Lorewarn
Well-known member
OK...you're a city manager. The city wants to build something. Are you going to tear down a nice neighborhood or a crappy neighborhood to do it?
My point is, which neighborhood is torn down, most people would agree with. The issue is, what can be done with the residents from that neighborhood that allows them to be negatively affected the least.
Your first comment sounds like they had two neighborhoods to choose from that are equally as nice and always chose the minority neighborhood. Obviously, that is a problem. But, that's not what I'm talking about.
If I'm going to build something, especially related to transit that's deemed necessary, I'd tear down whatever was the most efficient for the goal. Until all the politicking and bureaucracy gets involved.
I'm certain that there's been numerous times where the more affluent areas would have made more sense to get rid of for something new, but they're the ones with better representation and more ability to organize.