Inner Cities CAN Be Rebuilt from Within

I live near East Saint Louis, Illinois and drive through the town often as it is a quick route to I-55 to get into downtown St. Louis, Missouri, and I also use Apex Recycling in East Saint Louis to turn in my aluminum cans. 

Years ago, when I lived in Wisconsin, I did a stint with a pest control company and my commercial route was largely in the inner-city portions of Milwaukee on the north side. When it comes to most inner cities, the observation is always the same.

Boarded up houses, garbage in the streets, run down, dilapidated buildings, high crime, and one other major thing stands out like a sore thumb.

There are no major businesses there.

In other words, little is ever invested in these communities. The unfortunate truth is that in America's inner cities, the primary source of their economy is largely derived from social welfare programs. And that's not a knock on the community. It's just that without much going on in terms of businesses offering meaningful employment within the community, it is harder for the economy to be sustained by much of anything else.

Beyond that, because of East Saint Louis' proximity to downtown St. Louis, and because it is a direct route to Busch Stadium where the Cardinal baseball team plays, and because many people bordering Missouri also work in St. Louis, there are potentially millions of dollars, if not tens of millions of dollars that pass through East Saint Louis every year.

Few people from outside of East Saint Louis will actually stop and patronize any businesses that may be there. And there are a lot of reasons for that. High crime being one of them. People simply won't feel safe.

Every time I have driven through any inner-city community, I have always felt that this can change. I have always felt, it doesn't have to be this way. And it often pains me that it is this way.

It is obvious that community leaders and elected officials have failed these cities in incalculable ways. Because when you get right down to it, they have the most opportunity to make the change that paves the way for greater success within the communities.

And really, it has to come from within first.

There is some thought that part of the reason more businesses aren't interested in making investments within certain communities is because of the current conditions that exist there. It's just not an attractive place to do business, and so they don't.

Why can't a big company like Proctor & Gamble build a factory smack dab in the middle of East Saint Louis, or some other inner city, that could provide a major boost to the people and the economy of East Saint Louis?

The thought is that they can, but there is reluctance to do so for other reasons. It's just not a place today that would provide a pool of resources that would be determined to be valuable to the business. At least, not in the short term.

It starts with the citizens.

And quite frankly, it has to start with the citizens. The people who live in these inner cities need to want to make their town successful. They have to want to make their communities a nice place to live, work, and for other people to visit.

If citizens rise up and say, "Enough is enough," change can happen. If the citizens are able to recognize their downfalls, and who or what is holding them back, change can happen.

Beyond that, I think if there were stronger leaders, and a certain culture of despair were dismissed and a strong change in attitude instilled that, "We can do it," were to permeate and define the culture, I think a lot of positive change could come from that.

There are many black athletes and black musicians, and even very successful black entrepreneurs who could not only become great ambassadors, but they also have the ability to make good and meaningful investments into the communities they could potentially serve.

Because that's the other part of the problem, isn't it? Even when an inner-city community produces success, that success is rarely returned back to the community. It simply leaves. If the goal is only to escape a community, it can never thrive.

Granted, restoring a community is not an easy thing to do. And even if it were to start today, it could take years for the results to have a major impact. Getting the community to come together and want the change, and to invest in the change is also not an easy thing to do.

Having churches and other community organizations come together and work to clear trash and debris would be a great place to start. Having wealthy people buy land and dilapidated buildings and tear them down and clear the parcels would be a great accomplishment as well. 

It could serve to at least restore faith within the community, and to have something to work towards. To have something to be proud of. And perhaps the businesses come. Perhaps more investments are made. Perhaps opportunities increase. Perhaps a massive cultural shift occurs.

Every community, I feel, should have the ability to serve itself in ways that make the community stronger and better. But it never necessarily happens by accident. It takes work. It takes pride. It takes commitment. It takes having an attitude that anything is possible. It takes leadership, and by that, I mean real leadership.

America's inner cities, as I see it, have enormous potential to be destinations, and places where people want to live and work and not just pass through. But to actually be enjoyed by all.

But again, the citizens have to take these cities back and be proactive about the restoration before any of that can actually happen. It literally takes a community to build a city as much as it takes a community to raze one.

The time is now to build.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Twitter at @jimbauer601 or check out my Facebook page to keep up with my latest writings wherever it is I write.

