Posted on 08/29/2006 12:04:06 PM PDT by ShadowDancer
U.S. Census Bureau: Detroit, Nation's Second Poorest City
POSTED: 12:00 pm EDT August 29, 2006
UPDATED: 12:19 pm EDT August 29, 2006
The U.S. Census Bureau ranks Detroit as the county's second poorest big city.
Detroit has 31.4 percent of its residents living in poverty
Cleveland took the top spot.
Cleveland had 32.4 percent of its 452,200 people living below the poverty level in 2005, according to the American Community Survey released Tuesday.
Last year, Cleveland fell to No. 12 on the list.
City leaders celebrated when the 2005 survey put the city's poverty level at 23.2 percent, down from the nation-leading 31.3 percent the year before.
But some questioned how the ranking could fall so far in just 12 months.
Lot of prime property available...
Detroit - also the nation's most liberal city...
well, both Detroit and Cleveland are among many cities where the middle class moved to the suburbs long ago, and the people left behind were disporportionaltly poor.
But I thought union jobs were so good...
That would be Washington, D.C.
A city like Detroit should be a model city test case for liberal values and liberal solutions to society's problems. It's puzzling why so many cities with liberal mayors and liberal city councils are such basket cases.
What did Jim Quinn say? Something to the effect of: "The amount of wealth in a city is in inverse proportion to the number of Democrats running it."
took the words right out of my mouth.
Really? Nothing in CA would beat it? Or MA or NJ for that matter?
Yep, got that right.
Tried to open a business in Cleveland a few years ago, what a joke. You should see all the hoops that you got to agree to just to have a store front. God forbid you piss off one of the city fathers, they'll just shut you down in a heartbeat.
Just my two cents...
That was from a Michigan site, I would assume that's why.
Cleveland, like Detroit, is run by 'Rats.
The 'Rats are always insisting they care about the poor.
Apparently, they care so much that they want to be sure the poor have plenty of company - by creating more poor.
But, of course, its all Bush's fault.
Not sure about the "prime" part, unless you mean "location" only...
What we have here is a case of:
...."the outgo of the income."
Yep...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.