There’s an interesting article in the March Atlantic Magazine which speculates that in 20 years, a lot of today’s posh suburban developments in the exurban fringes could become low-income slum communities (“The Next Slum?” by Christopher Leinberger). The subprime mortgage crisis may have set in motion a process powered by a series of underlying demographic and economic factors, a process that may leave the cities and inner suburbs better off and the exurbs and their McMansions much worse. It would be hard today to imagine gangs, drug dealing, and vinyl-clad estate houses split up into tenements out along the Interstates and outer-beltways, but perhaps in 20 years the suburban-fringe paradises of today will become tomorrow’s nightmares. Stranger things have happened within the context of decades.
This made me thing of a song that I just bought and downloaded from the new Amazon MP3 site. I’m not getting paid to plug for Amazon, but I will give them credit for not requiring that you download their special software to buy their music. All of the other major digital music sites seem to require that, and personally I don’t like it. Who knows what their software is doing that you’re not aware of. My computer and its registry are cluttered enough as it is without needing a special application for every site that I do business with.
Anyway, the song I’m referring to is Cashman & West’s “American City Suite”, from 1972. It’s a lament about the decline and decay of urban neighborhood life in New York City that took place back in the 60’s. American City Suite is actually a rather touching and underrated tune; there’s some real emotion in it. It got some airplay for a few months after it was released, but has gone entirely unnoticed since then. Nice that Amazon decided to list it (I think that MSN also has it). Here we are, about 40 years later, and maybe those urban neighborhoods are coming back. And perhaps the suburbs (the outer ones, anyway) are going to experience the social decline that they previously caused in the cities, what Cashman & West sang about. It makes you wonder if Terry Cashman is thinking about writing a new version lamenting the end of the McMansion / SUV dream.
Jim,
Isn’t it a kind of cycle of “nature” that inevitably what was once new becomes old and vice versa?
I know here in the Midwest gentrification of the inner city of Chicago has been going on for years. Some of the most expensive properties and “snobbiest” areas are in downtown Chicago. And conversely there are suburbs that have been known for years to be the home of the “criminal element,” so to say. It seems there is a kind of “rotation of the stock” of property that has a very long “rotation” cycle that may be hard to see, but that is nevertheless real.
I agree with you that there are and will be unforeseen consequences to the mortgage crisis.
In this same line of thought about unforeseen consequences I read in today’s paper that Oklahoma is experiencing just such an unforeseen crisis–but in regard to their strict enforcement of immigration restrictions. It seems the extremely strict crack down on immigration in Oklahoma has lead to construction companies being unable to finish projects on time, restaurants and various other places of business closing because of lost business–all due to the enforcement of the strict immigration laws; so many people have left Oklahoma that these businesses now have nobody to serve and are laying off help and may soon close.
It seems Oklahoma is a just-under-the-surface racist state that is now reaping the consequences of their lack of foresight in regard to the strict enforcement of these laws.
The article even went so far as to say that while the thought is that undocumented immigrants drain the economy, in fact, what they drain out of the economy is outweighed by what they bring to the economy in their business.
Reading that article set me to thinking: If the U.S. persists in its continued efforts in regard to the immigration laws, imagine all (or a large number of) the immigrants in this country suddenly being forced (by the U.S.) to “take their business elsewhere”!
And we think the economy is currently in trouble…..
This line of thought then had me thinking about a piece on 20/20 Friday night last about a couple from Arkansas who “adopted” a Chinese child; this couple appeared to be Christian evangelicals and conservatives and were definitely “American”. I was struck by their inability to see any side of the situation but their own; and thus seeing only one side of the situation (their own), they concluded that theirs had to be the absolutely RIGHT side to the situation.
