The story is the same for most American homeowners: For years, you kept moving up the neighborhood ladder. From low-rent apartment in a part of town where you heard gunshots every other night, to a townhome with reasonable rent in a decent neighborhood, to finally a nice house in a good neighborhood. Compared to other areas of your city, you pay more in taxes for the luxury to live in such a neighborhood, and taxes have been going up to maintain that standard of living. But since the neighborhood is nice, you don’t mind. After years of hard work, you now have your place in a good neighborhood that has low crime and good schools. You deserve it. You earned it.
But Barack Obama doesn’t think so.
Everyone deserves to live in neighborhoods like yours. Everyone deserves an upgrade. And you should have to pay the bill.
We wish we were kidding.
Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County, Michigan, has a great idea that he started in Flint: Bulldoze run-down parts of the city and “return them to nature.” In the meantime, the city buys up houses in the more affluent areas so they can offer them to people who live in the parts of town they want to bulldoze. And since the city is buying the houses, who’s paying the bill? Why the taxpayers of the more affluent neighborhoods, of course.
And Barack Obama just loves this idea. (It is redistribution of the wealth, after all.) He loves it so much, according to the UK Telegraph, he’s identified 50 cities throughout the US to apply this redistribution tactic to. Most are former “rust belt” cities including Detroit, Memphis, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh. (We tried to locate the full list of 50 cities for further analysis, but we couldn’t find it. If anyone has the full list, please let us know.)
With the list of five cities cited in the Telegraph’s aricle, we cross-referenced those five cities with the recent list by Forbes magazine of the 15 most dangerous cities in America. Detroit? #1. Memphis? #2? Baltimore came in at #10, and Philadelphia #15. Fourteen of the fifteen cities on Forbes’ list have soft-on-crime Democrat mayors. Pittsburgh was the only one to not make Forbes’ list. (What is interesting is that Pittsburgh is even on the list. After all, it was selected by the White House as the site for September’s G-20 summit, after praising its recovery from the decline of its steel industry in the 1980’s. But that’s another issue entirely.)
It is a simple fact of life: bad people force the good people out. The good people will leave a bad neighborhood, not the other way around. Transplanting bad people to a good neighborhood will only serve to turn a good neighborhood bad. It has happened time and again throughout history. This time will be no different.
So let’s re-cap: the plan is to go into some of the most dangerous cities in America, take the people from the bad neighborhoods and transplant them to the better neighborhoods, and have the people from the better neighborhoods pay for it. What could possibly go wrong?