The meeting last night on the city’s policy of demolishing vacant and dilapidated housing revealed an interesting cleavage (that’s poli sci talk for a split, not a reference to anyone’s natural endowments). The people — predominantly black — who live amongst these houses want them to come down, but the predominantly white preservationists and other neighborhood activists who live elsewhere want the city to hold off. Interesting. As The Herald-Sun reported:
With only an exception or two, the comments followed racial lines, with blacks voicing support for the city’s inspections staff and whites saying city officials need to hold off on demolitions while they develop a new policy.
As I said the other day, I like old houses and like to see them put right. But when they become a nuisance and a danger, my wishes take a back seat to neighbors who are adversely affected by deteriorating properties.
These properties need to get into the hands of people who are willing to put blood, sweat and money into them. And that will only happen if they feel their investment will grow in value. And that will happen only if the neighborhood in which the houses are located is free from the drug dealers and the homeless who use the ramshackle homes.
It’s a chicken-egg thing. Preservationists feel that day will come if the houses are left standing, while the residents living near the blighted homes see their eradication as a means of ridding the area of undesirable elements. A suggestion: those who are adamant that these houses can be saved and rehabilitated should get loans and buy them. Then they can do anything they want with them. The city needn’t — and shouldn’t — be involved.
