Harrisburg Happening

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Courthouse selection

Well, the good folks at GSA have saved a gentrified section of town in favor of disrupting the lives of the working poor. Not that I expected anything different from this administration, which caters to the rich and seems to have a real distain for anyone who might be struggling. Yes, let's displace single mothers and children from a relatively safe and clean environment. Mustn't inconvenience the DINKS at all.

Anyone look at the racial disparity between the sites? Looks like a discrimination case to me. Yes, I'll play the race card, because it is the right card. And I don't care if the regional administrator is an African-American Bush-loving ex-Harrisburger.

16 Comments:

Blogger Aries708 said...

Looks more like you are pulling the DINK (Dual-Income No Kids)card instead.

Last time I checked this was not about one neighborhood against another.

The so called "rich" people did not pick the site, GSA did. No one but GSA is responsible for any of this--the initial site selections or the final recommendation. And we're not rich...for the last time! None of us went to Italy!!!

And for the damn record, there are people in the North and Green location that have kids and not necessarily two incomes.

You are just highlighting your ignorance. So get off your soap box woman.

If you want to be a real Liberal, be objective...otherwise you are as bad as the right wingers who make broad generalizations. In fact, you just give them credibility by playing the race card.

Other than that, nice blog.

July 18, 2006  
Blogger Anniken Davenport, Esquire said...

Ah - I sure know how to get a reaction. And that is, after all, my goal. (Italy wasn't a vacation, actually. It was work.)

I never said that it was the DINKS who made GSA do anything - rather, it is the federal government's policy of putting the working poor last that most likely helped push the balance against Cumberland Court. DINKS and everyone else on Green just happened to benefit from the current administration's policies.

July 18, 2006  
Blogger hbggirl said...

I gotta say that I am on the same page with Aries on this one. I used to live in that "DINK" neighborhood. I feel like you are addressing that neighborhood as Linda Thompson once addressed a constituent of that neighborhood, "You and your particular population in that part of town"...what exactly are you implying? People who WORK HARD FOR WHAT THEY HAVE should be kicked out because they live in WHAT YOU THINK is some exclusive neighborhood and they're all rich and can afford to be displaced?

Let me tell you something - and AGAIN, I lived there for close to a decade - there are PLENTY of folks in that neighborhood who live paycheck to paycheck (no joke here, I could give names but that would be rude and no need for everyone to be rude now) just like the "po" folk in Cumberland Court. PLENTY. Go for a walk in that 4 block area (which, incidentally, I believe was thrown in as a red herring from the beginning so SOME people couldn't say that they GSA was only targeting the poor peolpe because IT ISN'T BIG ENOUGH ANYWAY!!!!) and then you tell me where the DINKS live. I think that you may have two DINK couples in that entire area. Really. That's it. 2.

I am annoyed by the comments starting this string. Terribly.

July 18, 2006  
Blogger Anniken Davenport, Esquire said...

Sorry to cause any distress. I certainly wasn't implying that the Green Street area should have been taken over and above all other areas available. And there were plenty of other choices. And when all this was in the selection stages, I never favored one over the other - I thought all three interest groups should have stuck together and urged that neither be taken when a few blocks on the other side of the Market there are empty lots and abandoned houses. Now, that would have been a place where putting the courthouse would actually help the city. But that said, it is now over. And all I am saying is that when the government had to choose between a high rise tower housing the elderly and disabled, a subsidized apartment complex for the working poor and a largely middle class and business community, it chose to displace the working poor. It seems to me that those who have worked hard to get ahead (or who have been lucky as may be the case for some) have the means to easily relocate, while others don't have as easy a time moving.

July 18, 2006  
Blogger hbggirl said...

FURTHERMORE, if I have understood correctly in what I have been reading and hearing, those folks in Cumberland Court will receive assistance to move. Ain't no one giving the "DINKerhood" handout to relocate.

And that's all I have to say about that. I am SO annoyed. If that's not what you meant to say and you think all of the locations sucks and it should have been somewhere else then say that. What you said CLEARLY implies that it should have been in the CAN neighborhood cuz them rich white folk can afford to move. ANNOYING.

July 18, 2006  
Blogger Anniken Davenport, Esquire said...