No More Lifetime Handouts For the Poor

When it comes to the epidemic of poverty in our country, many people want to help. The truth is, however, that what we ultimately wind up doing is not helping the people, but perpetuating the problem. There are so many examples one can point to that clearly demonstrate that welfare and food programs are doing nothing to solve the issue of poverty. If nothing else, all of the statistics clearly point to the fact that the problem is only getting worse, and since the inception of welfare programs instituted largely during the Great Depression era the number of people on the poverty level is substantially higher today.

Part of the problem is the way that the welfare and food programs are set up. The system does not encourage work, and for many people once you are on the dole, you never get off of it.

And it's not just government programs that can be to blame for the failure of welfare and food programs. Churches, for example, are large contributors of food to families in need. To either the government officials, or church officials, one question should be asked.

If the same person has come to my door for the past 30 years needing some help, how has my program worked to help that person?

Fixing the problem is difficult. But not because it is complex. It is difficult because many people, especially politicians, are convinced that even bringing up the issue of welfare reform is political suicide. Moreover, many Americans are simply convinced that taking anything away from the poor is cruel and inhumane.

In my opinion, keeping a person on the dole is akin to keeping an animal in captivity. Or perhaps, it can even be akin to a form of slavery. The fact is that the true potential of an individual cannot be realized when it is trapped in a system for which there is no foreseeable escape.

Welfare programs should be designed to seek to help those who truly need some help. But it should not be designed to allow individuals who have no interest in helping themselves continue to receive benefits.

Imagine, if you will, being an investor. A businessman comes to you and says he wants to expand his business. He invites you to fork over some cash to invest with him. He tells you to contribute money every single month. All the while the business does not expand. The investment dollars are only paying for the daily operating expenses of the current business. How long do you continue to invest knowing that the dollars are not improving the business? How long do you continue to invest knowing that the businessman has no intention of using the money to improve the business? And if the money keeps coming anyway, what incentive does the businessman have to do anything about improving the business?

Welfare programs can be thought of the same way. You are investing dollars into an idea that you will help the poor to get back on their feet, and get off the dole. Only the truth is that the dollars are only paying for the daily operating expenses and nothing more. There is no expansion, and the result of the dollars spent are static at best. This is largely a zero gain investment.

It needs to be clear that welfare reform should not be considered by anyone to be cruel in any way. Even churches should appreciate welfare reform. After all, it is in the Bible where it says, "Feed a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime." Yet churches have virtually no work programs, but their food programs rule the day.

So, what should be at the heart of an effective system of welfare? Education and encouragement to seek employment. And I'm not talking about higher education when it comes to that term. But rather educating people on money management, how to conduct themselves in an interview for a job, and how to write an effective résumé. Things that will have greater impact on the lives of the poor than simply handing them a few dollars and a loaf of bread.

Some of the reforms I would institute would include many things. And again, the system would be geared to helping individuals who truly need the help, while leaving behind those who have no intention of truly benefiting from the help they are being offered. It may seem cruel. But at some point it simply makes no sense to me to be an enabler simply because. In no other areas of our society do we accept this, but when it comes to poverty we do it openly.

At some point the weakling chick must be tossed from the nest to ensure the survival of the stronger chicks. 

• Welfare recipients would be required to seek work, and would be required to report the results of their job search efforts.
• Welfare recipients would be required to do a specified number of hours of community service such as keeping up parks, street cleanup, and other projects deemed beneficial to the communities in which they are receiving benefits.
• Welfare recipients would be required to attend job training sessions such as how to conduct oneself in an interview for a job, how to write a résumé, and would be educated in areas of money management, how to open a savings account, and how to balance a checking account and how to avoid credit pitfalls such as payday loans and title loans which are devastatingly destructive to poor communities.
• Welfare recipients would be required to be tested for drugs. Welfare recipients tested positive would be required to seek rehabilitation in order to maintain their benefits. Failure to pass drug tests in the future would make them ineligible for future benefits.
• Welfare benefits would not be unlimited. Benefits would be reduced on a graduating scale over time, and at some point it would be expected that the benefit of work would outweigh the value of the benefits. Benefits would also eventually expire.

Comedian and radio personality Dennis Miller once said of the system of welfare, "I don't mind helping the helpless. I mind helping the clueless, and these days there are more clueless than helpless." An effective system must be one in which productivity, responsibility, and real hope is encouraged and offered. The system as it stands today offers none of that, and therefore poverty remains an epidemic, and one that is expanding rather than contracting even though more and more dollars are spent on these programs each and every year.