Well my question for those who move "out" because they wanted better.

 

Why not stay in the community you're living in and work to improve your neighborhoods, schools, parks, street, community instead of moving to a place that has or perceived to have all that in place?

 

 

It is hard to improve a neighborhood that is full of random violence due largely to the type of people living there.  What do you do, educate the people in the neighborhood that violence is bad, and that we have kids and we do not feel safe.  Honestly, I wouldn't know where to start. 

 

Am I the cause to the topic of this thread...partly I guess.  However, did I move to the exurbs, no.  If we didn't have kids, would we live in the city, absolutley. 

 

I would love to see safety return to inner-city neighborhoods.  But this thread is the age old question "what came first, the chicken or the egg".  Did crime start in the neighborhoods, so people ran.  Or, did people run for more land therefore leaving a surplus of housing in the inner-city therefore bringing down home value.  Basically, which one happened, and how can we change it.  Because believe me, I would love to be near a train stop in the inner city. 

I grew up Edgecliff Drive in Euclid until I was 12 years old (densely packed older water front houses, smaller tree lined streets), rode my bike everywhere, played baseball in the nearest park or on the street, it was great.  Then we moved to a new development in Mentor.  Absolutely hated it.  Nothing but empty lots and sidewalkless streets.  There's just something about calling the red house acroos the street a homerun, and quickly chasing a baseball down the street so it doesn't go down the sewer.  That doesn't exisit in the exburbs.

And I'm sure a lot of farmer's kids, which is analogous to exurbs, grow up just as happily and/or unhappily than urban kids.

 

Indeed. There are lots and lots of interesting things to do on a farm, which can lead to well-adjusted kids. But due to cost, you pretty much have to be born into farms; you just don't say "Hmmm, exurban McMansion or farm... which should I choose?"

Why not stay in the community you're living in and work to improve your neighborhoods, schools, parks, street, community instead of moving to a place that has or perceived to have all that in place?

 

It's easier to move away then it is to stay and fight an uphill battle against an entire neighborhood in decline.

 

I do think that this site is full of people who don't prefer the short term, easiest approach though. I'm looking for a home to purchase in Old Brooklyn, something that can be fixed up and made great again.

Why not stay in the community you're living in and work to improve your neighborhoods, schools, parks, street, community instead of moving to a place that has or perceived to have all that in place?

 

It's easier to move away then it is to stay and fight an uphill battle against an entire neighborhood in decline.

 

I do think that this site is full of people who don't prefer the short term, easiest approach though. I'm looking for a home to purchase in Old Brooklyn, something that can be fixed up and made great again.

 

I guess.  I'm just so use to hearing family member say the exact opposite.  My grand parents have never lived outside of the borders of Glenville.  They wont move, four of my fathers siblings and 8 (combined) of their children (my cousins) live withing 10 block radius of my grand parents.

 

My grand father constantly says if good hard working decent people leave, then nothing will be left.

 

Nice, I love fixer uppers!  Im misty eyed now.

There is so much I want to say about this thread right now that I don't even know where to start.

 

Go Tribe, you obviously care about your kids, and I understand where you are coming from as a parent myself. I don't think that anybody is saying that people are wrong for not raising their children in high crime environment. No parent in their right mind wouldn't want something better for their kids if the couldn't play outside or had to be constantly weary of gunfire in their neighborhood. I am curious why you picked where you moved to and not to one of these cornfield developments that they have been throwing up in the counties surrounding the metro areas.

 

I guess that I just want my kids to be safe, happy and have a realistic view of the world. It amazed me in college how many people had grown up in the stereotypical cul de sac and were completely naive and sheltered. I really think that their parents have done them a disservice.

 

One of my problems with the exburbs are as follow, if you are going to live in the country, live in the country away from people not on a 1/4 or 1/2 acre lot in a cornfield with no trees surrounded by 30 other houses just like yours. You still have neighbors right next to you, so you can't have much more privacy than you would in the city. I don't understand that, if somebody can explain the appeal please do. I actually sort of understand the appeal of the McMansion exburbs on a  golf course, but the run of the mill builder house on a smallish lot, I don't get.

 

 

 

 

It amazed me in college how many people had grown up in the stereotypical cul de sac and were completely naive and sheltered. I really think that their parents have done them a disservice.

 

...Hmmm

 

It amazed me in college how many people had grown up in the stereotypical cul de sac and were completely naive and sheltered. I really think that their parents have done them a disservice.

