Meh.... racist. I blame reality.

Look also at the possibilities of rising taxes on gasoline, property, sewer, water and electricity, especially for Wilmingtonians...

It would seem that for many residents of Wilmington that paying their utility bills is not high on their list of priorities.

It's not entirely clear how many keep the lights on in the first place.    Democrats are probably going to accuse you of racism eventually for pointing out all the problems in Wilmington like this.  And then you can both play your political games, in order to try to get power.

But as far as I go, observing the world makes me more of a racial realist by the day: 

Today most scientists and historians engaged in the serious study of race do so from either the race-realist or the hermeneutical perspective. On one side, those I have termed race-realists view race as a natural phenomenon to be observed, studied, and explained. They believe human race is a valid biological concept, similar to sub-species or breeds or strains. On the other side, those I term the hermeneusticists view "race" as an epiphenomenon, (like gender as opposed to "sex") a mere social construction, with political and economic forces as the real causal agents. Rather than actually research race, hermeneuticists research those who study race. Alternative and intermediate positions certainly exist, but the most heated debate currently takes place between advocates of those polar positions.
   The race-realist approach is empirical and employs a myriad of scientific methodologies....
 The hermeneutical approach relies on textual, historical, and political analysis. The race-realist viewpoint is descriptive, explanatory, and typically avoids prescribing policy. Because the hermeneutical viewpoint sees inexorable links between theory and practice, its writings are often prescriptive and assume an advocacy position. To their opponents, the race-realist approach comes across as cold, detached, and suspect of hiding a "racist" agenda. Hermeneuticists appear to race-realists as muddled, heated, and ideologically committed to an anti-racist activism.   --Philippe Rushton, 2002

  With respect to "policy"... I have little to say to the diverse groups and tribes of which "white people" are composed other than:  Leave.  What are you, missionaries with the proverbial "white man's" burden that looks suspiciously like a white woman's mentality to this day?  They can either do it themselves or they cannot do it.  That's it.  You're either smothering them with all your "projects" and nurture or they cannot do it.  Face facts.  

It's not that complicated.  So leave.  And when there's nowhere else to go, then carefully and in a measured way "go tribal" on those responsible if that's what you think is necessary to protect your own tribe.

It's curious that conservatives support this massive national security state, financed by banking tribes that generally leads to the murder of peasants world wide...  and yet they will not form a well regulated militia in the name of actually protecting their own interests and tribe.  What are you even doing?  What do you think you're doing?  You're going to traipse around the world checking for WMDs in people's underpants while nation building, killing many in the process... and yet you can't do diddly about your own neighborhoods or "nation building" wherever there are majority black regions in the nation? 

I don't get it.  Shrug.    Guess I'm not politically correct, as usual.  But you condemn the liberals for "political correctness" while practicing forms of it yourselves.