St. Louis has observed a decades-long downward trend in population. It grew in numbers until hitting a peak of 822,000 in 1930, and has fallen ever since.
In 2000 its population was down 12% from 1990, to 348,000 people. Not surprisingly, the city has experienced falling tax revenues and diminished clout.
Where did they all go?
Well, they moved out or -equally important- they never moved in.
In cities like St. Louis, where population migrates out and has little new growth, the problems of the city become separated from the resources in the suburbs.
"Transitional problems associated with persistent and severe outmigration also arise: accumulation of disadvantaged citizens, declining demand for city housing, and a diminished replacement capacity in the population."
The pattern is clear: Neighborhoods lose people and then loses revenue. Rent and housing values decline. Vacancies increase. The blight begins to spread. The city cuts back on services even further in a spiral that grows larger and ever larger. The city as a whole becomes even weaker and less desirable.
Some books like Mapping Decline: St. Louis and the Fate of the American City by Colin Gordon focus on racism as the cause. I disagree.
The cause is disorder, and the crime that attends it.
We in Rochester have had in 2008 numerous episodes of gunfire, an experience new to Mayberry. Catching the actual offender does very little to assuage the fear this pattern of violence has caused. Suggesting the fear is exagerrated misses the point.
The prospect of confrontation with a violent or drunk or rowdy or drug-dealing person, whatever his race, induces fear. This is especially true among the defenseless, including the elderly. Their only available responses when the police do not respond to the disorder (and instead focus on the crime alone):
- stay inside, doors locked
- move away
Few resort to violence themselves.
Visitors soon hear of the shootings and become unwilling to visit or move here. The decline begins. It has begun in Rochester. It threatens Mayo Clinic and IBM and the Civic Center. Will Jehovah's Witnesses still rent a hall when they don't feel safe? Youth sports tournaments won't come to a town they are afraid to be in. Patients can visit Johns Hopkins and see a bad neighborhood and good doctors. So why travel here?
What will the city leaders do?
1 comment:
What will the city leaders do? They will do as they have always done....sweep it under the rug, and continue to welcome them in. If they had addressed this issue when the problem began, and made this an inhospitable place for criminals, drug dealers, and sex offenders to set up shop, we might not be dealing with the increasing problems we have today. Just because, "they can't shoot straight at each other," doesn't mean one of us won't be the recipient of one of there free for all shooting sprees. What will the city fathers say then? Will they still continue to make excuses and get the broom out? It's really only a matter of time if things continue on the way they are. "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten." The criminals and thugs that are increasing in number in Rochester come here because Minnesota, and Rochester in particular, takes very good care of them.
Will the neighborhoods where they are infiltrating have their property taxes reduced to accomodate this "misunderstood" population? Will turning our neighborhoods over to slum lords make our neighborhoods more stable and safe? Will continuing to welcome people like this to Rochester with the promise of taking good care of them to promote "diversity" and "political correctness" make Rochester a better city? I would venture to say it would be a resounding "NO" to all of the above.
Post a Comment