Cincinnati & the X Factor

Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu
Wed Jul 25 12:33:56 PDT 2001


At 10:51 AM 7/25/01 -0400, Yoshie quoted:
>CINCINNATI AND THE X-FACTOR
>
>BY DANIEL LAZARE
>All told, more than 1,500 people were banished at some point or other
>between September 1996, when the drug exclusion ordinance went into
>effect, and January 2000, when a federal judge finally struck it down
>on constitutional grounds following a suit by the ACLU of Ohio. No
>other news outlet followed up. The rioters "weren't talking about
>drugs, they were talking about police-community relations," says
>Richard Green, assistant managing editor for the Enquirer, "the
>perception that the Cincinnati Police Division treats
>African-Americans differently than whites."

Let's see. When druggies and assorted undesirables are effectively banished from the burbs by a combination of housing pricing, lack of public transportation, and policing - that goes mostly unnoticed. However, when the said druggies and undesirables are banished from housing projects designed for the poor - the liberals cry foul and raise stink.

So why is it that suburbanites can enjoy a bum-free environment, while residents of public housing projects have to accept the persistent presence of junkies and bums in their neighborhood?

PS. A picture from an exibition: here in B'more in the middle of a drug- and gang-infested area just north of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, a resident persistently plants flowers in a sidewalk tree well (the tree itself has long be removed). I say "persistently" beacuse each time this little "garden" is vandalized by junkies and gangstas that hang out there, the anonymous gardener re-stores it again. Some time ago, a makeshift chainlink fence appeared around the "garden" to inhibit vandalism, but then was torn down, I suspect, by the city. Apparently, peaceful and aesthetically pleasing neighborhood is a privilege that goes only with suburban life styles and housing prices.

wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list