 

...Hmmm

 

 

as one of the "sheltered" ones, I agree.  I always felt that my cousins in the city, were better prepared for day to day life as they saw and dealt with people from all different races, colors, ethnic and religious backgrounds.  I lived on a street were we were minority representation and every single one of our neighbors was Jewish.

There is so much I want to say about this thread right now that I don't even know where to start.

 

Go Tribe, you obviously care about your kids, and I understand where you are coming from as a parent myself. I don't think that anybody is saying that people are wrong for not raising their children in high crime environment. No parent in their right mind wouldn't want something better for their kids if the couldn't play outside or had to be constantly weary of gunfire in their neighborhood. I am curious why you picked where you moved to and not to one of these cornfield developments that they have been throwing up in the counties surrounding the metro areas.

 

 

CBC, the outlook you have for your kids is similar to mine.  I want them to have a realistic view of the world.  That is somewhat the reason why we chose our location in the inner rings.  We are also right by Big Creek Pkwy, which to me has some nice areas for all of us to go down to for playgrounds, trails for biking, etc.  Like I said, it really made no difference to us as far as a neighborhood goes as long as it was safe, good schools and, oh yeah, sidewalks.  My only thing was I did not want to have a long commute or potentially long commute.  With the location we have, I could get a job pretty much anywhere in the region and be within a 45 minute drive.  I know people who live in Medina that spend 2 hrs in traffic sometimes. 

personal anecdote time:

 

i enjoyed growing up on the north side of wickliffe where i had plenty of activities at my disposal to which i could ride my bike.  2 parks, one with a pool that played The End on the radio, plenty of friends and a few relatives living close by, guitar lessons at the civic center (yes i sometimes took a guitar on my bike), corner stores to buy candy/ice cream, shoregate for other stuff (the record shop).  sometimes i rode my bike to middle school in decent weather cuz the bus was lame and i could probably get home faster.  as i got older i my bike territory expanded to most of euclid north of the tracks (especially to harmony park, a cool record store, now an adult store), all of willowick, the rest of wickliffe, most of willoughby and eastlake.  i think the farthest east i rode to before i had a car was ultrasound music in mentor.  the more exurban style areas south of wickliffe are inhospitable to cyclists.  willoughby hills and highland hts were a pain in the ass.  crossing som center was also a barrier. 

 

so in summary, i barely depended on anyone for my childhood entertainment-related transportation. 

 

also, my dad lived in seven hills at the time, so i felt like i had all of cleveland at my disposal, east and west sides (a positive for divorce).  my awareness of the other parts of town was a lot greater than most of my friends who thought the west side was a foreign world.  though i suppose that if you are from east side generica, what's the point of venturing to west side generica, a mirror image.

^Good anecdote. It highlights the whole other level of awareness of the world attained on bike or foot versus being driven around--especially for kids who, from a developmental POV, are imprinting information hard and heavy. I see kids riding around town watching DVDs in the backseat of the minivan, and I worry. A lot.

Well, you cant run errands to the corner store in some subdivision (my kid memorys of Chicago)

 

 

 

  I'd like to add a point that hasn't been brought up yet. There is a lot of discussion about race segregation and income segregation, but not much about age segregations.

 

  A typical new subdivision is occupied mostly by younger families, with children in early school ages. It seems that couples get married and have kids either in an apartment, or a "starter home," and when the oldest kid is about to enter school, they move to a new house in a new subdivision in good school district. The reasons normally cited are:

 

1. Good schools

2. Private yard

3. Close to family

 

    Often, the new family will take a 30 year mortgage, and eventually the kids will grow up and move out, and the parents will pay off the mortgage and live the rest of their lives in the same house.

 

    The result of this is that subdivisions are segragated by age. A subdivision with 30 lots built in 2000 will have 100 kids in grade school; one built in 1990 will have 100 kids in high school; one built in 1980 will have some college kids; one built in 1970 will have hardly any kids, but by this time the GRANDKIDS will be showing up.

 

    As houses turn over to other families, the age distribution becomes more mixed, but the subdivision will NEVER have as many kids as it did when it was new.

 

    In addition to this effect, the birth rates have been dropping all along. In 1950, a family with 5 kids was common; now, 5 kids is considered large. Only one in four houses has any kids at all.

