scgubers

What did I say that was racist? You haven't told me. Quote where I was racist.

You haven't answered a single one of my points. Or indicated where I made a statement of if you are x, you live in x place. There has been no equating on my end. To the larger points made about the site not being feasible for affordable housing - I'd beg to differ. First, even with Scott Towers and Woodside the affordable housing stock will be incredibly low. Second, the logic that it will be too expensive, so it won't be done is a dangerous mindset. If we always let profit drive development decisions there will never be enough affordable housing. If both the developer and county/city are willing to make concessions then it can be done with out destroying bottom lines. It's much more of a question of, "Are the stakeholders willing to make a little less money to accommodate increasingly displaced populations?"

Sure. I'll take it back, because that's not what I said. Never did I make an equivocation between race and poverty. This is what I've said. - "Low-income overwhelmingly minority (the two are statistically tied)" - "Rents are pushing low-income mostly minority families out of the downtown area." - "You're implying that public land should only be for mid-upper class largely white professionals, and that's elitist and ludicrous if not racist." Nowhere do I say all low-income people are minorities. What I did do is point out the problematic implication of your statement "Please no Section 8 housing..." Also, for the point of this discussion, I could care less about your race - you could be a smurf for all I care. And to your final point mixed-use is not mixed-income. They're completely different.

Alright, let's see what I can do here without going too far off topic. Fact: Downtown rental prices are increasing. Fact: Increasing rents are pushing out low-income overwhelmingly minority (the two are statistically tied) individuals and families. Fact: Section 8 housing serves as a buffer to market forces. Fact: Section 8 housing (especially in the South) serves low income minority families (see Fact 2). Conclusion: By stating "Please no section 8 Housing" you are saying you do not want a development that serves marginalized, vulnerable families in spite of their displacement. The implication of that statement is what I said initially - "that public land should only be for mid-upper class largely white professionals, and that's elitist and ludicrous if not racist." Also, you're statement "Any use of the property will exclude certain people" is flat out wrong. Mixed-income development is very much a thing. Something I should have asked earlier, and my apologies for not, but why do you not want Section 8 housing there?

Because creating spaces for all people is a terrible thing. Rents are pushing low-income mostly minority families out of the downtown area. Who are you to say that certain groups of people should be excluded - especially since the land is owned by a public entity. You're implying that public land should only be for mid-upper class largely white professionals, and that's elitist and ludicrous if not racist.

Word on the street is some sort of mixed use development. Stores on the bottom, condos up top.

Thanks! I remember seeing some report on this earlier in the year. Any idea where that is?

What's the total number of apartments built (in the last 12 months), being built, or planned right now?

There should not be parking in front. The building needs to front Augusta.

Berea is not in West Greenville. Yes, it's west of Greenville, but it is not in the City. West Greenville generally refers to the neighborhoods directly adjacent to 123 within the city limits, including the neighborhoods West Greenville, and Southernside. These neighborhoods are overwhelmingly black. So no, my post does not go anywhere -- its validity remains the same. Yet, no matter how you define West Greenville you are comparing overwhelmingly white neighborhoods to neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly minority and saying they need be more like the white neighborhoods. That's a dangerous assertion to make. Beyond that your habit to profile remains. I wear plenty of sweatshirts and other t-shirts with geographic indicators, yet I'm not from any of those places. And just because every one is doing it means its okay? Thats just about logical fallacy number one. "Everybody" was racist in the 1950s, but that doesn't mean it was right. Perhaps you are well meaning, but when you say improve the demographics of an area, it comes across quite strongly as this neighborhood needs to be gentrified. There is a stark difference between improving the demographics of an area and increasing current resident incomes. Yes, the incomes of West Greenville residents need to be improved, but not so they can shop on Main. So they can maintain a better livelihood.

Let me rephrase this into the way you meant. "I've seen a lot of black people come to Falls Park, but they don't shop on Main." There is no way to tell where a person is from simply by looking at them, unless you discern by looking at the color of their skin, and that is a dangerous flaw. Some would even call it racism. You don't look at groups of white people and say oh, you must be from Greer. As it comes across to me, you are saying I see black people downtown they must all be coming from West Greenville. And because they are not buying things their neighborhood needs to be changed. Changed into a place where white rich people want to live, so that they buy things downtown. Through your logic I infer that you want all white people downtown, because the black people you see aren't buying things. And all black people are from West Greenville and you want West Greenville to improve "their demographics." When a neighborhood becomes richer, it becomes whiter. You forget cities exist to serve all of its residents, even if they are not putting money directly into the economy. Thank goodness people like you do not run the city.

That's key. I'm glad they're doing that.

Here's the link.

Southwest. Not the airport in general terms. Southwest numbers are continuing to fall. See page 14.

I don't know why you're whining so much. It's the story of development. Not every project announced is going to get built immediately. :facepalm:

Know what happened?

I've heard talk of a publix greenwise. If you think about it it makes pretty good sense.

Thanks for affirming.

It's likely dead. Market is becoming difficult for apartments.

All regulations on Zoos are placed by the AZA (Association of Zoos and Aquariums). Its the organization that ultimately coordinates animal loans and breeding programs. Circus's are private entities and states have no regulation on Circus's. They can do whatever they want, to an extent.

The current exhibit, as determined by regulations, is too small for elephants. To expand the elephant exhibit to meet current regulations would be both expensive and consume too many other exhibits. So the Zoo will no longer have elephants.

This is becoming the most confused corridor in the Southeast.

The convention center would certainly be a squeeze, especially when incorporating the necessary on site parking for the hotel. To your second point, no. The review process for the purchase seems to be extremely stringent. They (Earle Furman, Gannett, and the City) are not going to let the property "sit."

http://www.gsabusiness.com/news/50549-mayor-white-greenville-news-building-to-be-lsquo-demolished-rsquo There goes the Greenville News Building

Unfortunately I think there is some validity in your statement. However there are multiple variables in play, including Airtran's smaller planes taking the place of Southwest's economically unviable 737's. If Southwest pulls out completely, it will be the first time they've ever done so, embarrassing them, and marring their perfect record. I expect Airtran to take their place eventually.