When I was school-aged, my parents used to take the picture tube out of the TV when they didn't want us watching it, such as after school when we were supposed to be doing our homework.  Worked pretty great!  While obviously TVs are way different now, I plan on instituting similar restrictions.  Too many parents use the TV as a babysitter, too much of the time.

Hell, I'm 42 going on 43 and there is no way in hell I would speak to my parents or grand parents in the same manner I've witnessed.  My father would have beat me.  My fathers mother (aka "the general") would have killed me.

 

You're not allowed to discipline your kids anymore.  If anywhere remotely in public, people can (and do) literally report you to the police and you can be arrested.  At home, a neighbor or even the child themselves can get you arrested.  Parents just don't have that kind of "physical" option any longer, largely.

 

I don't believe in that.  If I want to spank my kids (nephews/nieces) I will.

 

I all for spankin' that @ss!  :whip:  I had to spank my nephew once for attempting to throw a tantrum at the store.  MTS don't play that!  This couple looked at me while I spanked his @ss.  Before words could leave the husband's mouth, I said "you raise your kids your way, and I'll take care of this one".  My nephew is 13 and hasn't acted up in a store since.  I don't play that!  :whip:

 

I spoil them to no end, but disrespect and breaking rules is grounds for a beat down.

 

Nowadays parents have access to information on better parenting skills, but they lack to social capital to know what to do with it and cower at the prospect of being unliked by their kids or misunderstood by their neighbors. This is a generational effect of the isolation wrought by the suburbs.

 

I agree with the first part of your statement (quite a bit actually), but would like to know how you get that only suburban parents don't want their kids to hate them? I mean, that's really out there kingfish. And everyone's been going on and on about how urban people know their neighbors, watch their houses, etc and suburban people want (and get) more privacy, so your argument doesn't really wash to me.

 

Before the advent of the tract suburb with the privacy fence and attached garage, parenting used to be a more communal experience; if you messed up in front of your friend's mom she would discipline you without hesitation just as your mom would do the same to your friend. This is an outgrowth of close-proximity living. It exists in urban neighborhoods today where there is a critical mass of families and children, and it existed in the apartment block in Poland where and when my wife was growing up. It's virtually unheard of in modern suburbia where "mine is mine and yours is yours" is the guiding social principle. This is the gift of our highly-developed society, and it's tearing us apart.

Interesting opinion, thanks for clarifying.

At the same conference, Mindy Fullilove, professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, said true urbanism is characterized by a sense of connectedness that allows people of diverse backgrounds and incomes to nonetheless feel that they live in the same community and share an identity with the same "great place."

 

 

Mindy Fullilove is great.  She wrote Root Shock, about the psychological impact of urban renewal.  Glad to see she continues to be sourced on urban affairs things.

 

Nowadays parents have access to information on better parenting skills, but they lack to social capital to know what to do with it and cower at the prospect of being unliked by their kids or misunderstood by their neighbors. This is a generational effect of the isolation wrought by the suburbs.

 

I agree with the first part of your statement (quite a bit actually), but would like to know how you get that only suburban parents don't want their kids to hate them?  I mean, that's really out there kingfish.  And everyone's been going on and on about how urban people know their neighbors, watch their houses, etc and suburban people want (and get) more privacy, so your argument doesn't really wash to me.

 

Before the advent of the tract suburb with the privacy fence and attached garage, parenting used to be a more communal experience; if you messed up in front of your friend's mom she would discipline you without hesitation just as your mom would do the same to your friend. This is an outgrowth of close-proximity living. It exists in urban neighborhoods today where there is a critical mass of families and children, and it existed in the apartment block in Poland where and when my wife was growing up. It's virtually unheard of in modern suburbia where "mine is mine and yours is yours" is the guiding social principle. This is the gift of our highly-developed society, and it's tearing us apart.

Ding..ding..ding.

 

When I was growing up, if my cousins did something and their parent/parents/ to my parents, we all got in trouble.

 

If I cut across or walked on a neighbors lawn, they would call my mom, so before I got to the back door, she knew what I had done.

 

I can still remember my uncle making a surprise visit to school because my cousin want to be a "comedian' in class.  It was so embarrasing.  My cousin got beat down in the bathroom and we were Juniors in High School.  Kids we like, "Your uncle doesn't mess around!"

