Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Didn't Safeway and Giant at one point have stores in those wards? I think the reason they left was because of theft. Hard to justify a store if more money walks out the doors than goes in the cash register.
Now a seasonal produce stand, I have no clue why there are none. Seems like some local farmer could set up a stand to sell their fruit and veggies. I guess the DC government would want their share, that's probably why there are none.
Yes, loss prevention. Stores cannot be forced to operate as charities..I always thought DC could do FAR more, like offering to open police substations in their entry ways, and other safety minded "partnerships" to encourage these stores to open. Instead, DC got very demandy with WalMart about employment and other perks the city wanted when they were thinking of locating in Washington. If it's simply market driven, no one will open in a demandy city in areas with rampant and tolerated theft. It's also very difficult to apprehend and prosecute for shoplifting, especially in our current world.
It’s fascinating to see a city grandfather in subsidized housing, like what’s happening at Res 13, to counter gentrification and ensure poverty can persist in a desirable neighborhood, so as not to “displace” local residents. As if the area should be preserved in amber for only certain protected classes of people. Most people have to move, but not some.
Anyway, it’s also fascinating to see people struggle to grasp that poor people straight up make bad decisions because they’re poor. They don’t want a damn Whole Foods. They can’t afford that sht. Generally, nor do they possess the wherewithal to understand how to eat mostly vegetables and less unhealthy processed sht. Stores have tried to make a go of it and sell healthy food around Anacostia and Benming and Langton carver and the only way that food takes off is if the area is sufficiently gentrified. Except it’s evil to gentrify, so it’s easier to look for a billion nonsense reasons why there are “food deserts”. It’s because of theft and bad choices. We need to just let areas change. We need to let the market work as it should even if people are priced out. No one has a right to be anywhere forever and it’s annoying to hear people complain about the sadness of poverty and being pushed out and blah blah. Let people move where they can afford to live and maybe that will encourage them to work harder and so forth. Instead of trying to grandfather in the same families to live in projects with subsidized rent for 50 years. I know this place is populated heavily by well intentioned housewives, but I live and grew up in the inner city in DC. It’s way better with gentrification.
Ahh the typical poor people are stupid and lazy. Got it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Didn't Safeway and Giant at one point have stores in those wards? I think the reason they left was because of theft. Hard to justify a store if more money walks out the doors than goes in the cash register.
Now a seasonal produce stand, I have no clue why there are none. Seems like some local farmer could set up a stand to sell their fruit and veggies. I guess the DC government would want their share, that's probably why there are none.
Yes, loss prevention. Stores cannot be forced to operate as charities..I always thought DC could do FAR more, like offering to open police substations in their entry ways, and other safety minded "partnerships" to encourage these stores to open. Instead, DC got very demandy with WalMart about employment and other perks the city wanted when they were thinking of locating in Washington. If it's simply market driven, no one will open in a demandy city in areas with rampant and tolerated theft. It's also very difficult to apprehend and prosecute for shoplifting, especially in our current world.
It’s fascinating to see a city grandfather in subsidized housing, like what’s happening at Res 13, to counter gentrification and ensure poverty can persist in a desirable neighborhood, so as not to “displace” local residents. As if the area should be preserved in amber for only certain protected classes of people. Most people have to move, but not some.
Anyway, it’s also fascinating to see people struggle to grasp that poor people straight up make bad decisions because they’re poor. They don’t want a damn Whole Foods. They can’t afford that sht. Generally, nor do they possess the wherewithal to understand how to eat mostly vegetables and less unhealthy processed sht. Stores have tried to make a go of it and sell healthy food around Anacostia and Benming and Langton carver and the only way that food takes off is if the area is sufficiently gentrified. Except it’s evil to gentrify, so it’s easier to look for a billion nonsense reasons why there are “food deserts”. It’s because of theft and bad choices. We need to just let areas change. We need to let the market work as it should even if people are priced out. No one has a right to be anywhere forever and it’s annoying to hear people complain about the sadness of poverty and being pushed out and blah blah. Let people move where they can afford to live and maybe that will encourage them to work harder and so forth. Instead of trying to grandfather in the same families to live in projects with subsidized rent for 50 years. I know this place is populated heavily by well intentioned housewives, but I live and grew up in the inner city in DC. It’s way better with gentrification.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Didn't Safeway and Giant at one point have stores in those wards? I think the reason they left was because of theft. Hard to justify a store if more money walks out the doors than goes in the cash register.