This “adoption” was fought for years by the Chinese birth parents of the child who maintained steadfastly that they had agreed ONLY to a temporary custody arrangement. To make a long story short and to get to the point that set me to thinking:
In the end, it was the Chinese couple who impressed me. After winning their child back in court, this Chinese couple seeing the distress of their daughter at missing the only people she knew for the first years of her life, the Chinese couple graciously, generously, and altruistically volunteered to allow the adoptive couple visitation privileges. Amazing! Especially when the American couple (among other things–see below) blatantly and steadfastly had almost viciously refused the Chinese couple any modicum of visitation while they had the child.
Then, in an ironic twist: The adoptive couple, who had been lobbying for deportation for the Chinese birth family, did a 180 and now are begging Congress to allow the Chinese family to stay in this country, lest they (the adoptive) couple not be able to see the child they once “adopted”. The icongruity here between what the American couple attempted and how it eventually backfired on them is thick with the incomprehension of the possible consequences of the actions as “not seen” by the American couple; in contrast, the Chinese couple seem to be the only ones who had any real, objective, comprehensive view of the entire situation.
I was struck by this story and by the fact that it was the “outside
Comment by Anonymous — February 10, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Jim,
Isn’t it a kind of cycle of “nature” that inevitably what was once new becomes old and vice versa?
I know here in the Midwest gentrification of the inner city of Chicago has been going on for years. Some of the most expensive properties and “snobbiest” areas are in downtown Chicago. And conversely there are suburbs that have been known for years to be the home of the “criminal element,” so to say. It seems there is a kind of “rotation of the stock” of property that has a very long “rotation” cycle that may be hard to see, but that is nevertheless real.
I agree with you that there are and will be unforeseen consequences to the mortgage crisis.
In this same line of thought about unforeseen consequences I read in today’s paper that Oklahoma is experiencing just such an unforeseen crisis–but in regard to their strict enforcement of immigration restrictions. It seems the extremely strict crack down on immigration in Oklahoma has lead to construction companies being unable to finish projects on time, restaurants and various other places of business closing because of lost business–all due to the enforcement of the strict immigration laws; so many people have left Oklahoma that these businesses now have nobody to serve and are laying off help and may soon close.
It seems Oklahoma is a just-under-the-surface racist state that is now reaping the consequences of their lack of foresight in regard to the strict enforcement of these laws.
The article even went so far as to say that while the thought is that undocumented immigrants drain the economy, in fact, what they drain out of the economy is outweighed by what they bring to the economy in their business.
Reading that article set me to thinking: If the U.S. persists in its continued efforts in regard to the immigration laws, imagine all (or a large number of) the immigrants in this country suddenly being forced (by the U.S.) to “take their business elsewhere”!
And we think the economy is currently in trouble…..
This line of thought then had me thinking about a piece on 20/20 Friday night last about a couple from Arkansas who “adopted” a Chinese child; this couple appeared to be Christian evangelicals and conservatives and were definitely “American”. I was struck by their inability to see any side of the situation but their own; and thus seeing only one side of the situation (their own), they concluded that theirs had to be the absolutely RIGHT side to the situation.
This “adoption” was fought for years by the Chinese birth parents of the child who maintained steadfastly that they had agreed ONLY to a temporary custody arrangement. To make a long story short and to get to the point that set me to thinking:
In the end, it was the Chinese couple who impressed me. After winning their child back in court, this Chinese couple seeing the distress of their daughter at missing the only people she knew for the first years of her life, the Chinese couple graciously, generously, and altruistically volunteered to allow the adoptive couple visitation privileges. Amazing! Especially when the American couple (among other things–see below) blatantly and steadfastly had almost viciously refused the Chinese couple any modicum of visitation while they had the child.
Then, in an ironic twist: The adoptive couple, who had been lobbying for deportation for the Chinese birth family, did a 180 and now are begging Congress to allow the Chinese family to stay in this country, lest they (the adoptive) couple not be able to see the child they once “adopted”. The icongruity here between what the American couple attempted and how it eventually backfired on them is thick with the incomprehension of the possible consequences of the actions as “not seen” by the American couple; in contrast, the Chinese couple seem to be the only ones who had any real, objective, comprehensive view of the entire situation.