 

    So, if you are a young parent and want your children to have other kids to play with, your best bet is to move to a new subdivision.

 

    If you don't believe it, go look at a new subdivision. They are 10 times as active as older ones.

 

And I think that I was relatively lucky compared to these kids in the photo, as my home was surrounded by woods and creeks that I could explore.  A treeless field doesn't seem to offer the same possibilities.

 

Yeah, I agree.  I was lucky too in that our subdivision was surrounded by lot of dead land and near a golfcourse and park w a small poind, with  little branch library in the clubhouse.  A lot of the land was pretty rugged hill country too.  Just a great place for kids of a certain age who like to get out and explore their surroundings.

 

When I see pix like that, or some of these very defined and confined subdivisions around here, surrounded by other plats or farm land, I wonder where is the "space".  But I think that pix does illustrate the more common suburban condition.

 

I dont think these suburban kids grow up along as I think kids lives nowadays are more programmed than in the past. Or I could have come from an odd family where I was left to do my own thing and wasnt pushed into little league and similar things.

 

 

 

So lots of opportunity to really get into 

^Good anecdote. It highlights the whole other level of awareness of the world attained on bike or foot versus being driven around--especially for kids who, from a developmental POV, are imprinting information hard and heavy. I see kids riding around town watching DVDs in the backseat of the minivan, and I worry. A lot.

 

yes, once we started driving, i was the only one who knew how to get anywhere.  but that is to be expected as a lifelong map geek.  i can draw a map from memory of all the streets in wickliffe and do a pretty good job with the surrounding burbs. 

That's ridiculous.  You don't know how far the kids have to go to see their friends or go to school.  And I'm sure a lot of farmer's kids, which is analogous to exurbs, grow up just as happily and/or unhappily than urban kids.

 

It's so dumb how so many urbanohio posters unequivically equate urban living as GOOD, suburban living as BAD, and exurban living as DUMB and BAD. 

 

The country is NOTHING like exurbs. I lived in a rural area between the ages of 2-8.  Our life was nothing like suburban children. For one we had to do a lot of work around the farm-takng care of horses, pigs, chickens, picking things, pulling weeds ect. When we were not put to work, our time was totally unstructured and this may not have been a good thing-relatively unsupervised for hours at a time. Everything we did was free in cost and creative.  I did not participate in "activities"  . I never went to a mall. A couple times a year we went to a department store in DC. People that live on non factory farms are in touch with nature and can develop a good honest work ethic. When I say this I do not consider "rural" to be a aluminum siding house on 3 acres with a satellite dish and monster truck.

 

  My dad worked for the federal government and the commute became too crushing, so we moved to the burbs (albeit close in). I was in pure hell for the next several years. By the time I was 14, I was slipping off to the city every chance I got. Thankfully my parents did not go all ape $hit about it either.  Suburban kids are all about highly structured activities, spending money and can barely walk down the street on their atrophied legs.  The parents just perpetuate this lifestyle and fill them full of unrealistic fears.  Do I think every part of the city is great for children-resounding NO. But there are many communities in or near urban center that are great for this.

 

 

 

I was in pure hell for the next several years. By the time I was 14, I was slipping off to the city every chance I got. Thankfully my parents did not go all ape $hit about it either.  Suburban kids are all about highly structured activities, spending money and can barely walk down the street on their atrophied legs.  The parents just perpetuate this lifestyle and fill them full of unrealistic fears.  

 

 

What a ridiculous statement.  It all depends on the parents.  Its a shame your parents failed you in so many ways.  My suburban children were not sneaking off to the city when they were 14.  They walked home from school and had their chores and homework to do during the school years.  During the summer, they had a few hours of work to do both in the house and outside, which included having dinner ready for me when I got home from work.  Yes, they had some structured activities, but it wasn't anything detrimental to their development.

Sorry, but I think 14 year olds with friends and safety skills are fine going to the city-then and now. I did not say sneaking  either. "Slipping" implied taking the chance when ever possible. This did not mean I did not do what was needed around the home or school. Love how you jump to conclusions. I had a job too.  Rather then sitting in the back seat driving to numerous activities, I was reading transit and city maps. As far as lazy kids, I am talking about the trend now, not how I was raised.  Why do you think they are getting fatter?