Now a seasonal produce stand, I have no clue why there are none. Seems like some local farmer could set up a stand to sell their fruit and veggies. I guess the DC government would want their share, that's probably why there are none.
If chains left due to theft, how would the local farmer survive?
People don't steal fresh fruit and veggies.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: thinking and commitment.
I was a big fan of Michelle Obama's health food and Let's Move campaigns but anyone who tried to do that today would be called racist.
Anonymous wrote: thinking and commitment.
Anonymous wrote:Back in the day, there used to be farmer trucks that used to drive up and down the street (like an ice cream truck) and it would stop and sell the produce. Maybe Amazon needs to have a grocery truck on wheels.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Didn't Safeway and Giant at one point have stores in those wards? I think the reason they left was because of theft. Hard to justify a store if more money walks out the doors than goes in the cash register.
Now a seasonal produce stand, I have no clue why there are none. Seems like some local farmer could set up a stand to sell their fruit and veggies. I guess the DC government would want their share, that's probably why there are none.
If chains left due to theft, how would the local farmer survive?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anyway, it’s also fascinating to see people struggle to grasp that poor people straight up make bad decisions because they’re poor. They don’t want a damn Whole Foods. They can’t afford that sht. Generally, nor do they possess the wherewithal to understand how to eat mostly vegetables and less unhealthy processed sht. Stores have tried to make a go of it and sell healthy food around Anacostia and Benming and Langton carver and the only way that food takes off is if the area is sufficiently gentrified. Except it’s evil to gentrify, so it’s easier to look for a billion nonsense reasons why there are “food deserts”. It’s because of theft and bad choices. We need to just let areas change. We need to let the market work as it should even if people are priced out. No one has a right to be anywhere forever and it’s annoying to hear people complain about the sadness of poverty and being pushed out and blah blah. Let people move where they can afford to live and maybe that will encourage them to work harder and so forth. Instead of trying to grandfather in the same families to live in projects with subsidized rent for 50 years. I know this place is populated heavily by well intentioned housewives, but I live and grew up in the inner city in DC. It’s way better with gentrification.
Many cities in the world are laid out this way: the rich live in the center and the poor are out on the fringes. I agree with you that poverty is the problem here, but shipping the poverty out to PG, Woodbridge, Manassas, Wheaton - is that really the best solution?
DP. Yes I think that’s the right solution. The rich will always get the most desirable homes in the most popular neighborhoods, the most sought-after cars, the most enviable vacations, etc. The reason is that those things cost money, and people with more money are more able to afford those things. That’s generally how our society works.
But is that the kid of society we want though? Moving poor people out to the fringes doesn't really solve the problem. We all pay for poverty/individuals' bad decisions. I mean look at our healthcare costs. Do we want to help people live healthier lives or are we ok with paying for high healthcare and other costs related to poverty? Maybe the really rich don't care about this but I do. I'd rather try to figure out how to get more people to be productive and healthy citizens so we all pay less.
Yes.
We'd pay less, or the poor would get better services, if the money spent on the poor wasn't going to ensure that they can live in high-rent districts. If they can't manage they're own diet, if we need to "help people live healthier lives" then they can do it with cheaper real estate. People move for jobs, there's nothing wrong with people moving for cheaper government housing.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anyway, it’s also fascinating to see people struggle to grasp that poor people straight up make bad decisions because they’re poor. They don’t want a damn Whole Foods. They can’t afford that sht. Generally, nor do they possess the wherewithal to understand how to eat mostly vegetables and less unhealthy processed sht. Stores have tried to make a go of it and sell healthy food around Anacostia and Benming and Langton carver and the only way that food takes off is if the area is sufficiently gentrified. Except it’s evil to gentrify, so it’s easier to look for a billion nonsense reasons why there are “food deserts”. It’s because of theft and bad choices. We need to just let areas change. We need to let the market work as it should even if people are priced out. No one has a right to be anywhere forever and it’s annoying to hear people complain about the sadness of poverty and being pushed out and blah blah. Let people move where they can afford to live and maybe that will encourage them to work harder and so forth. Instead of trying to grandfather in the same families to live in projects with subsidized rent for 50 years. I know this place is populated heavily by well intentioned housewives, but I live and grew up in the inner city in DC. It’s way better with gentrification.
