🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <fringeDxxnM7.540@netcom.com>, fringe@netcom.com (Fringe Ryder)
wrote:
> : "These folks have something to lose." That's excatly what the beverly
> : hills cop told me when he stopped me for driving through a residential area.
> : No, _we_ don't have anything to lose... all we have are our lives and our
> : identity.... What do you have?
> 
> Well, many of us would be happy to lose you!
> 
> We also have security to lose - crime rates are lower in Brentwood/Santa
> Monica/Beverly Hills.  Try to figure this one out - maybe it's a cultural
> thing, maybe not, but either way freedom from crime and threat is something
> they have to lose.

Well, the city of BH has four times more police per-capita than the city
of LA.  The cities you mentioned are rich and can afford private security
patrols, good education, excellent public services, and a hopeful outlook
for the future.  Factor that stuff in.
 
> Lack of graffitti is also open to loss.  Although that problem has gone down
> since Masters shot the stupid taggers.

Masters didn't have much going on in his head either.

The presence of police deters graffiti.  See above for the possible causal link.

And last, the reason why affluent areas have less graffiti is because they
get painted over or cleaned off more quickly.  (And paint costs money.) 
When you clean up within two or three days, not only does your wall look
cleaner, it's less attractive to people who want to "get up" and be
known.  May I remind you that paint costs money?

Proof?  Look at the 101 downtown.  For over a decade, the murals were
graffiti free.  Then one person tagged it.  Then a couple more people put
up some "throw ups" (I think that's the term for a quick, medium size
graffiti).  Then a bunch of them were bombed.  This took months, but it
happened.  If it were cleaned up quickly, it would probably have remained
clean.  [If you look closely and pay attention, you'll note that the
graffiti that doesn't obscure the actual mural was done by people who are
up on other walls, with some more sophisticated painting.  The graffiti
which damages the work underneath has been perpetrated by (self evidently)
less talented persons.  Many graffiti "writers" consider themselves
artists - and more than a few dozen are degreed, professional graphic
artists.]

The amount of graffiti in the south bay seems to have increased.  I see
more and more.

In poor areas, graffiti appears and remains unpainted for weeks, or
months, sometimes even years.  These walls should be cleaned up
immediately, but the main impediment is the fact that the people who OWN
the walls often live in places like Santa Monica, Brentwood, or Beverly
Hills.  Or they are owned by the city, and the residents aren't very good
at navigating the city bureacracy... unlike, say, a lawyer or professional
bureacrat.
 
> : > you'll drive them out eventually, and then who will pay for all your
desired
> : > social programs?
> 
> : Hey, the sooner they get out the better.  I didn't desire any social
> : programs in my original post did I?  But if we do desire, you ask who
> : will pay?  Whose already paying?  The ones who live and work here, which
> : pretty soon will be overwhelming latino.
> 
> You post regularly here.  We -know- what you want.  You don't hide it by not
> mentioning it for one post.
> 
> As for who is already paying, this is an easy one - the middle and upper
> class, mostly.  Although the lower-class puts a much larger percent of their
> income into lottery.

Well, of course.  If you make $5 an hour, then a lotto ticket is 20% of
your hourly income.  If you make $20 an hour, the same ticket is 5% of
it.  And if you make $35 an hour, it's 2.8%.  $50 : 2%.    $150 : .6%.

But all that ignores what the lotto is promising: economic freedom. 
Whether you make a lot of money, or little money, you want economic
freedom.  If you make 100K per year, that goal appears within reach - just
save up a couple million dollars and retire (or work less).  If you make
30K a year and you are already 40 years old, that goal looks much farther
out of reach.  The best you can hope for is a retirement that, hopefully,
will not involve general relief welfare.
 
> And yes, those here (L.A.) will soon be overwhelmingly latino.  I think
> latino is already the majority in L.A., isn't it?  However, not all latinos
> need social programs or bilingual support - many are just Americans of
> Mexican or other extraction, with cultural values taken from both.
> 
> 

[remainder deleted]

John Kawakami
johnk@crl.com