Comments on: Poverty Shifting to Atlanta Suburbs

By: Ridgelandisatn

Ridgelandisatn — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:41:24 +0000

That’s why wrote that it is not a bad thing. And as the auto only infrastructure provided to suburbia starts to show it’s true high costs, a mixture of income levels “in town” becomes even more important.

By: Karass

Karass — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:12:14 +0000

P.S.: I think you meant “forthright” (going straight to the point; frank; direct; outspoken) or “forthcoming” (frank and cooperative; candid)

(That was free, not cheap, labor)

By: Karass

Karass — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:49:45 +0000

Are you kidding? You think caring about losing the residents of historic neighborhoods in Decatur is about being able to hire cheap labor nearby? As someone who hires no labor, never mind cheap labor, not so. Some of us grew up in towns of diverse income levels and enjoy it. And anyone who wants cheap labor doesn’t have to have it live nearby–that’s what one can find in the suburbs according to the referenced article.

By: Ridgelandistan

Ridgelandistan — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:31:10 +0000

DEM, you’re quite right.

Those who wish to preserve “affordable” housing near gentrified areas under the ruse of preserving “social value” are not being forthwright.

This is about providing a low cost labor pool near a relatively affluent community.

I’m not saying it’s wrong. It benefits both ends of the economic stratum, but pretending that it’s out of altruism or nostalgia is just …well pretentious..

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:20:04 +0000

Reading that line again, I think you’re right, Jeff. So we can ignore my first issue.