Posted on 02/25/2013 6:47:47 PM PST by DogByte6RER
Newark was hoping for a revitalization along the lines of Jersey City, but wasn’t able to expel the undesirables in the same way. As long as they have that albatross around their neck, they’ll never be anything.
Newark’s only hope is the growing Hispanic population; not ideal but certainly better. In their neighborhoods business is transacted and money changes hands (not just drugs; they have supermarkets where others couldn’t make a go of it and such). Booker is better than his predecessor but still a lib; at least he knows no amount of government money will ever make whites want to stay in the city spending money after dark.
Some cities on the list are dubious. Milwaukee is hardly a horrible city to live in. Even if it’s been run by Dems for decades if not for a century. And Rockford? Can somebody tell me what’s so horrible about Rockford? Other than it being run by Dems I’m assuming.
Why is St. Louis on the list while East St. Louis is not?
Some other really sad, miserable places:
Muskegon, Michigan
Harrisburg, PA
Baltimore, MD
Bridgeport, CT
Syracuse, NY
I would place Frisco at number one.
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.