>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?
So, poor residents in blighted urban areas should give up civil liberties in hope of crime reduction, which more often than not turns out to be an illusory hope, since crime incidence is in part shaped by economic conditions? Are civil liberties to be the property of the rich in rich suburbs only?
Yoshie