I don't quite feel up to hacking up my own post tonight...er, this morning, and so--since I'm already happily dreaming of a nice little porch-front rowhouse "Somewhere West of Boulevard" (with apologies to the Jordan Motor Car Company), I'll just repost part of LK's recent blog.

This is done in the way of thumbing my nose to all who like to deride Richmond. Also, I'd like to take credit for the previous paragraph, which must be one of the most punctuation-heavy that I've ever composed.

And now to our correspondent in Mulberry street:

Style's cover story for the February 7th issue is on the problems of aging suburbia.Many post 1950 houses were built for speed, not longevity. Run-down and inexpensive homes attract a high number of people who don't give a damn, and what used to be thought of as "urban blight" sets in, in neighborhoods with 1/4 acre lots and curving roads and cul-de-sacs that make routine police patrolling more challenging.Meanwhile, the cost of fairly sturdy, often attractive city homes goes up and up. Style cites a recent Brookings Institution study of 100 metropolitan areas. Of Richmond, one of the areas studied, a co-author of the study (Elizabeth Kneebone) noted "'it's the only metropolitan area in the study where the poverty trends in the city and the counties moved in opposite directions.'" The number of poor people in Richmond went down; the number living in poverty in the counties went up.The rest of the article considers the service needs of poor people and the readiness of local governments to ensure that the health, safety, and education needs of all area residents are met.