Why do you assume a decrease in crime when every effort at subsidized low income housing since FDR has resulted in higher crime rates. And that encompasses every urban design scheme from high rise concentration, ro townhouse clusters, row housing you name it, it's been tried and every time it has been a tragic failure.
The only benefits are political; insuring a dense population for electoral districts, sweetheart contracts to cronies, eternal and ever increasing Federal aid, and a bloated local bureaucracy and a perpetual slave class. The socialists don't want the urban poor to be educated or trained for meaningful and rewarding work, the poor have become the raw resources by which to conquer the rest of the citizenry.
Why do you assume a decrease in crime when every effort at subsidized low income housing since FDR has resulted in higher crime rates.
__________________________________________________________
I am not advocating some sort of subsidized home, I am advocating absolutely NO housing in those areas. A park or a nature preserve would see a reduction in crime. True, crime happens in Central Park in NYC, but people don’t live in the park. It would be easier to enforce after dark.
I agree with you on the political aspect. As I was cutting my lawn just now, a smaller Detroit would mean fewer political precincts/wards to monitor on election day. Elecition judges/officers would not be spread so thin. I would think that the most blighted areas of a city is where the voting fraud is done because it would be hard to prove where people live.