I was struck by this story and by the fact that it was the “outsiders”, the immigrants (who at last hearing are now required to RETURN to China with ALL their children)were the ones who had the more noble and moral foundation; the very Christian, conservative, narrow-minded parents came off just as described in those three adjectives.
And it just may be that the American couple will reap the “benefits” of lobbying for deportation of an immigrant family.
I find myself saying in these situations: Who’s crying now?
Transfer these above situations to other situations, and I find myself wondering about how many other unforeseen consequences we will reap from the Iraq war, the almost certain recession that is upon the country, and the other policies left as a legacy by the current administration.
And once again, I’ve gone off on my own tangent, fired by the thoughts you sparked.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — February 10, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Jim,
Isn’t it a kind of cycle of “nature” that inevitably what was once new becomes old and vice versa?
I know here in the Midwest gentrification of the inner city of Chicago has been going on for years. Some of the most expensive properties and “snobbiest” areas are in downtown Chicago. And conversely there are suburbs that have been known for years to be the home of the “criminal element,” so to say. It seems there is a kind of “rotation of the stock” of property that has a very long “rotation” cycle that may be hard to see, but that is nevertheless real.
I agree with you that there are and will be unforeseen consequences to the mortgage crisis.
In this same line of thought about unforeseen consequences I read in today’s paper that Oklahoma is experiencing just such an unforeseen crisis–but in regard to their strict enforcement of immigration restrictions. It seems the extremely strict crack down on immigration in Oklahoma has lead to construction companies being unable to finish projects on time, restaurants and various other places of business closing because of lost business–all due to the enforcement of the strict immigration laws; so many people have left Oklahoma that these businesses now have nobody to serve and are laying off help and may soon close.
It seems Oklahoma is a just-under-the-surface racist state that is now reaping the consequences of their lack of foresight in regard to the strict enforcement of these laws.
The article even went so far as to say that while the thought is that undocumented immigrants drain the economy, in fact, what they drain out of the economy is outweighed by what they bring to the economy in their business.
Reading that article set me to thinking: If the U.S. persists in its continued efforts in regard to the immigration laws, imagine all (or a large number of) the immigrants in this country suddenly being forced (by the U.S.) to “take their business elsewhere”!
And we think the economy is currently in trouble…..
This line of thought then had me thinking about a piece on 20/20 Friday night last about a couple from Arkansas who “adopted” a Chinese child; this couple appeared to be Christian evangelicals and conservatives and were definitely “American”. I was struck by their inability to see any side of the situation but their own; and thus seeing only one side of the situation (their own), they concluded that theirs had to be the absolutely RIGHT side to the situation.
This “adoption” was fought for years by the Chinese birth parents of the child who maintained steadfastly that they had agreed ONLY to a temporary custody arrangement. To make a long story short and to get to the point that set me to thinking:
In the end, it was the Chinese couple who impressed me. After winning their child back in court, this Chinese couple seeing the distress of their daughter at missing the only people she knew for the first years of her life, the Chinese couple graciously, generously, and altruistically volunteered to allow the adoptive couple visitation privileges. Amazing! Especially when the American couple (among other things–see below) blatantly and steadfastly had almost viciously refused the Chinese couple any modicum of visitation while they had the child.
Then, in an ironic twist: The adoptive couple, who had been lobbying for deportation for the Chinese birth family, did a 180 and now are begging Congress to allow the Chinese family to stay in this country, lest they (the adoptive) couple not be able to see the child they once “adopted”. The icongruity here between what the American couple attempted and how it eventually backfired on them is thick with the incomprehension of the possible consequences of the actions as “not seen” by the American couple; in contrast, the Chinese couple seem to be the only ones who had any real, objective, comprehensive view of the entire situation.
I was struck by this story and by the fact that it was the “outside
Comment by Anonymous — February 10, 2008 @ 3:31 pm