This is the third post in a series considering related local topics of cultures & communications within the city.
So a blogger points out that the city’s population is mostly stagnant (with short-term decline), that the mean household income in the city is in decline, and that the city is beset with above-average child poverty (see, Whitewater’s Decade of Child Poverty).
That same blogger – the one writing this post, actually – then says that in these economic and municipal fiscal conditions, one should turn from local political solutions to private and cultural ones. See, An Oasis Strategy.
So, is it that simple? One merely moves from the failed political to the private cultural? As though it were, after all, just a jump to the left, and then a step to the right?
No, of course not: in that post, I wrote that “[t]his city’s not of one culture or one identity; we’re not a homogeneous place. We’re a diverse and multicultural community. Revanchism on behalf of some won’t make the city great for any. On the contrary, that path will prolong present difficulties, and delay significantly (although not prevent) this city’s more prosperous future.”
That is, after all, why this post is called ‘Cultures & Communications.’
So, how do others in the city see this, and whether they do, what can one say about a city of multiple cultures? The next few posts will address this topic.
Previously: Parts 1 (introductory assumptions) and 2 (population).
Tomorrow: Part 4.