But the thing that broke down in the cities in the 60s was crime (esp. in schools) and they haven't fully recovered. In a working urban community, the policing goes on informally among neighbors and kin who all live near one another - though we shouldn't romanticize because they often tolerated levels of disorder that would make us blanche today. Nonetheless, parents have to have some level of trust that the street and the neighborhood is shared by people with similar values and similar approaches to parenting or else it breaks down and that their children won't be snatched by strangers (a big 70s issue).

The other question has to do with the differences between perceptions of orderly behavior by the middle classes, the working classes, and the poor. They are different and do create different kinds of environments to raise children. The suburbs were an attempt to segregate the striving (or already arrived) classes from those left behind.

But the thing that broke down in the cities in the 60s was crime (esp. in schools) and they haven't fully recovered. In a working urban community, the policing goes on informally among neighbors and kin who all live near one another - though we shouldn't romanticize because they often tolerated levels of disorder that would make us blanche today. Nonetheless, parents have to have some level of trust that the street and the neighborhood is shared by people with similar values and similar approaches to parenting or else it breaks down and that their children won't be snatched by strangers (a big 70s issue).

The other question has to do with the differences between perceptions of orderly behavior by the middle classes, the working classes, and the poor. They are different and do create different kinds of environments to raise children. The suburbs were an attempt to segregate the striving (or already arrived) classes from those left behind.

 

This is the best description I have seen yet. 

 

 

Sorry I'm a little pissy today, but I drove today on secondary roads from Ravenna all the way into Cleveland. I saw the prosperity end at Bedford. From there all the way into the city the abandonment and decline was very depressing. I haven't driven much of this in 20 years. I shudder to think how far out the urban fringe and the decline that's hot on its tail will have moved in another 20.

 

Shows how pervasive urban sprawl has been since then -- such massive outward movement of the urban fringe like the fireline of a wildfire out of control, yet Greater Cleveland's population hasn't grown since 1960. Yet we keep on building. As James Howard Kunstler says, this is the biggest misallocation of resources in human history.

The wildfire analogy is pretty good.  I take Sunday drives betw Cincy & Dayton to see the "srprawl front", which is really more like  a patchwork since there are no "grown boundaries" so development is leapfrog.

 

Another way to gauge it is the developement & redevelopment around the interchanges.

Hell, I'm 42 going on 43 and there is no way in hell I would speak to my parents or grand parents in the same manner I've witnessed.  My father would have beat me.  My fathers mother (aka "the general") would have killed me.

 

You're not allowed to discipline your kids anymore.  If anywhere remotely in public, people can (and do) literally report you to the police and you can be arrested.  At home, a neighbor or even the child themselves can get you arrested.  Parents just don't have that kind of "physical" option any longer, largely.

 

I don't believe in that.  If I want to spank my kids (nephews/nieces) I will.

 

I all for spankin' that @ss!   :whip:   I had to spank my nephew once for attempting to throw a tantrum at the store.  MTS don't play that!  This couple looked at me while I spanked his @ss.  Before words could leave the husband's mouth, I said "you raise your kids your way, and I'll take care of this one".  My nephew is 13 and hasn't acted up in a store since.  I don't play that!  :whip:

 

I spoil them to no end, but disrespect and breaking rules is grounds for a beat down.

 

 

I couldn't help but lol. Reminds me when I'd go cruisin' for a bruisin'. I was a brat every now and then and a little butt smacking didn't make me turn out bad.

But the thing that broke down in the cities in the 60s was crime (esp. in schools) and they haven't fully recovered. In a working urban community, the policing goes on informally among neighbors and kin who all live near one another - though we shouldn't romanticize because they often tolerated levels of disorder that would make us blanche today. Nonetheless, parents have to have some level of trust that the street and the neighborhood is shared by people with similar values and similar approaches to parenting or else it breaks down and that their children won't be snatched by strangers (a big 70s issue).

The other question has to do with the differences between perceptions of orderly behavior by the middle classes, the working classes, and the poor. They are different and do create different kinds of environments to raise children. The suburbs were an attempt to segregate the striving (or already arrived) classes from those left behind.

 

But you have to consider the impact of rapid outflow of residents on things like crime in urban neighborhoods, and the perception of crime held in the suburbs and the fears--completely unjustified--that it might leap the firewall and invade their new, safe suburbs.