I remember living in the DC area and being amazed at the area around Manassas Virginia. What a disaster. So I just found this post from this month about their lack of planning:

 

Nutter to restore power to Planning Commission

By Patrick Kerkstra

 

Inquirer Staff Writer

 

Mayor Nutter elevated the oft-overlooked matter of city planning to the top of his agenda yesterday, sending an unmistakable message to builders, civic associations and City Hall that he wants an abrupt end to Philadelphia's decades-old practice of ad hoc development.

"As a city government we now reject the 'let's make a deal' mentality that pervaded Philadelphia for much too long. Monty Hall has left City Hall. Those days are over," Nutter said in his address to an overflow crowd of hundreds at the Academy of Natural Sciences.

 

Nutter said he wanted urban design in Philadelphia to be guided by what he called "self-evident" values, such as the need to preserve the historic nature and character of the neighborhoods, a pedestrian-focused urban form that would not be trumped by the design demands of cars, and a love of parks and open space.

 

Nutter was emphatic about who would lead his proposed overhaul: the City Planning Commission, a once-powerful entity that has lost so much clout over the years that many big developers bypass it or give it only a token say in their projects.

 

http://www.philly.com/

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact staff writer Patrick Kerkstra at 215-854-2827 or pkerkstra@phillynews

Okay well that is an intersting article but for some reason the one on manassas wont copy! I think Im in the bermuda triangle.  Let me tell you about it (manassas not the article).  There were tons of subdivisions and one main road leading out of the city. Gridlock at all hours of the day. Not to mention infrastructure issues. Then there were the townhouses that sprang up once it was overpopulated with single family subdivisions. The town houses there had issues as did those in other parts of the region; subpar plywood for roofing, subpar siding; Strong winds and exteriors and roofs would come off. So the mad rush to over build was akin to the gold rush, at least that's how I saw it. Isn't it Jane Jacobs who said that no one seems to learn anything from the history of bad planning...and she said this in the 60s!

That's ridiculous.  You don't know how far the kids have to go to see their friends or go to school.  And I'm sure a lot of farmer's kids, which is analogous to exurbs, grow up just as happily and/or unhappily than urban kids.

 

It's so dumb how so many urbanohio posters unequivically equate urban living as GOOD, suburban living as BAD, and exurban living as DUMB and BAD. 

 

My dad worked for the federal government and the commute became too crushing, so we moved to the burbs (albeit close in). I was in pure hell for the next several years. By the time I was 14, I was slipping off to the city every chance I got. Thankfully my parents did not go all ape $hit about it either.  Suburban kids are all about highly structured activities, spending money and can barely walk down the street on their atrophied legs.  The parents just perpetuate this lifestyle and fill them full of unrealistic fears.  Do I think every part of the city is great for children-resounding NO. But there are many communities in or near urban center that are great for this.

 

 

This is a rediculous statement and an insult to school-aged kids.  The sububan lifestyle is by no means a way for kids to get atrophied legs.  If a kid ends up overweight and lazy, it is the parents fault.  The kid can live in the city or the suburbs, and the same thing can happen.  Walk through the city and I am sure you will see kids that are overweight.  We have kids, and they are involved in outdoor activities and love being outside.  They have chores and help out around the house.  Trust me, ask most kids what they would rather do, sit inside, or go outside.  9 times out of 10, they will say go outside.  But if the parents are lazy, and don't feel like keeping an eye on them outside, they will send them to the basement to play video games.  This way, the parents know they can sit on their buts upstairs sipping wine watching Wife Swap and not have to worry about anything.  And this does not just happen in the suburbs, it happens everywhere. 

I'm sorry, but the statement about kids with atrophied legs in the suburbs really makes me mad.  That correlation should never be made.  This thread is begining to go off topic and is starting to insult people, and children now, who have made a choice to raise their family in the suburbs versus the city.  You can raise your kids peoperly where ever you live under any circumstance.  Choosing where you want to do that and where you feel most comfortable doing that is totally up to you.  You are a failure as a parent if your kids can't walk by age 14 however if they have the mental and physical capabilites. 

The generalizations are amazing.  I agree, the parents make the difference.  Just ask my kids!!!!!

The generalizations are amazing. I agree, the parents make the difference. Just ask my kids!!!!!

 

Our kids are to young to tell us that we are doing a good job and offering them insight to the world, but hopefully someday they will.  I don't think they will ever tell us that raising them in the suburbs held back their lives. 

