Tax breaks for companies relocating. Zoning to limit affordable housing while inflating existing home prices due to constrained supply - powering an explosion in homelessness. Gentrification displacing poor minorities that lived in area for generations. Locating all food pantries, parole offices, and housing shelters etc in poor areas. Investing city funds in areas already controlled by the wealthy. That is for starters and applicable to EVERY major West coast city. Now, tell me why this is good on a city level but bad on a national level.
#25 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG AT 2019-06-11 08:09 AM | FLAG:
Steps like these are hardly "liberal" in their ideology. If a municipality is giving away tax money and ghettoizing poverty and social injustice, that's the result of pressure from the business community and self-centered folk who most assuredly are either conservative or are pseudo-liberals.
As I said on another thread, I'd like to know where the urban utopias are. I don't care whether the mayor is Republican, Democrat or other, all large cities have diverse populations and therefore similar issues. Even Jesus said there will always be poor among you. It is our responsibility as fellow humans to work together to alleviate their suffering and endeavor to lift as many as we can from poverty to self-sufficiency.
Some combination of economic development and a solid safety net has been the way to go for centuries. But many factors complicate those efforts, an important one of which nowadays is automation. And cities that have a prosperous business base naturally attract more businesses and more residents with money to burn, raising property values and widening the wealth gap even further.
The bottom line is that there are no easy solutions. If there were, mayors around the world would be climbing all over each other to replicate their neighbors' successes.