Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘LGH Endnotes Sep 8 2018 (Exhortatn | Relate + BACP entities ℅ CompaniesHouse.gov.UK | Relate + AFCC (see my Home Page) etc)

Replicable Models like ~Purpose Built Communities~ Already Have Their (public/private-sponsored) positive PR, but what are the Aftershocks of “Shaking Up Your City” and What, Really, is OUR Bedrock Bottom Line? (started March 14, 2018, edited for about a month, published Sept. 8, 2018)

leave a comment »

You are now reading Replicable Models like ~Purpose Built Communities~ Already Have Their (public/private-sponsored) positive PR, but what are the Aftershocks of “Shaking Up Your City” and What, Really, is OUR Bedrock Bottom Line? (started March 14, 2018, edited for about a month; published Sept. 8, 2018) (shortlink ends “-8OV” and the middle digit is a capital “o”, not the symbol for “zero”) About 7,200 words, some of which are in the impromptu “EndNotes” added because of the long delay in publishing.  

I am coming back in April later to add a fifth (this) and possibly sixth “sticky” post alerting the public again to Place-Based Philanthropy (so-called), and the concentration of multiple federal funding streams onto projects which, ultimately, will be owned by private parties, and profit the private parties, while such parties typically have less need for acquiring more and more real estate (and profits to go with it) than for finding more tax-exempt ways to keep up appearances, retain control of projects and keep down corporate taxes.

Previously, this information was mostly introductory to several posts supplementing my original table of contents, which should be reviewed for the “Purpose-Built Communities” information and related-entity drill-downs already done.

Among the various problems of projects which blend…

  • housing
  • education PreK-12: charter schools, pre-schools, after-school care
  • violence prevention programming (i.e., more nonprofits)
  • etc.

…under common, or collectively coordinated ownership and control is that this ALSO institutes yet another means (infrastructure, technology) to control (subjugate) not just the projects, but also the people who live in them and whose children must still attend school in commonly-controlled settings.

Some of my readers may be old enough to remember the term “projects” as a (properly) disparaging term for housing projects (high-rises, apartment complexes) were those who couldn’t afford to live anywhere more safely, lived there, and were exposed to (and/or their young people pulled into) gangs, drugs, and non-white-collar criminal activity for which the young men of color, particularly, would end up in jail or dead, whether or not this situation connected at higher levels with so-called ‘white-collar’ financial or other crimes higher up.

The “Purpose-Built Community” model hails from Atlanta, Georgia area, sprang from, a certain “East Lake” housing project colloquially called “little Viet Nam.”

Probably every major urban city in the US could name its own infamous projects that people had to continue living in and dealing with. In Chicago, on the “Near North” side not far from affluent “the Gold Coast” there was an infamous “Cabrini Green” (“the End of Cabrini-Green” photo essay in TIME).See also “Cabrini-Green” entry in Enclyclopedia of Chicago page with one photo (and some links) whose copyrights and qualifiers are almost longer than the article, or I’d show it here. Its concise history relevant to the context; I hope viewers will take a few minutes to read it. I can safely quote just a bit, however (any emphases added, but not the links):

…Formerly “Swede Town” and then “Little Hell,” the site of the Cabrini-Green public housing complex was notorious in the early twentieth century for its inhabitants’ poverty and dilapidated building…The original population of Cabrini-Green reflected the area’s prior ethnic mix; poor ItaliansIrishPuerto Ricans, and African Americans lived among the war workers and veterans. Racial segregation overtook Cabrini-Green by the early 1960s.

The large new apartments and large swaths of recreation space failed to mend the area’s poverty. The difficulty blacks had finding better, affordable housing gave Cabrini-Green a permanent population. CHA failed to budget money to repair buildings and maintain landscaping as they deteriorated. Cabrini-Green’s reputation for crime and gangs rivaled Little Hell’s. …

Increasing real-estate values in the late twentieth century led housing officials to propose replacement of the complex with mixed-income housing. Residents argued however that such a move would displace them permanently, completing the slum removal effort begun with the building of Cabrini Homes half a century earlier.

And from the Time photo-essay link above:

Bid for Rebirth (next-to-last photo caption from the “End of Cabrini Green” photo-essay in “Time”, above).
Despite the trouble, many residents fought the Chicago Housing Authority‘s push to demolish thousands of units. The city agreed that some buildings would remain, while new units were built. A tenant group sued to prevent themselves from becoming homeless. The CHA enacted a Plan for Transformation in 2000, which included demolishing all of its public housing and replacing it with mixed income units and relocating tenants.

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: