Out with the old, in with the new

Here is a trend I noticed: Cities and towns have poor sections. In the poor sections are the retired and other people on limited income. This section is also a pain in the ass because crime is plentiful in low-income areas. This area takes up more police time and other services' time. Not only that, but from the elite point of view the area is an eye-sore - old unpainted houses; idle people on corners; unpicked up trash; and the list goes on.
So, it appears their solution is to replace these down-and-out old neighborhoods with new little Yuppielands. The city buys the homes at a good price because the fair market value is not that much for run-down houses in run-down neighborhoods, get rid of the people dwelling in them, then turn around and sell the area to developers and bulders. And the new owners bulldoze away the old homes and replace them with neat expensive homes.
And now that the area has a higher average income per household the crime goes down and the real estate taxes go up, and last but not least the neighborhood is now more eye pleasing.
And what happens to the poor people that were ousted from their homes. I'm sure the officials could care less - they got rid of them, that is what counts.
It just doesn't seem right. It seems like a sure plan in favor of the wealthy, which I am sure is somehow unconsitutional - but I am not sure the Supreme Court would agree, after all they just approved an Eminant Domain case where a Home Depot had a right to buy and seize land.
All I can say, is tch tch, shame on them.