To respond, magnachef, it depends on who's conception of "the bad" we're referring to.
Let's not sugarcoat it--a lot of Elmwood Villagers want all the lower-SES businesses and people driven out of the neighborhood. They desire what they think of as a perfect city-living area. They want the former residents of the area to leave, completely, so that they can occupy the entire area and decide what gets to go on there. Who is to say that their conceptions of what the neighborhood should be are correct? Why are they in the right and the former residents of the area in the wrong?
It goes well beyond KFC. A place with numerous health code violations deserves to get shut down, no one is arguing that. However, it is clear that, regardless of the rats and the grease, many people simply didn't want that business in the area. They thought it was an eyesore; they disliked the clientèle. There's an inherent value judgment being made here: that hipster sidewalk bistros are somehow naturally better than KFC. Some comments have pointed to KFC's use of trans fat while cooking, and how that's a bad thing for the neighborhood. I say, so what? Is your way of life so threatened because a restaurant (which you choose not to eat at) prepares artery-clogging food? I certainly hope not.
To reflip, I find your argument simply off-base. What you are suggesting might be called the "white-ification" of the Elmwood Village, and you are saying that it is beneficial to everyone?? I must disagree. Sure, it benefits everyone who lives in the neighborhood. However, it also necessitates kicking people out of the area who are deemed as unfit residents, be they homeless, working poor, or simply kind of messy. How are they being benefited? The people who lived in the Elmwood area before it became chic aren't getting anything benefit whatsoever, unless you call being able to sell their homes for slightly inflated prices beneficial.
To quote KRS-ONE as you did, "You can love your neighborhood without loving poverty." I'm not going to disagree with that. However, there's a startling difference between trying to work within to raise the standard of life of the impoverished in an area, and simply kicking them out so they can go be poor somewhere else. I don't know if you have noticed, but the Elmwood Village has become much more the latter in recent years. Like I said, if you want to live in a Green Party paradise, taking over an area and then holding everyone to standards YOU DEEM FIT is hardly the way to do it. Just because the Villagers think they know what is best for the area doesn't mean it is what's best for the area. Like it or not, there are two sides to every coin.
To Rez, accepting lower standards for poverty and crime in some areas is racism?? How the hell do you figure? If I want to live in North Buffalo instead of Clarence, I accept that there will be more crime and more poverty. That's makes me a racist......how?? I'd say it makes me realistic. Again, we have gone way beyond KFC by this point, but "raising community standards" and "businesses that harm citizens" is an insulated view on the world. If the community standards aren't good enough for you, who is to say they aren't good enough for other people who live there? And running them out of the neighborhood is the solution? Poppycock.
Also, one more word of note: government doesn't exist to "protect you" from from greasy foods or health code violations. If you really didn't like KFC, there are a number of things community organizers could have done to either shut it down or force it to comply with health codes. Complaining that the government didn't step in right away to help you is nothing more than a sign of your own unwillingness to tackle a problem yourself.
Report this