I'm sorry, but the statement about kids with atrophied legs in the suburbs really makes me mad.  That correlation should never be made.  This thread is beginning to go off topic and is starting to insult people, and children now, who have made a choice to raise their family in the suburbs versus the city.  You can raise your kids peoperly where ever you live under any circumstance.  Choosing where you want to do that and where you feel most comfortable doing that is totally up to you.  You are a failure as a parent if your kids can't walk by age 14 however if they have the mental and physical capabilites.  

 

Everbody just calm down. It is easier for everybody to speak in generalizations and exaggerations when they are trying to make a point. Nobody is personally attacking anybody else.

 

There is a wide spectrum of what the terms city, suburb, exurb and rural means to a person depending on where they are from and what they have experienced. Let's all try and keep that in mind. Your burb may not be my burb. And even further than that keep in mind that just because a neighborhood is in the city, suburb or exurb doesn't neescarily mean that it has all of the characteristics of that stereotype because at one time these were all expansions out from the core city generally being built to make money for the people building the houses and buildings.

 

Some are well planned and some aren't. Even in an Inner-ring Cleveland suburb like Lakewood there are some neighborhoods up by the lake that aren't very walkable due to the lack of sidewalks  because were built at the turn of the century with what we consider exurbs planning today.Big houses on big lots.

 

 

 

 

What areas near the lake in Lakewood have no sidewalks?

The stretch of Edgewater between the park and the towers. A bit of simplification, I know because I think the north-south streets do have side walks but I run back there fairly regularly and it struck me as odd that it doesn't have sidewalks...

 

Actually I just did a MSN maps on the area. Parkside on the west has sidewalks and the the 3 furthest to the east due, but the 4 dead end streets between don't have sidewalks. This may be because they are or were private streets? Who knows. I just know that the situation existed.

 

My friend just bought a house up there and he actually complained about the walkability compared to where I live in central Lakewood. That is why I thought of that example.

If walkability was important to him, why did he buy a house on a street that didn't have sidewalks? Or mixed use?

Some streets in Shaker & Cleve. Hts., such as The Parks (N, S. E. & W), Shelbourne, Parkland, many homes don't have sidewalks in front of them.  And not until the 70's/80s did those those homes had sidewalks.

Stretches of Uptown Westerville, decidedly urbanized lack sidewalks as well. Sidewalks can be a class signifier at both ends. Upper class estates didn't put them in for obvious reasons and working class quarters were rarely planned and lacked the resources to include sidewalks.

 

  Sidewalks or the lack therof don't necessarily make a place walkable or unwalkable. Are people walking, or not?

 

   

 

 

   Sidewalks or the lack therof don't necessarily make a place walkable or unwalkable. Are people walking, or not?

 

   

 

 

Well it made it hard for us to walk to school.  We had to walk in the street to either Eaton or Courtland.  Luckily there is much vehicular traffic on S. Park.

 

Shaker Blvd. had sidewalks.

 

Even today, there are no sidewalks around the shaker lakes.  If I go over to Fairhill there are no sidewalks on the north side of the street except for in front of Belgian Village.

I think places like Shaker Lakes and parts of lakewood w/o sidewalks were desighned when people may have strolled for pleasure but not utility. Times are a changing again.

I think places like Shaker Lakes and parts of lakewood w/o sidewalks were desighned when people may have strolled for pleasure but not utility. Times are a changing again.

 

Yeah, but outside of the nature center there aren't even "paths".  Just worn grass.

If walkability was important to him, why did he buy a house on a street that didn't have sidewalks? Or mixed use?

 

Bought on a foreclosure that was too good to pass up.

If walkability was important to him, why did he buy a house on a street that didn't have sidewalks? Or mixed use?

 

Bought on a foreclosure that was too good to pass up.

I think everyone should buy a foreclosure.

If walkability was important to him, why did he buy a house on a street that didn't have sidewalks? Or mixed use?

 

Bought on a foreclosure that was too good to pass up.

I think everyone should buy a foreclosure.

 

1) Not everyone has the financial wherewithal to risk buying a foreclosed home

 

2) Lets get back to the discussion.

Click on the link at the bottom, the article has lots of graphs and photos....

 

 

The End of White Flight

For the First Time in Decades, Cities' Black Populations Lose Ground,

Stirring Clashes Over Class, Culture and Even Ice Cream

By CONOR DOUGHERTY

July 19, 2008; Page A1

 

Decades of white flight transformed America's cities. That era is drawing to a close.

