Now, we probably share the opinion that a new trailer park isn't the best use of undeveloped space. We probably agree that there might be better affordable housing options than a depreciating asset. But it would appear that we disagree in the empathy department.
Now, the question is: would you be irritated if someone evicted you from your land, wouldn't allow you to move your home, and wouldn't pay you for it? Probably. Unfortunately that's what the groundbreaking is about -- a compassionate response to a &^%$#ed up problem. Not our tax base, and not a standard that you or I might find acceptable personally. Just a workable compromise.
Oh, and what "makes it ok" is that individuals have chosen to do it and can do so within the local laws. It's also what makes it ok for a large retailer to, say, mass grade a huge piece of property and pipe the stream running through it or what allows a wing joint to locate in a very nice residential neighborhood. (These are two examples that come up over and over.) We may not like it, but we don't get to disregard the laws because of that.
2. I'm of two minds on this one. Kudos to the landlord for being practive about crime in her 'hood, but I'm still sad for the trees and whatnot.
The only quibble I'll make is this:
Translation: "We're trying to solve this problem in this location by displacing them from this place to another place altogether. " In other words, we're still not solving any problems on a citywide or regional basis. This isn't a quibble with the affected people -- I know about your prostitute- and drug user-related pain and I know that absent a comprehensive solution one has to seek mere relief -- but we as a city need to think bigger or we'll just continually play whac-a-mole with crime in various neighborhoods to great public cost and consternation until a neighborhood that is poor enough and disenfranchised enough can be located for the crime to move into.
"It's a perpetual problem for us, and we'd like to see these people out of the community altogether," Morris said. "We're trying to build a coalition (of landlords) to solve these problems rather than just displacing them from one place to another."
3. Total agreement with you, JMac. But you know , that is the general Republican solution -- earn a lot of money and screw those who can't or don't. Also, people, I like market solutions -- but there are services which cannot and should not be left to the market. Water is one of those.
P.S. I'll explore the recent article on UGA child care at the other blog in the next day or so. It needs a deeper exploration.