly helped create. The US needs to man up. Help own the problems and at the very least own the consequences.

We're acting like an empire, and seem to have forgotten the reasons we helped tear down those European empires over the past few centuries.

Question: if one were to combine your IQ with that of Pebbles, would we be in the triple digits yet?

I love your rule that if you buy something from someone you are now responsible for them. Good one.

Ahhh - the penis size kinda conversation? Cool! Penises seem to be your thing. My IQ is 151. What's yours? Wanna meet, trade MENSA stats, and compare on the table?

Douche.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
...
When the US had the "good old days" of the late 50s and 60s, China had mass famine. So when you look at China today, understand that they only recently became a modern nation. That change was driven by concrete steps to curb reproduction and instill personal responsibility. The results are phenomenal.
...

More comedy gold. China's economic prosperity was built on a mountain of used condoms? Lmao. And there was I thinking it wasn't the policies of Chairman Mao, but the rejection of his cultural revolution and unleashing the capitalistic instincts of a population of 1.3 billion people.

Anything that passing out condoms doesn't solve?

- Economic growth and prosperity - condoms
- Crime rate - condoms
- World hunger - condoms
- Aids crisis - condoms

Think you need to work on cause and effect a bit, and stop thinking with other peoples penises.

Global shortages of latex.

...and brain tissue in lawyers.

You asked a stupid question, I gave you a stupid answer.

Yep. Like every lawyer, you're good on stupid.