 

In Washington, a historically black church is trying to attract white members to survive. Atlanta's next mayoral race is expected to feature the first competitive white candidate since the 1980s. San Francisco has lost so many African-Americans that Mayor Gavin Newsom created an "African-American Out-Migration Task Force and Advisory Committee" to help retain black residents.

 

"The city is experiencing growth, yet we're losing African-American families disproportionately," Mr. Newsom says. When that happens, "we lose part of our soul."

 

For much of the 20th century, the proportion of whites shrank in most U.S. cities. In recent years the decline has slowed considerably -- and in some significant cases has reversed. Between 2000 and 2006, eight of the 50 largest cities, including Boston, Seattle and San Francisco, saw the proportion of whites increase, according to Census figures. The previous decade, only three cities saw increases.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121642866373567057.html?mod=yhoofront

Those are some mind blowing numbers!

Out of curiosity, where do the blacks go to? The inner suburbs? The outer suburbs and exurbs? With the recent downturn in the markets, many once-unaffordable properties are becoming gems or ... rental properties even. Natural decrease in births and an increase in deaths can't explain everything.

In Dayton they went to the suburbs, and this really started in the 1970s. 

 

Looking at %s masks this, but after 1970 the black population within the city limits remained stable, with the increases being fairly small.  The big growth in Montgomery County black populaton was in suburbia starting with that decade.

 

For white folks, the big decade of white population decline in Dayton city was the 1970s.  This continued, but started to level off through 1990 and 2000 census, not as severe as in earlier decades.

Also, I wouldnt say all this population decline falls into a strict definition of white flight.

 

 

 

To second Jeffrey - those with any mobility went to the suburbs. There continued to be a fair bit of migration to places like Atlanta and D.C. area - Prince George, MD and elsewhere in the South. It is important to remember that outside of massively gentrifying cities like San Fran/Boston/NYC, the outmigration of A/A usually left behind dramatically depopulated areas - think Cincy's OTR and West End or Philly's North Philly. The numbers dropped because there was few folks filling the historic ghetto while those more upwardly mobile left the cities as well.

Speaking as a white guy living in an area that was once aggresively all white and is now mixed, the first wave of "black flight" is upper middle class blacks seeking to escape the problems of the inner city.  However, their kids tend to bring the cultural aspects of same that older white people find offensive with them.  They bail, and the "gap" is filled by more black emigrants who are less opposed to the inner city culture.  As I've said on other threads, the driving force is cultural, not racial.

^Or more precisely, the conflict of race-associated cultural norms. It's a blurry line, but I would hold harmful the older white residents first; after decades of 6 O'clock news conditioning, the mere sight of blacks in their neighborhood becomes cause for alarm. Infinitely sad.

^Yeah, we can thank the TV and its endless parade of thugs for that one.

Negative perception of blacks rises with more news watching, studies say

 

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Watching the news should make you more informed, but it also may be making you more likely to stereotype, says a University of Illinois researcher.

 

In a pair of recently published studies, communication professor Travis Dixon found that the more people watched either local or network news, the more likely they were to draw on negative stereotypes about blacks.

 

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/08/0717race.html

Cold comfort at best.  The resources put into this study would be better used to study methods to reduce the actual rate of black on black crime.  Then, distorted or not, there would be less black murderers and criminals on the news, and white folks opinions would slowly come around.  And as an added bonus, more black males would live long enough to be productive members of society.  But who needs a solution when a fig leaf will do?

Resources required to conduct a media survey ≠ Resources required to correct the black/white quality-of-life disparity. Key line from the survey:

 

"In trying to explain the connection, he believes part of it may be in the way network news often 'frames' an issue or topic, such as poverty or welfare, by finding individuals to focus on."

 

It's not an issue of what news is reported, it's how the news is reported. Maybe if TV news got away from the "if it bleeds it leads" mentality we'd all have less prejudice and more social mobility.

Resources required to conduct a media survey ≠ Resources required to correct the black/white quality-of-life disparity.

 

I didn't say they equalled.  I said it would be a better use of those resources to fix the problem instead of the media representation of the problem.

 

It's not an issue of what news is reported, it's how the news is reported. Maybe if TV news got away from the "if it bleeds it leads" mentality we'd all have less prejudice and more social mobility.

 

Never going to happen.  These stories are easy to cover and draw viewership.  See my point above.

Who watches local news anyway?