Not surprisingly, I got some pushback on last week’s column
about the fights at the transit center. Some readers disagreed with the core of
my argument, that the fights are an outgrowth of the city’s high concentration
of poverty. There’s not much I can say in response, other than to note that
numerous studies of urban poverty bear me out.
That doesn’t mean that I’m excusing the violence, or that
teenagers are helpless to control their anger, or that parents shouldn’t do a
better job raising their children. But I’m still convinced that because of the
profound effect of concentrated poverty, unless we deal with that, we won’t
make much headway in reducing the fights. (Or, of course, unless we lock
everybody up.)
So let me address a reader who complained that I didn’t say
what we should do about concentrated poverty. I’ve written about the causes of
poverty numerous times since the founding of this publication, as well as the
things we need to do to make a meaningful dent in it. But it’s worth saying
again.
I’ll start by repeating this: The issue isn’t poverty
itself. It’s the concentration of poverty: neighborhoods in which over decades
and decades, many, many residents are poor and often unemployed. That has a
long-lasting, enormously negative effect on many of the people who live there.
On the children who grow up there.
Certainly some people can thrive – can, despite the odds, do
well in school, get a good job, and become successful. But those odds are huge.
This is simply fact. Numerous studies, by numerous people
and institutions, have documented it. If, despite the evidence, you disagree,
then talking about remedies doesn’t make a lot of sense.
But if you find the evidence valid, then we have plenty to
talk about. There’s no one solution to concentrated poverty. And nothing we
have to do will be simple. But here’s a short list of some essential remedies:
• Break up the concentration of poverty. Provide more
housing subsidies and open more low-income housing in the suburbs so that poor
people can live there. Encourage middle and upper-income residents to move to
the city.
• Raise the income of the working poor. I don’t object to
the Rochester Business Alliance’s initiative to get area employers to hire poor
people. But that has to be accompanied with RBA pushing everybody to promise
they’ll raise the pay of any employees making minimum wage – and to band
together to get the state to raise the minimum wage.
• Create jobs, and train inner-city city residents for
them. This will involve both private-sector and public-sector employers. And it
will require training not only in the necessary technical and academic skills
but also, in some cases, in workplace “social skills” – things as mundane as
getting to work on time.
• Increase funding for programs that help boost the
education and the social skills of children: Nurse-Family Partnership, early
childhood education programs, day care.
• Improve public transportation so
that inner-city residents can get easily not only to jobs in the city but also
to those in the suburbs.
• Dramatically reform public education. Combine school
districts, create new schools, do whatever it takes to let poor children attend
economically and racially integrated schools. Create city schools so
exceptional that suburban families line up to get
their children enrolled. Improve teacher and administrator training and
quality.
A fair number of Rochesterians, by
the way, are trying to address some of these things, and that’s a hopeful sign.
But in the end, success will require an enormous, community-wide effort. And it
will take money. A lot of money.Over
a long time.
If we think we can do it through volunteer efforts alone,
through small initiatives, and on the cheap, we’re deluding ourselves. And
we’re betraying the children of the City of Rochester.
This article appears in May 13-19, 2015.
The war on poverty, since LBJ declared it in the 60’s, brought numerous government sponsored programs, subsidies for housing , money for this and that ; yet , that effort to combat poverty, unfortunately, was a failure.
You’ve cited articles and research showing that poverty has increased over the years while all these government sponsored programs were in affect, yet your solutions suggest continuing on the same path by throwing more money to break up poverty , no, not poverty but the term “concentrated” poverty.
You want people who chose to live in the suburbs to move to the city, while at the same time build housing for poor people in the suburbs, so they can leave the city?
This all sounds like Socialism to me and I think you will get alot of push back from many people who believe that poverty is realistically unsolvable with social programs and forcing people to move where they don’t want to live.
Your ideas, although well intended, seem quite politically debatable , hence, I doubt that there will ever be an agreement on dealing with poverty.
This is the same “solution” the left has for every problem–raise taxpayers taxes even more, and spend even more money on programs. What good is spending more on education when a large number of kids don’t even go to school and the ones that do cause trouble?
Until these individuals look in the mirror and decide to improve their own circumstances, no amount of outside money will help. In fact the “solutions” cited in this article does nothing more than create more excuses for the oppressed. These “solutions” have already been done, over and over again.
How about a little honesty. The “war on poverty” has been an utter failure. Admit you are wrong Mary Anna. 50 years of democrat ruling of most major cities and school districts has produced the results we have. Continuing down this same path is not only insanity, but also inhumane.
OK, so it’s the CONCENTRATION of poverty, not poverty itself, that causes youths to fight. What is the explanation for that, then? The theory seems to be that if too many poor are in a particular area a critical mass is reached and fights are the result. Is it cultural? It is social? Is it an act of rebellion? Is it recreational? Is it safe to assume that breaking up the concentration of poverty will solve the problem; that if the poor are moved to the suburbs (or middle class to the city) fights will be eliminated? Or will diluting poverty just disperse the same problems elsewhere? What do the “numerous studies” on poverty say about that?