OK - you guys aren't hearing me. I said none of the three neighborhoods should be chosen. But if it must be one, it should be the one where more people have the means to pick up and go. My last choice would be the elderly and disabled. That leaves two choices. . .

And everyone in the Green Street plan WOULD also get relocation assistance. Renters would get help as would owners, who would get the fair market value of their properties. That's how emminent domain works. Businesses would also get fair market value.

I suspect that the Green Street crowd would have kept the project blocked for years in litigation over what exactly is fair market value. That may be another reason it was not selected.

My impression - most people now don't care about the GSA decision.

July 18, 2006  
Blogger Jones1234 said...

"FAIR MARKET VALUE" my ass. Seriously. I know people who have been through this before and it's amazing what the government's idea of "Fair market value is."

I'm the first to admit that I am a huuuuge flaming liberal, but at the moment, even I am annoyed at your comments.

July 18, 2006  
Blogger Jones1234 said...

And another thing...most of the people affected by the GSA's impendig decision DID stick together. It was Clare Jones who started pitting one neighborhood against another. Take it up with her.

July 18, 2006  
Blogger Anniken Davenport, Esquire said...

Well, since the site with multiple owners wasn't picked, fair market value isn't an issue except for the owner of the rental complex.

I don't have any control over whether the federal government sets a fair fair market value - but there are plenty of attorneys who specialize in just this sort of compensation, so I think property owners would have made out OK. Look, I'm glad they don't have to move. I'm not glad others have to move. Heck, judging from the Patriot coverage, some Cumberland Court residents are more than willing to move, so maybe this whole discussion is moot.

And I'm the first to admit I don't want the courthouse in my literal backyard. But guess what - I won't get a penny for the loss I'm suffering. I get stuck with a tall terror target. I may have to move, and I won't get any compensation. So don't tell me I'm all about resentment of those with means.

July 18, 2006  
Blogger Anniken Davenport, Esquire said...

Besides, shouldn't we all be happy now - the die is cast and no historic properties will be lost.

July 18, 2006  
Blogger Aries708 said...

Jones is so right. It was the other neighborhoods that did not want to band together. They could not get past that damn race card you said was the "right card" to play.

When are people going to get past the labels?

"Musn't inconvenience the DINKS at all." is what you said. Jeez, what the friggin' Hell is that about!?!? That might have been worded better, no? That statement would lead me to believe that there is more to this than GSA's decision.

Where you wronged by a DINK in a past life?

I think you should proof your thoughts before hitting the publish button Anniken. I'd argue that you weren't simply hunting for a reaction, that is a cop out.

I'd be grateful that these blog commenters are decent folks...

July 18, 2006  
Blogger Anniken Davenport, Esquire said...

OK OK I'm a bit surprised at this reaction. No, I have not been wronged by any DINKS in life. Or anyone else. I'm sorry if my working class background colors my views of the world. I look at the inequity I see in the United States and simply don't see the opportunities readily available for the working poor that are available for the middle class. And I see that gap has been widening. So my sympathies are naturally with the poor and working class rather than the middle class and above.

So perhaps my attitude is colored by class concerns.

July 19, 2006  
Blogger TattooJim said...

WOW , seems like you woke em up here...I like grilled cheese sandwiches. put your courthouse here in the projects..can't sell rock while the sheriff is lookin at ya...grilled cheese sandwiches are cool...

July 21, 2006  
Blogger Anniken Davenport, Esquire said...

Jim - I don't understand the grilled cheese? Is it an idiom I don't know?

July 21, 2006  
Blogger TattooJim said...

...everyone was so heated I just thought I'd take a hard left turn, you can delete it if you'd like..I didnt see any reason for peeps piling on you so I wrote something ridiculous....thats all...

July 21, 2006  
Blogger Anniken Davenport, Esquire said...

Thanks - I appreciate that. I was a little surprised, too. But I'm not backing down on my opinion. The fact is (and I have posted this weeks ago) I would have gladly allowed GSA to take my house and complex if it meant preserving a working class subsidized apartment complex. I have the means to go elsewhere without a lot of inconvenience (although I love my house) But GSA said our block is too small. It's not like I said Green Street should be sacrificed and wasn't willing to do the same myself.

July 21, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home