Connect with us

U.S.

Inner Cities In America Are A Mess – Here’s Why

Published

on

(Via Zerohedge)

The stories coming out from Chicago and Baltimore paint an increasingly pessimistic picture: that America’s inner cities are transitioning into a warzone, where violence has returned to levels not seen since the drug wars of the early 1990s.

Take for example Chicago, five men were killed and at least 20 people shot over the four-day Christmas holiday weekend. Last year, 59 people were shot over the same period, leaving 11 dead.

Across the United States, homicides rose about 9% last year with more than one-third of the increase concentrated in Chicago neighborhoods, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Despite the overall deterioration of American inner cities, there was some improvement in areas such as Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., where declines in violent crimes have been in downward trajectories since the 1990s.

According to the WSJ, soaring homicides in Chicago and Baltimore share wide wealth inequality rates, de-industrialization, depleted residential real estate, and a reduction of police officers following the Ferguson effect in 2014. Nevertheless, the opioid crisis is fueling much of this death and despair in the inner cities, trapping the younger generations into a perpetual world of crime.

Meanwhile, in Washington and Los Angeles, “gang interventions and community policing,” which explores ways to strengthen the community have led to a long-term reduction in homicides. The article brings up the dreaded word gentrification, while it has worked in Washington to suppress crime, it has certainly not been effective in Chicago and or Baltimore.

David Weisburd, a criminologist at George Mason University said about 1% of city streets contributes to 25% of a city’s crime, and 5% of the streets produces half the crime. He coined the phrase the “law of crime concentration.”

In Chicago, half the violent crime came from five neighborhoods, including West Garfield Park, exemplifying Weisburd’s theory. In fact, crime in the area has surged to levels not seen since the “drug wars fueled by the crack-cocaine epidemic” of the 1990s.

As the WSJ adds, “violence in Chicago erupted last year, with the city recording 771 murders—a 58% jump from 2015. The third largest city in the U.S. with 2.7 million people, Chicago had more murders than New York and Los Angeles combined.” Violent crime in Chicago is concentrated in just a handful of neighborhoods, where inequalities are wide and it’s not just in wealth.

WSJ interviewed Amarley Coggins who started dealing drugs aged 12. A decade later, he sits in jail for “felony drug charges and possession of a weapon”.

Amarley Coggins remembers the first time he dealt heroin, discreetly approaching a car coming off an interstate highway and into West Garfield Park, the neighborhood where he grew up on Chicago’s west side. He was 12 years old and had just been recruited into a gang by his older brothers and cousin.

A decade later, he sits in Cook County jail, held without bail and awaiting trial on three cases, including felony drug charges and possession of a weapon. “I have a lot of friends who didn’t make it to 22,” said Mr. Coggins, who hasn’t entered a plea. “I want to stay alive for my son and my family.”

“Baltimore City has a lot of people walking around that have committed homicides and shootings,” said former deputy police commissioner, Tony Barksdale. Meanwhile community leaders and former police members warn that police have disbanded proactive operations to combat crime since the April 2015 riots:

Some community leaders and former police officials say police have pulled back from a more proactive approach on the street since April 2015, when riots erupted after Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old black man, died from a broken neck he sustained in a police van. Officers had chased Mr. Gray from North and Pennsylvania, a known drug corner, and arrested him for allegedly possessing an illegal knife.

A police department spokesman said foot patrols have increased because now officers are mandated to walk through neighborhoods in the first months of field training, which wasn’t the case a few years ago.

Baltimore Police Commissioner Kevin Davis, in charge since July 2015, also said violent criminals feel emboldened. He said judges too often give offenders who use guns suspended prison sentences.

“You look at Baltimore’s crime numbers, that’s criminals taking advantage of weakness,” Mr. Barksdale said. He further said: “I am against mass arrests, but you still need arrests.”

JPMorgan Chase funds the Racial Wealth Divide Initiative at CFED, and warns an astronomical amount of Baltimore citizens have a net worth of zero; the racial divide and wealth inequality is among the highest in the country, contributing to high levels of violent crime.

Baltimore residents describe life on the streets:

Ericka Alston-Buck, who runs a youth center blocks from where Mr. Gray was arrested in 2015, says the violence is tied to poverty that hasn’t eased since the riots. “You have to be here to feel the blight, the vacant houses, the cat-sized rodents that run through the streets, the open-air drug markets, prostitution, no grocery store,” she said.

Jacqueline Caldwell, a local resident who leads a nonprofit umbrella group that includes several west-side community associations, said the police have become nonexistent over the past two years. “I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out we need more police on the street, more community involvement with the police,” Ms. Caldwell said.