 

Ironically, I think, the insular qualities of the suburbs welcomed a new and and exponentially more evil brand of crime. I lived through the reign of terror wrought by the <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_County_Child_Killer">Oakland County Child Killer</a>. Somehow a serial killer was able to snatch a murder a number of children in very upscale neighborhoods and dump the bodies in plain sight. Despite an exhaustive citizen manhunt and pitched media hysteria, the killer was never found.

 

Was this killer absolutely the product of the suburbs? I'll stop short of saying that. He wasn't the first serial killer and he won't be the last. But his methodology played so masterfully on the fears of the suburbanite: that even in your cozy little subdivision, far from the violence and dread of the city, your children still were not safe. And we were powerless to stop him.

Hell, I'm 42 going on 43 and there is no way in hell I would speak to my parents or grand parents in the same manner I've witnessed.  My father would have beat me.  My fathers mother (aka "the general") would have killed me.

 

You're not allowed to discipline your kids anymore.  If anywhere remotely in public, people can (and do) literally report you to the police and you can be arrested.  At home, a neighbor or even the child themselves can get you arrested.  Parents just don't have that kind of "physical" option any longer, largely.

 

I don't believe in that.  If I want to spank my kids (nephews/nieces) I will.

 

I all for spankin' that @ss!  :whip:  I had to spank my nephew once for attempting to throw a tantrum at the store.  MTS don't play that!  This couple looked at me while I spanked his @ss.  Before words could leave the husband's mouth, I said "you raise your kids your way, and I'll take care of this one".  My nephew is 13 and hasn't acted up in a store since.  I don't play that!  :whip:

 

I spoil them to no end, but disrespect and breaking rules is grounds for a beat down.

 

 

I couldn't help but lol. Reminds me when I'd go cruisin' for a bruisin'. I was a brat every now and then and a little butt smacking didn't make me turn out bad.

I could go so many places with that.... he he he he  :wink:

I knew I should've revised my post.

 

But back on topic, I was walking in the north end of Italian Village I hear a couple of guys sitting in front of an apartment talking and here are the bits I hear.

 

"He be a snitch, he be a snitch."

 

and

 

"You don't be shootin' a nigga from out of town."

 

Then there was something about how so-and-so could've been beat down, etc.

 

All I could do was give a disapproving, hate-laced glare. It's these kind of people who need to be kicked out and who are contributing to urban blight and add fodder for suburban sprawl. If Patrick Baitman had walked up to them and knifed them both in the gut while laughing maniacally I would have had to applaud.

I knew I should've revised my post.

 

But back on topic, I was walking in the north end of Italian Village I hear a couple of guys sitting in front of an apartment talking and here are the bits I hear.

 

"He be a snitch, he be a snitch."

 

and

 

"You don't be shootin' a nigga from out of town."

 

Then there was something about how so-and-so could've been beat down, etc.

 

All I could do was give a disapproving, hate-laced glare. It's these kind of people who need to be kicked out and who are contributing to urban blight and add fodder for suburban sprawl. If Patrick Baitman had walked up to them and knifed them both in the gut while laughing maniacally I would have had to applaud.

 

Whoa.  I have to ask.  Do you know the entire context of their conversation or anything about those people?

 

 

Sorry, that was you Columbusite? I'll watch my mouth around you next time. Nice glare, by the way.

And if these guys moved next to you both yourselves and other neighbors would not like it one bit. They can take their gang bullsh!t elsewhere and take whoever spray painted "snitchin" under the "stop" on stop signs around neighboring Weinland Park.

I've lived around "this sort of thing" back in Detroit, and there are traces of it in the neighborhood now. It's ugly, but it's not the end of the world. From a Darwinistic standpoint, guys that posture like this are the first ones to get taken out of the game. It's the ones operating on the DL who are truly dangerous.

I am completely non-supportive of gangs and their culture... but at the same time I can't blame them for rejecting official authority and inventing their own.  They aren't the first to do so, when confronted with membership in the underclass.  Eliminate the problems that lead to gangs, including urban sprawl, and the gangs will just about vanish. 

I'd think that legalizing drugs would deal a huge blow, but otherwise education is key. Educated people are not found there, but it's tough to educate some lower-income neighborhoods when some parents don't care or encourage their kids to join gangs.

I'd think that legalizing drugs would deal a huge blow, but otherwise education is key. Educated people are not found there, but it's tough to educate some lower-income neighborhoods when some parents don't care or encourage their kids to join gangs.

 

Totally agree on both points.

