"entitled to a safe neighborhood and legitimate opportunity"
That's kind of a meaningless statement. What does it even mean? Let's say you're correct and people are entitled to living in a safe neighborhood. Now let's say they live in an unsafe one. Now what? They're entitled to a safe neighborhood! It's their right! Who is required to give it to them exactly? Me? You? The states? The feds?
You can call something an entitlement or a right all you want. Go ahead. But in cases like this it's an incredible hollow gesture.
Of course it’s a meaningless statement. If they were entitled to or had the right to safety and opportunity, it wouldn’t be a bad neighborhood, they wouldn’t have to move, and there wouldn’t be gentrification.
That's kind of a meaningless statement. What does it even mean? Let's say you're correct and people are entitled to living in a safe neighborhood. Now let's say they live in an unsafe one. Now what? They're entitled to a safe neighborhood! It's their right! Who is required to give it to them exactly? Me? You? The states? The feds?
You can call something an entitlement or a right all you want. Go ahead. But in cases like this it's an incredible hollow gesture.