John Skinner, a former deputy police commissioner who retired in 2014, said after the riots, police feared “another triggering effect.” He said while he thinks the retreat from proactive policing was brief, its effects were lasting. “Violence can escalate really, really rapidly. When it occurs it’s tough to get that stabilization back,” he said.


The sad conclusion is that the inner-city playgrounds of the establishment elite, Chicago and Baltimore, have been let to fail. The decades-long experiment is now resulting in a war zone that is progressively getting worse, not better, despite recurring narratives to suck in poor millennials for revival purposes. As a country, it’s time to take two steps back and reflect on the failures before we taking any more steps “forward” otherwise the situation will only get worse.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Iowa

“Despite What You All Think”: Nearly $150 Million in New Water Commitments Follow Reynolds’ Defense of Iowa’s Record

Published

on

Gov. Kim Reynolds defended Iowa’s water-quality efforts and the stewardship of farmers during a May 1 press conference. In the weeks that followed, the state and federal governments committed approximately $148.3 million in clearly identifiable new water funding and financing.

During a May 1, 2026, press conference announcing Iowa’s “Farm to Faucet” proposal, Gov. Kim Reynolds pushed back when reporters questioned the condition of Iowa’s water.

“Despite what you all think,” Reynolds told the group of reporters before defending Iowa’s investments and arguing that farmers care about protecting their land because they intend to pass it down to their children.

The governor’s defense came as Iowa continued confronting concerns involving nitrates, lead pipes, PFAS contamination, aging treatment facilities and rural water infrastructure. Reynolds announced what her administration promoted as a nearly $320 million water-quality package spanning 12 years. The proposal was signed into law on June 1 and took effect July 1.

How Much of the $320 Million Is Actually New?

The nearly $320 million headline does not represent $320 million in entirely new state spending.

The Iowa Department of Agriculture’s own announcement states that the legislation works partly by “re-directing existing dollars.” Approximately $76 million can be clearly identified as new or additional state funding:

  • $52 million over 12 years for conservation practices in the Greater Des Moines watershed.
  • $6 million over 12 years for additional water-quality monitoring, based on an additional $500,000 annually.
  • $8 million as a one-time investment in drinking-water and wastewater treatment grants.
  • $10 million to establish the Rural Iowa Infrastructure Bank, which will provide low-interest loans for smaller communities.

That equals approximately $76 million in clearly new state commitments—about 24% of the administration’s advertised $320 million package.

Another $25 million is designated for Central Iowa Water Works to expand nitrate-removal capacity. However, the state says that money will come from the existing balance of an underused program, meaning it is redirected funding rather than an entirely new appropriation. Other portions of the $320 million package similarly involve restructuring existing water-excise-tax revenue and moving money between programs.

More Than $72 Million in Federal Support Followed

Separate from Reynolds’ state package, federal agencies announced approximately $72.3 million in water-related funding and financing for Iowa after her May 1 comments.

The documented federal commitments include:

  • $46.116 million announced by the Environmental Protection Agency on May 20 for identifying and replacing lead service lines.
  • $9.457 million announced by the EPA on May 19 for PFAS testing, planning and treatment projects in small or disadvantaged Iowa communities.
  • $344,000 announced on June 26 for small and rural drinking-water systems.
  • $16.373 million announced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for rural Iowa water infrastructure, including new wells, a treatment plant, a water tower and pipelines. Of that amount, approximately $15.5 million consists of loans and $874,000 consists of grants.

The federal money addresses several different problems, including lead exposure, PFAS, insufficient rural water supplies and aging infrastructure. It should not be presented as though every dollar directly addresses agricultural nitrate runoff.

The Combined Total

Since Reynolds’ May 1 remarks, the clearly identifiable commitments are:

  • New state funding: approximately $76 million
  • Federal funding and financing: approximately $72.3 million
  • Combined total: approximately $148.3 million

These numbers represent appropriations, allotments, grants, loan funds and financing commitments. They do not mean that all $148.3 million has already been spent or that the projects have been completed.

The state portion is also spread across as many as 12 years, while several federal awards will flow through state or local programs before construction begins.

Still, the scale and timing of the investments matter. Reynolds told reporters, “Despite what you all think,” while defending Iowa’s water record. Yet within weeks, her administration signed a major water package and federal agencies committed tens of millions more to Iowa’s lead pipes, PFAS contamination, nitrate-treatment capacity and struggling rural water systems.

Investment is welcome, but the funding itself demonstrates that Iowa faces real and costly water challenges. The final measure of success will not be the size of a press-release headline. It will be whether nitrate levels decline, unsafe pipes are removed, rural systems become reliable and Iowa residents can trust the water flowing from their faucets.

Continue Reading

U.S.

Safe Elections By Any Means Necessary

Published

on

Continue Reading

U.S.

Populist Wire is Back

Published

on

Populist Wire Website is Back!

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.