I think that legalizing drugs would actually go pretty far in furthering education, because it would remove one of the largest reasons some poverty-stricken people turn away from education: the ability to make a lot of money without the need for any formal education through dealing drugs.

They just need to be wiped out, unmercifully.  The government did a good job of destroying a lot of the mob's power, and the same things need to be done with gangs. 

 

 

Eliminate the problems that lead to gangs, including urban sprawl, and the gangs will just about vanish. 

 

How would you do this?  Force people to live next door to drug dealers?  Would you want to raise your children in that sort of environment?  I would not.  I say cut down on gang activity, and that will lead less urban sprawl. 

 

Millions of impoverished immigrants came here hundreds of years ago.  They were poor, couldn't speak English, and had no government support.  While some resorted to crime, a majority assimilated into American ideals and became productive members of society. 

 

Forcing baby daddys to be real fathers would be my first move.

I think that legalizing drugs would actually go pretty far in furthering education, because it would remove one of the largest reasons some poverty-stricken people turn away from education: the ability to make a lot of money without the need for any formal education through dealing drugs.

 

We should cut down on penalizing crime, too.  Too many of the nation's poor do not get an education because they are locked up.  Eliminating punishment for rape and other forms of crime would thwart this.

They just need to be wiped out, unmercifully. The government did a good job of destroying a lot of the mob's power, and the same things need to be done with gangs.

 

 

Eliminate the problems that lead to gangs, including urban sprawl, and the gangs will just about vanish.

 

How would you do this? Force people to live next door to drug dealers? Would you want to raise your children in that sort of environment? I would not. I say cut down on gang activity, and that will lead less urban sprawl.

 

Millions of impoverished immigrants came here hundreds of years ago. They were poor, couldn't speak English, and had no government support. While some resorted to crime, a majority assimilated into American ideals and became productive members of society.

 

Forcing baby daddys to be real fathers would be my first move.

 

The government destroyed the mob's power with a little thing called the state lottery.  They legalized the mob's cash cow, making it worthless to them.  I think this is a good analogy for drug policy.

 

And I hear it a lot, but I think white immigrants are a poor analogy for former slaves who were still considered a lesser species at the time the immigrants were coming over.  Not even close.  Elements of both groups turned to organized crime for largely the same reasons, but the proportions are completely off.  White people can learn the language and integrate.  This was not possible for blacks, and still isn't in many ways. 

 

That continued segretation, long after other forms of it have evaporated, is what I blame sprawl on primarily.  And when the legal system has been diamatrically opposed to you and your people for so long, it is very difficult to accept that suddenly it's your friend, whose legitimacy should take precedence over loyalty to one's neighbors. 

 

It's a hard sell.  It's a sale that needs to be made, but we have a ways to go.  If we're going to keep punishing crime in general, which I think we should, we should do more to recognize the extent of the past crimes against humanity these communities are dealing with.

^I agree completely.  In no way would I compare the different levels of discrimination.  Anyone who does is a revisionist.  However, I would not go so far as to say that there are not lessons that can be learned. 

 

 

 

 

They just need to be wiped out, unmercifully. The government did a good job of destroying a lot of the mob's power, and the same things need to be done with gangs.

 

 

This just shows how little you know about gangs, or the effectiveness of gang policing.

The problem with most of these kids running the street is that they've never had positive male role models and fathers. That isn't always the case but there is a strong correlation. The media has always glorified mobsters and gangsters. I think that has something to do with it as well. I wouldn't solely blame the media but it doesn't help.

We won't legalize drugs in the way folks who want it legalized think it would. The moment drugs are legalized they will become susceptible to the same sort of oversight that tobacco and to a lesser extent alcohol are under. We are moments from declaring tobacco a medicine for the purposes of regulation by the FDA. These 'drugs' will be treated the exact same way. Then all the benefits of legalization will disappear when they are loaded with the necessary safety warnings and precautions that we put on everything else in society. If we are willing to force libraries to destroy books over infinitesimal amounts of lead, then I don't see why we treat currently illegal drugs any other way.

 

 

Nowadays parents have access to information on better parenting skills, but they lack to social capital to know what to do with it and cower at the prospect of being unliked by their kids or misunderstood by their neighbors. This is a generational effect of the isolation wrought by the suburbs.

 

I agree with the first part of your statement (quite a bit actually), but would like to know how you get that only suburban parents don't want their kids to hate them?  I mean, that's really out there kingfish.  And everyone's been going on and on about how urban people know their neighbors, watch their houses, etc and suburban people want (and get) more privacy, so your argument doesn't really wash to me.

