Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MOGicantbewitty t1_j9p731x wrote

How does improving the economy is a specific area NOT benefit the people living in it? Jobs? Food? Accessibility to services, medical care, businesses… if your concern is keeping people for other areas out, that’s just ridiculous. And I see nothing from you backing up the negative impacts to Worcester and NH from adding public transport like railways. You need to back that shit up with evidence and studies.

You do know the gentrification is not the result solely of expanding public transport right? Have you seen the housing prices in the last three years WITHOUT the railway? Please, use sources or stop talking to me. I have real work to do.

2

BovaDesnuts t1_j9p7xz5 wrote

>How does improving the economy is a specific area NOT benefit the people living in it? Jobs? Food? Accessibility to services, medical care, businesses…

Oh, easy. When it doesn't come with improved conditions, it tends to lead to social cohesion and social capital loss while simultaneously displacing poor people and damaging their health.

The mistake you're making, and the one that the state documents refuse to address, is what happens to the people who are already there.

>You do know the gentrification is not the result solely of expanding public transport right? Have you seen the housing prices in the last three years WITHOUT the railway?

CDC indicates it's mostly driven by push factors, such as a lack of housing and massive job growth in nearby cities. Maybe we can think of a city with these issues nearby?

0

MOGicantbewitty t1_j9p8bxp wrote

That’s has nothing to do with Springfield and a railway. That’s the CDCs page on gentrification and there is NO tie in to the topic at hand.

Bye troll

1

BovaDesnuts t1_j9p8gf7 wrote

I only hope that in 20 years when you see what you've done to the poor people of WMA, you'll have the strength do the right thing.

0