The Polarization of Communities

[the]

http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/...-gangster-meme/comment-page-1/#comment-119308

This article is basically about how the upper class take to the novelty of the poor and their customs. But Step 1 started me on a train of thought to figure out a way to help the poor people in neighboorhoods that get abandoned. Well I just thought I'd share and welcome any constructive criticism.

Also I this brings me back to the meme that "Society must continue at all costs" Which I do not buy into.

Step one made me wonder if society should make it easier for the poor to return to 'living off the land'. Meaning that because so many people moved away the people who were left would have been able to revert to farming if they had enough property. Unfortunately all the land is taken up with abandoned buildings. I realize the the former occupants of those houses still own them and it would be unfair to take it away, but there needs to be some sort of... incentive perhaps(?), for the owners to sell it to the neighbors and maybe get a tax break. To me this would depolarize things because what was once an abandoned neighborhood (which attracts violent crimes) is now a (hopefully) prosperous farming community which is attractive to the eye and the pocketbook.

 

[Shai Gar]

I like the idea.

It's a good idea.

It'll therefore not happen.

 

[testing]

People are doing that! Farming in, and near, cities, that is. (that was what you were talking about, right? after the gangsta Elmo thing?)

And there's this guy who is going around renegade farming on abandoned lots. I'll have to find the link, forgot where.

In fact, there is a whole big raise-your-own-chickens-in-the-city movement. The roosters get annoying (and probably eaten), however. It's gotten to the point where some cities are actually starting to legislate how many roosters you can have on your urban farm before someone either shoots you, or the rooster.

 

[Naxx]

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KMSpHb1WKrE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KMSpHb1WKrE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

Yeeah boy.

 

[acd]

I happen to think your comment on that entry was pretty right on, too.
The powers that be would never let this occur because this way of living would appeal to many other groups. When collective living become mainstream, the powers that be lose their power: THEN the gov't defers to the people..
Instead of people deferring to the gov't (which is pretty much what we have, now.)

(Btw, good to know you're reading that book!)

::flashes Rogo a tickle hand gang sign::

 

[Faye]

I've heard of abandoned lots being used as gardens and for other purposes (I've seen some of it). It is good.

None of the property develops really want that though. What they want is to be the next gentrification hot spot.

 

[SpoofyMcPoof]

It is a good idea. All it takes is enough people to say 'lets make it happen' instead of 'it'll never happen'.

Also, on a side note, those tickle hands are a little creepy