 

Before the advent of the tract suburb with the privacy fence and attached garage, parenting used to be a more communal experience; if you messed up in front of your friend's mom she would discipline you without hesitation just as your mom would do the same to your friend. This is an outgrowth of close-proximity living.

 

I remember the same 'type' of parenting; and I grew up in a suburb (built circa 1970's) in the early 80's. We played outside ALL THE TIME, until dusk usually. This was, of course, before the advent of 'play dates' and scheduled activities for all the kids all the time - so I think other forces are at work here.

The problem with most of these kids running the street is that they've never had positive male role models and fathers. That isn't always the case but there is a strong correlation. The media has always glorified mobsters and gangsters. I think that has something to do with it as well. I wouldn't solely blame the media but it doesn't help.

 

I would argue that it has more to do with a positive adult role model or active parent (whether that role model/parent is male or female makes no difference) than it has to do with a positive male role model/father. My father wasn't around and I don't sell drugs or turn to other illicit activities to make money. Of coarse, there are many different factors that lead to someone choosing (or indirectly choosing) a life of crime. Those include whether or not you have a positive adult role model, environment (at home, school, etc.), financial status (not a determinant, but a correlation; usually if first two are negative), and whether or not you seek instant gratification (as opposed to long term benefits; something that might go along with Oscar Lewis' "Culture of Poverty"), which might be influenced by many things.

 

I think that legalization of some drugs (and regulating them), improvement of education, and a better funded/managed social service program(s) would lead to lower crime and a better standard of living (and might lead to the reversal of urban sprawl). Fixing the last two would be difficult, but I am sure it is possible.

The problem with most of these kids running the street is that they've never had positive male role models and fathers. That isn't always the case but there is a strong correlation. The media has always glorified mobsters and gangsters. I think that has something to do with it as well. I wouldn't solely blame the media but it doesn't help.

 

Bingo.  The obvious fact no one is allowed to say (note when Jesse Jackson said he wanted to rip off Obama's balls). 

They just need to be wiped out, unmercifully.  The government did a good job of destroying a lot of the mob's power, and the same things need to be done with gangs. 

 

 

 

 

This just shows how little you know about gangs, or the effectiveness of gang policing.

 

Maybe you should enlighten us instead of just saying "it's obvious you don't know.."

The mob was organized, had top down leadership, and was responsible for bringing much of the illegal drug inventory into the US.  Street gangs are the lowest level of the system.  They are not organized, are fundamentally opposed to taking orders and authority so there is very little leadership, and they just sell the drugs that are sold to them by people with much more power.  Drug czars such as the Italian mob, Russian Mafia, and Mexican mafia saw a large group of unemployed, young, urban kids, and exploited them into selling their drugs, while destroying their communities at the same time.

 

Efforts to arrest them all will never work, as gangs are formed out of people who face discrimination, lack access to resources, extreme poverty, etc.  If you want to know more about successful tactics, read the book A Nation of Lords.  It discusses how the Vice Lords, a prominent black Chicago gang were able to shift their efforts to community organizing and empowerment, and completely turned the neighborhood of Lawndale around.  That is, until the city of Chicago, and particularly Mayor Daley, took a no tolerance stance towards all gangs; recognized the Vice Lords as a gang, and arrested them.  After their arrest, the community lost it's momentum, and slipped back into a ghetto.

Oh please, the Vice Lords were scamming the Great Society.  They used this community development thing as a window-dressing.  Sort of like the Black P Stone Nation recast themselves as Al Rhukn, a quasi-islamist cult :  "Hey we're not a gang anymore, we are a religion".  For the Vice Lords it made them look quasi-legit.

 

Like Chicago radio DJ Daddy-O Daley (no relation to that other Daley) used to say: "They maybe say they are Robin Hoods, but they is just hoods 'robbing"

 

 

 

Drug czars such as the Italian mob, Russian Mafia, and Mexican mafia saw a large group of unemployed, young, urban kids, and exploited them into selling their drugs, while destroying their communities at the same time.

 

Exactly!!  No blame for these young, urban kids!!  327, this is an example of where I draw the immigrant experience in.  This quote epitomizes the outright refusal for people to lay any sort of blame where it is deserved.  They conjure up any conspiracy theory they can think of.  And this irritates me.  Does the mafia share some of the blame, I'm sure they do.  But to act like the urban community can't stand on it's own two feet and is completely helpless, is, imo, incredibly demeaning to them.