Many cities in the world are laid out this way: the rich live in the center and the poor are out on the fringes. I agree with you that poverty is the problem here, but shipping the poverty out to PG, Woodbridge, Manassas, Wheaton - is that really the best solution?
DP. Yes I think that’s the right solution. The rich will always get the most desirable homes in the most popular neighborhoods, the most sought-after cars, the most enviable vacations, etc. The reason is that those things cost money, and people with more money are more able to afford those things. That’s generally how our society works.
But is that the kid of society we want though? Moving poor people out to the fringes doesn't really solve the problem. We all pay for poverty/individuals' bad decisions. I mean look at our healthcare costs. Do we want to help people live healthier lives or are we ok with paying for high healthcare and other costs related to poverty? Maybe the really rich don't care about this but I do. I'd rather try to figure out how to get more people to be productive and healthy citizens so we all pay less.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anyway, it’s also fascinating to see people struggle to grasp that poor people straight up make bad decisions because they’re poor. They don’t want a damn Whole Foods. They can’t afford that sht. Generally, nor do they possess the wherewithal to understand how to eat mostly vegetables and less unhealthy processed sht. Stores have tried to make a go of it and sell healthy food around Anacostia and Benming and Langton carver and the only way that food takes off is if the area is sufficiently gentrified. Except it’s evil to gentrify, so it’s easier to look for a billion nonsense reasons why there are “food deserts”. It’s because of theft and bad choices. We need to just let areas change. We need to let the market work as it should even if people are priced out. No one has a right to be anywhere forever and it’s annoying to hear people complain about the sadness of poverty and being pushed out and blah blah. Let people move where they can afford to live and maybe that will encourage them to work harder and so forth. Instead of trying to grandfather in the same families to live in projects with subsidized rent for 50 years. I know this place is populated heavily by well intentioned housewives, but I live and grew up in the inner city in DC. It’s way better with gentrification.
Many cities in the world are laid out this way: the rich live in the center and the poor are out on the fringes. I agree with you that poverty is the problem here, but shipping the poverty out to PG, Woodbridge, Manassas, Wheaton - is that really the best solution?
DP. Yes I think that’s the right solution. The rich will always get the most desirable homes in the most popular neighborhoods, the most sought-after cars, the most enviable vacations, etc. The reason is that those things cost money, and people with more money are more able to afford those things. That’s generally how our society works.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anyway, it’s also fascinating to see people struggle to grasp that poor people straight up make bad decisions because they’re poor. They don’t want a damn Whole Foods. They can’t afford that sht. Generally, nor do they possess the wherewithal to understand how to eat mostly vegetables and less unhealthy processed sht. Stores have tried to make a go of it and sell healthy food around Anacostia and Benming and Langton carver and the only way that food takes off is if the area is sufficiently gentrified. Except it’s evil to gentrify, so it’s easier to look for a billion nonsense reasons why there are “food deserts”. It’s because of theft and bad choices. We need to just let areas change. We need to let the market work as it should even if people are priced out. No one has a right to be anywhere forever and it’s annoying to hear people complain about the sadness of poverty and being pushed out and blah blah. Let people move where they can afford to live and maybe that will encourage them to work harder and so forth. Instead of trying to grandfather in the same families to live in projects with subsidized rent for 50 years. I know this place is populated heavily by well intentioned housewives, but I live and grew up in the inner city in DC. It’s way better with gentrification.
Many cities in the world are laid out this way: the rich live in the center and the poor are out on the fringes. I agree with you that poverty is the problem here, but shipping the poverty out to PG, Woodbridge, Manassas, Wheaton - is that really the best solution?