Smart Growth

Here, I will transfer some of my ideas from Jan. 16, except in more eloquent words.

I love smart-growth. I love city life. I love the small-town community feel that smart-growth brings to city life. I love the walking city. I love local businesses (only when they're not expensive). But when I think of smart-growth, I immediately think of Pasadena. And even the L.A. Times article declared, "L.A. is Pasadena-izing," as opposed to "Manhattan-izing." But when you think about smart-growth in the low-income areas, they are always publicized as heroic projects to 'save' the community. But are you kidding me? Once the development finishes, the rent would be so high, the shops so expensive, no low-income resident would even try to continue living there. Like when Schroeer was guest lecture in the cluster, he was going to Compton that same day to try to promote smart growth in Compton. He showed us an example of what changed zoning codes could do to revitalize a community. Nah. I don't buy your example. You exchanged a Check-into-Cash into a 5 story retail building. What kind of retail? Most likely stores too expensive for Check-into-Cash patrons to patronize. So you took away their 'bank,' now they lose a bit of financial security. So they move to other low-income neighborhoods. Who else moves in? The young middle-class who is appreciative of the mixed-use, small-city-like community.
There, you have revitalized the community. Only by displacing low-income residents. And that's exactly what they are doing in mid-Wilshire Korea Town.
Frankly, it seems like a modern-day, euphemistic excuse/version of oh-so-controversial slum clearance.