 

I always thought the Genovese's were responsible for all the kids being born out of wedlock.  I just knew it was their fault.

 

**Just realized how off topic I have been, so I will quit. 

Look, you need to talk about sprawl and you need to do it ironically.  Right now.  You're talking about social dynamics possibly underlying sprawl's creation, which is completely different.

 

The father's role is to provide.  Whether they can or not they're expected to.  Put jobs in the inner cities, jobs sufficient in themselves to support a family, just like people had during idyllic eras when nobody complained about families or dads, and see what happens.  I bet it works itself out.

But to act like the urban community can't stand on it's own two feet and is completely helpless, is, imo, incredibly demeaning to them.

 

What does this have to do with the "urban community"?  The fact that drug lords recruited troubled young men in urban communities to do their dirty work does not mean any of the blame should be placed on urban communities.  Yes, some of it should be blamed on these troubled individuals drawn into a life of crime.  However, these are individuals, and you have individuals making bad choices in EVERY community.  It just so happened that the drug lords brought a new bad choice to urban areas which had an adverse affect on them.  To blame the community is insane.  Much of the community tries to rid itself of these problems.  The rest simply ran from them and are no longer part of the community.  So, yes, blame drug lords AND violent drug dealers, but don't blame the community as a whole.

 

As far as the problems drugs have caused in the urban community, I believe they're the root cause of much more than people realize.  Not only do they cause violence due to an unregulated underground market where street revenge is the only way to get back at somehow who has "wronged" you, but they have many other adverse effects.  As I previously mentioned, they degrade education, by providing a "glorified" and relatively easy path to wealth without the need for formal education.  Also, perhaps the largest problem is that, especially with our disproportionate criminal penalties on dealers as compared to users, it causes many people to go to prison, leaving behind children without role models who are much more likely to end up following the same path.

But to act like the urban community can't stand on it's own two feet and is completely helpless, is, imo, incredibly demeaning to them.

 

What does this have to do with the "urban community".  The fact that drug lords recruited troubled young men in urban communities to do their dirty work does not mean any of the blame should be placed on urban communities.  Yes, some of it should be blamed on these troubled individuals drawn into a life of crime.  However, these are individuals, and you have individuals making bad choices in EVERY community.  It just so happened that the drug lords brought a new bad choice to urban areas which had an adverse affect on them.  To blame the community is insane.  Much of the community tries to rid itself of these problems.  The rest simply ran from them and are no longer part of the community.  So, yes, blame drug lords AND violent drug dealers, but don't blame the community as a whole.

 

Also, there are just as many drug dealers in the 'burbs and at many times the biggest customers for "urban" drug dealers are those from the 'burbs.

...while destroying their communities at the same time.

 

...the community lost it's momentum, and slipped back into a ghetto.

Great article on the NYT the other day... too long to post the entire story here, but here's the link...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/arts/design/29ouro.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=reinventing%20america's%20cities&st=cse

 

 

But to act like the urban community can't stand on it's own two feet and is completely helpless, is, imo, incredibly demeaning to them.

 

What does this have to do with the "urban community". The fact that drug lords recruited troubled young men in urban communities to do their dirty work does not mean any of the blame should be placed on urban communities. Yes, some of it should be blamed on these troubled individuals drawn into a life of crime. However, these are individuals, and you have individuals making bad choices in EVERY community. It just so happened that the drug lords brought a new bad choice to urban areas which had an adverse affect on them. To blame the community is insane. Much of the community tries to rid itself of these problems. The rest simply ran from them and are no longer part of the community. So, yes, blame drug lords AND violent drug dealers, but don't blame the community as a whole.

 

Also, there are just as many drug dealers in the 'burbs and at many times the biggest customers for "urban" drug dealers are those from the 'burbs.

 

Perhaps, but the dealers don't rule the streets in the 'burbs like they do in many inner city neighborhoods.  IMO, people don't leave a neighborhood because there are dealers in it, they leave because the dealers are out in the open and in control of the common space of the neighborhood.

But to act like the urban community can't stand on it's own two feet and is completely helpless, is, imo, incredibly demeaning to them.

 

What does this have to do with the "urban community".  The fact that drug lords recruited troubled young men in urban communities to do their dirty work does not mean any of the blame should be placed on urban communities.  Yes, some of it should be blamed on these troubled individuals drawn into a life of crime.  However, these are individuals, and you have individuals making bad choices in EVERY community.  It just so happened that the drug lords brought a new bad choice to urban areas which had an adverse affect on them.  To blame the community is insane.  Much of the community tries to rid itself of these problems.  The rest simply ran from them and are no longer part of the community.  So, yes, blame drug lords AND violent drug dealers, but don't blame the community as a whole.

 

Also, there are just as many drug dealers in the 'burbs and at many times the biggest customers for "urban" drug dealers are those from the 'burbs.

 

Perhaps, but the dealers don't rule the streets in the 'burbs like they do in many inner city neighborhoods.  IMO, people don't leave a neighborhood because there are dealers in it, they leave because the dealers are out in the open and in control of the common space of the neighborhood.

 

True but we're in some ways segregating the urban dealers and giving the "oh they seemed like such a nice family/people" suburbanite dealers.  They are all terrible!

 

And by doing things to "keep up appearances" they throw off their neighbors.  Examples, heading up a charity to benefit the elementary school, or donating XYZ.  When in essence that money comes from drugs.  The neighbors then squash the noise and don't talk about it, so it doesn't become public information and scare their neighborhood.

Suburban drug dealers are better at hiding.

And mostly they do it without shooting each other over territory.  Few of them are doing it as a profession, while many in the inner city lack other gainful options.

Suburban dealers deal out of their homes and keep their heads down.  Urban dealers often deal off of a corner, or worse take up a whole block or series of blocks to run their operations.  This requires forcing compliance, usually through some form of terror, of the other inhabitants of that space.  If those inhabitants don't want to be terrorized (and who does?), they move if they can.  IMO, that's the salient difference.  It's also the driving connection between drug laws and resulting black markets and the urban sprawl that we see.

Where do you think the suburban dealers get their merchandise?

I just do not understand how you can say that drug dealers do the same damage to a suburban community as they do in an urban community.  Where is your proof?  Gates Mills?  Rocky River? 

 

Also, do we really think the numbers are comparable?  How many innocent suburbanites are shot and killed by drug shootings?

 

How many blocks in Westlake/Strongsville/Bratenahl are infamous for their drug dealing.  Give me a freaking break.  I'm not saying it's "ok" to deal drugs in the suburbs.  It's terrible and they should all be prosecuted equally.  But you cannot sit there and say there are equal consequences and/or repercussions. 

 

 

I just do not understand how you can say that drug dealers do the same damage to a suburban community as they do in an urban community. Where is your proof? Gates Mills? Rocky River?

 

Also, do we really think the numbers are comparable? How many innocent suburbanites are shot and killed by drug shootings?

 

How many blocks in Westlake/Strongsville/Bratenahl are infamous for their drug dealing. Give me a freaking break. I'm not saying it's "ok" to deal drugs in the suburbs. It's terrible and they should all be prosecuted equally. But you cannot sit there and say there are equal consequences and/or repercussions.  

 

I think we just talked about why that is.  Suburban dealers have nice houses, and their clients have nice cars to visit in.  Also suburban dealers are just doing it as a hobby or a side-gig.  Plus, they're usually dealing in lighter stuff.  All this adds up to very little similarity between the two scenarios.

I just do not understand how you can say that drug dealers do the same damage to a suburban community as they do in an urban community.  Where is your proof?  Gates Mills?  Rocky River? 

 

Also, do we really think the numbers are comparable?  How many innocent suburbanites are shot and killed by drug shootings?

 

How many blocks in Westlake/Strongsville/Bratenahl are infamous for their drug dealing.  Give me a freaking break.  I'm not saying it's "ok" to deal drugs in the suburbs.  It's terrible and they should all be prosecuted equally.  But you cannot sit there and say there are equal consequences and/or repercussions. 

 

 

 

Again, it's how they deal and how the community responds.

 

When I was in Junior High, there was a drug dealing family on tolland I believe.  But nobody ever said anything.  People in the 'burbs don't talk about it. 

 

I could never figure out why my aunt wouldn't allow the kids, we went to school with, not to come to their house.  It wasn't till we were older that we connected the dots.

 

They were the nicest people on the block always volunteering etc., but the late night "creeps" and "suspicious" visitors always worried people.  My aunt couldn't figure out how the wife could afford to stay home and driver a convertible.

 

I can clearly remember the other mothers giving her the evil eye.  But nobody would talk about it.