Suburbs dumping mentally ill and homeless into cities

**randomuser** · 05-28-2012, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by mixiboi

Which is sad because most those places exist because they didn't want to pay for the "Better infrastructure and resources" to deal with problems.

Out of sight, out of mind.

That's a bit of a generalization, however in a lot of cases you're right. Even in the working class parts of Delco, they were built much more efficiently and self-sufficiently than the wealthier suburbs were. That's why they've dealt with low-income problems in their neighborhoods a lot more quietly for many years now and have stayed mostly stable.

Originally Posted by OldMama

Perhaps, then, the burbs should invest in some "better infrastructure and resources." We're full.

No, the city is not even remotely full. Whether people in urban areas like it or not (including my urban area outside of the city that has people from the nicer suburbs to the north and west dumping their problems onto us), we're supposed to be the ones supporting the problems of the metro at large. That's what the deal is in many major cities because most major cities are the centers for everything, good and bad. Around here, it's any large enough urban area.

Think about it for a second. You'd want to ruin the ritzy places in this metro by opening up places that attract problems in boroughs or townships much smaller than a large city like Philadelphia? How does that help anybody?

Originally Posted by mixiboi

Or the Northeast Philly. They almost had an aneurysm because a meth clinic wanted to open up...

It happens, The difference tho is that at LEASE they are paying for places to exist within their community(city).

Meth clinics don't open up in ritzy areas. They open up in places that can't fight it off with tons of money. People love to paint every far off part of the city as a giant suburb but there are communities in the Northeast that are working to middle class. The difference is that they hold their neighborhoods together, mostly because a lot of them are far enough from the problem sections of the city that they're not right up against it.

Originally Posted by Cya

The cities have better infrastructure and resources to deal with these problems? Ok, maybe. But does that mean that the cities should be the dumping ground for the suburbs?
It would be interesting to take 100 of these mentally ill, drug addicted homeless people and find out their actual home town.
Where did they come from?
I know they move around a lot, but they have to have a home town, right?
Same thing with the meth clinics and drug halfway houses. Where did they come from?
Just because you landed in Philly or Atlantic City somehow, now those cities have to provide services for you? How is that fair to the taxpayers of those cities?

Yes, it does. That's the way it's supposed to work. The cities are large and powerful enough that they can handle what smaller suburbs can't.

I'll agree with you there, however the fact is that what needs to change is the kids who grow up in those nicer areas need to get a sense of shame at the fact that they come from money and yet end up in Kensington or somewhere else as an addict. It's seen as way too acceptable to do something like that, and plenty of neighborhoods suffer because of these kids.

I don't think taxpayers of the cities should have to pay for those who aren't from the city. I'm in agreement with you there. I think to be honest with you that every addict should have to pay for their own rehab and to be in any kind of clinic. There isn't enough personal responsibility these days at all.