There is, in this city and in many others, a nasty, destructive undercurrent that is the historical stepchild of the 50's and 60's attitudes that caused the destruction of city neighborhoods. In "Government and the godawful greatest generation", I described what happened:

Veterans, in control now, had little use for their working class "roots"... they tried their damndest to "tidy up" America, virtually eliminating what was good about working class communities. That was the beginning of the "nanny state"... eliminating eyesores and embarrassing slums.

In case you've tried not to notice, Minneapolis has been tidied up to the point where neighborhoods really no longer mean anything, and to the point where much of the working poor have fled.

Drive around, for example, south Minneapolis, and you'll see the remnants of the old neighborhoods. You'll see small conveniently spaced (walking distances) groups of small stores. Older residents can tell you that each small shopping intersection once had a grocery store, perhaps a small hardware store, and probably a small restaurant or tavern that served food. There were also small bakeries, repair shops, and new/used furniture stores, and maybe even a movie theatre.

These small shopping areas tended to include shops that sold the essentials for daily life, and they served mostly those people who walked to them. Those shops were the heart of their neighborhoods. They made it possible for area residents to avoid driving.

Most of those shopping areas now contain stores that are not really related to the neighborhood. Many are office space, coffee shops, tanning parlors, and a variety of specialty stores. Few deal in what we would call "essentials", like groceries, hardware, or furniture.

The post-war shift of residents and jobs from cities to new suburbs was largely responsible for the demise of the stores that "made" a neighborhood. Malls and large suburban stores could simply out-market and out-price the small stores. As the number of automobiles increased, neighborhood residents gradually abandoned local stores and drove to large, distant malls.

Remaining city residents lost a lot as that happened. Ownership and use of an automobile became almost mandatory in most areas… another significant hurdle for the poor to overcome.

In recent years, cities have been "rediscovered" by many, with a renewed appreciation for older, unique, sometimes grand, homes and tree-lined streets. More people are walking, jogging, and bicycling. More have tired of long commutes, increasingly heavy auto traffic, and simply having to drive to get to anything. More are telecommuting, so that they don't have to live near their employer.

These developments would seem to be ideal for a rebirth of neighborhood shopping areas. To the extent that were to happen, it would help alleviate traffic, the need for more highway construction, and could really revitalize city neighborhoods.

Saddly, that's unlikely to happen… because of that "nasty, destructive undercurrent" I spoke of at the beginning of this.

Over the years, cities have developed a wide variety of zoning and regulations, many of which were installed with the caveat that "we'll only enforce them in extreme circumstances". They've been designed for worst-cases. When a home business drew too much traffic, ordnances were created to specifically limit traffic. When one business created a nuisance, an ordnance was created excluding similar businesses. Zoning is a veritable maze of restrictions.

The end result is a "set of rules" that can be, and is, arbitrarily applied to suit the personal preferences and biases of city inspectors, council members, and city staff members. We see a continual string of preferential treatment for "favored" businesses, while those out of favor are harassed and often driven out of an area. We've seen the resulting arbitrary power of government being abused with regularity, even to the extreme of extortion.

Even when favoritism isn't involved, the maze can be manipulated to force "undesirable" businesses out and encourage "desirable" ones to replace them. The current crop of city planners seems determined to drive out many small, independent storefront businesses and replace them with "boutique" or specialty stores. Often this will be done by creating TIF districts to clear an area and award a large contract for the building of an in-city mini-mall, purchasing existing businesses under threat of eminent domain.

Some of you are no doubt thinking that there is nothing wrong with the city trying to upscale it's appearance and increase it's tax revenue.

What's ironic about this forceful manipulation is that it's done by liberals, and the result hurts the very people liberals claim to care about… the poor. Their "nanny" upscale attitude actually forces the creation of ghetto-type areas, or drives the poor away completely.

If zoning and regulations were again loosened, or eliminated completely, neighborhoods in the traditional sense would re-develop naturally. A variety of small stores would gradually appear to serve those in the neighborhoods, and those living nearby would once again leave their cars parked and walk to do their shopping. Planners sometimes try to force that sort of development, with planned shopping areas. Such plans seldom work, because FORCE is used, and people facing force will always look for a better alternative.

We once had great working-class neighborhoods in our cities. Most of them have been obliterated by forceful planning, and the current "nanny" attitude is keeping them from naturally reoccurring. If we can reverse that attitude, the working poor can again have REAL neighborhoods. All that is required is the adoption of a hands-off attitude, allowing the market to develop by itself. That will probably require electing officials who are not determined to force any sort of "revitalization" on others.