Then there is the cost. To quote your article “…it will take money. A lot of money. Over a long time.” Been there and done that! Since the ‘War on Poverty’ started in the 1960s, TRILLIONS of dollars have been spent and by all accounts there are more poor than ever. Will all of the current spending on social programs continue while we add to the cost by subsidizing low income housing in the suburbs? Who will pay the costs of educating children that are added to the suburban schools? Who will pay their rent, taxes, utilities and property maintenance on this “subsidized” housing? I have a pretty good idea where they plan to get all of this funding, but don’t look at me. I am currently paying my own costs of home ownership, including outrageous property taxes, and I have to admit I’m tapped out. I might go out and start a fight.
Bring back the WPA
How will efforts to reduce concentrated poverty not be used to expand concentrated poverty?
Maybe we can send the best and brightest of our urban poor to suburban schools for reprogramming. If successful, they’re gone forever; never coming back as a bridge for the neighbors left behind. And by the way, concentration of poverty increases when this happens. It doesn’t decrease. It’s because the smartest and most well behaved were never a problem to begin with. We want them to stay!
City police should live in the neighborhoods they serve. That would be true community policing. And by the way, concentrated poverty is reduced.
I’m with you when it comes to paying people more? Many of us would rather not have to ask for help when we pay taxes and work so hard.
Hopefully, we can soon all share a vision of Rochester as a city whose people are hardworking and non-judgemental of the reduced numbers of those of concentrated poverty.
Let’s be honest about the newest buzz phrase of the left: “concentrated poverty.” The left loves this phrase because is lays the groundwork for exporting Democrat voters to the suburbs (to turn the “red” suburbs “purple” or “blue”), and making suburbanites pay for housing that will be needed to house them. It’s a “twofer” for the left.
The problem with all of the efforts to reduce poverty is that the completely miss the mark that the person most able to solve the poverty problem is the person you see when you look in the mirror. Nobody can solve poverty for another person any more than they can go to the bathroom for that person. Making the types of decisions necessary to avoid poverty (go to school, avoid getting pregnant before getting married, get and keep a job) rests with the individual. The left fights this tooth and nail because poverty is all about power – gaining more power for themselves to administer so-called “solutions” to poverty that continue to expand the already burgeoning non-profit sector that is already far larger than it should be for the size of the city of Rochester. Continued harping about poverty is nothing more than a power grab.
To solve poverty, people need to take personal responsibility for their own lives. Throwing money at people who could care less about changing their values is worthless. I grew up in a poor family, but my parents pushed me to do good in school, get a college degree, and then, a good job. Living in the burbs is my reward for all the hard work. You state that the odds are huge to get out of the poverty cycle, but yet we continue to provide resources to keep them at just above poverty levels. Stop unemployment after 6 months and instead give them a city/community job to EARN the check. Pay them $10 an hour, out of the millions we waste on unsuccessful programs, to clean up the neighborhoods. They can work as many hours as they want, or don’t want. They will feel a greater sense of pride, or might decide to strive for a better job in the private sector. With generations past, people lined up to jump on a farmer’s truck to earn a days pay in the fields. Fast forward to 2015 and we see people lined up to get government benefits with no effort put forth at all. It take personal pride, which many don’t have. You mentioned we need to encourage middle and upper income residents to move back into the city. I can’t stop laughing about that. The reason people work hard getting an education and a good job is to escape to the suburbs! Why would they want to move back to a crime ridden area? Also, curious what you mean by moving back into the city. Do you mean mixing upper income people into neighborhoods of the poverty stricken? I’ll follow your lead when you leave the Park Avenue area. Instead of increasing funding for the same programs that haven’t worked in 50 years, I would like to see more funding for police deployment and construction of a much larger jail. Isolate those who don’t want to be part of society from those that do. I can see why your paper is free.
How about taking a look at things that have worked in the past? We keep acting like we haven’t found the solution, but I believe we have found solutions, and have abandoned them for not very good reasons.
For example, the question of integrated education. My son attended the original Wilson Magnet School, from which he graduated in the late 80’s. I signed him up for this school, because it was everything I wanted for my son–diversity, city location, high standards and freedom for students to follow their natural talent.
I was proud to say my son attended Wilson Magnet and prouder yet on graduation day, when the seniors who had received a scholarship to higher education were called on by name to stand up and receive applause. Student after student after student after student took their turn at standing. Almost every student had received some kind of scholastic assistance reward (perhaps with the help of inspiring school staff?). Tears came to my eyes. Today, my son is successful and doing well, his three best friends today, were in that same graduating class that night. They too are doing well.
Let’s review what we’ve already done that at least started out with success, and then something happened. Have we been shooting ourselves in the foot?
Let’s find out.