Support NeoGAF

[CornBurrito]

So why are you surprised lol.

I'm not. I said it was a shame. Not that it was a shock.

Gotta love so called liberals on this site though. Republicans are the party of fuck you got mine allegedly. But really it's all about me and muh property values. When it gets down to it everyone is "fuck you got mine" you're all just mad about it in the cases where you're a have not.

Both parties are infected with neoliberalism. Fuck your property values.

 

[Zel3]

Really a shame here.

"People are homeless"

"Bbbbut muh property values!"

Do you own a home?

 

[CornBurrito]

Do you own a home?

Yes.

Look I get it, you are selfish and would rather people die than lower your property values. If you owned an insurance company you'd oppose universal healthcare too. We only criticize "fuck you got mine" when we dint have ours.

 

[entremet]

I'm not. I said it was a shame. Not that it was a shock.

Gotta love so called liberals on this site though. Republicans are the party of fuck you got mine allegedly. But really it's all about me and muh property values.

Both parties are infected with neoliberalism. Fuck your property values.

How do you know they're liberals tho?

There are many centrist and right leaning people on this site. They've just learned to pick their battles and can you blame them when they're tarred and feathered as evil capitalist pigs lol.

But the liberal voices are definitely louder.

 

[i am unagi]

Have you seen NIMBY: Los Angeles? Tune in Tuesday nights on CBS.

Yeah, and I'm voting against it. Just need to mail in my ballot. Thanks for reminding me.

I'm confused on Measure S. So a yes vote has a negative impact on affordable housing when considered in conjunction with measure JJJ on the November ballot? JJJ forces new developers to either donate to an affordable housing fund or set aside affordable units, however Measure S would create a 2 year moratorium for all development, thus slowing down creation of affordables.

My understanding is that it prevents developers from working directly with district councilmembers to violate zoning laws by being granted concessions. It also takes Environmental Impact Reports out of the hands of developers, which doesn't really negatively impact affordable housing either. I feel like taking EIRS out of the hands of developers IS a good thing though.

Example: Councilpeople typically say if you donate $X to these district improvement plans, I will grant you a density bonus for your development (allows you to put more people in a particular block than the city plan originally allowed). Measure S stops this sort of thing?

 

[CornBurrito]

How do you know they're liberals tho?

There are many centrist and right leaning people on this site. They've just learned to pick their battles and can you blame them when they're tarred and feathered as evil capitalist pigs lol.

But the liberal voices are definitely louder.

Laughable if you think most of the people on this site are anti-capitalist. At best there are a larger than average number of social democrats that are by and large pro-capitalism.

 

[Gallbaro]

Measure S in LA is even more regressive yet amazingly marketed. At least in TX greenfield development is near limitless with 20 lane highways.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/liva...s-housing-slump-measure-s-20170117-story.html

Basically housing tends to become hyper regional class warfare regardless of political affiliation.

 

[Ogodei]

I mean, i totally get it myself, home equity is a major source of wealth for people who can't make it into the big-portfolio investor class, and nobody wants to be left holding the bag.

It's a collective action problem and therefore needs a macro solution, because otherwise it's just a never ending cycle of some neighborhoods gentrifying while others collapse (right now the pendulum swings back towards the inner city and away from certain suburbs), the rich get richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class plays Russian Roulette with the "will *my* equity be next?" gun.

 

[entremet]

Laughable if you think most of the people on this site are anti-capitalist. At best there are a larger than average number of social democrats that are by and large pro-capitalism.

well liberal ideology is a spectrum. i'm a liberal yet pro capitalism. also, we're on a video game forum, corn burrito. the industry exists because of capitalism lol, along with adjacent industries--tech, film, movies, and so on.

 

[CornBurrito]

well liberal ideology is a spectrum. i'm a liberal yet pro capitalism. also, we're on a video game forum, corn burrito. the industry exists because of capitalism lol, along with adjacent industries--tech, film, movies, and so on.

Ah yes, the "how can you criticize a system when you live inside it" argument.

I imagine you'd be surprised that many of our technologies weren't fueled by capitalistic innovation but by government research programs. Granted usually for military application, but that's not capitalism leading innovation.

 

[User Name Here]

Oh just hurry up and start building the ghettos for blacks and hispanics already. They we can finally move on to the concentration camps.

 

[entremet]

Ah yes, the "how can you criticize a system when you live inside it" argument.

I imagine you'd be surprised that many of our technologies weren't fueled by capitalistic innovation but by government research programs. Granted usually for military application, but that's not capitalism leading innovation.

You can criticize it, I'm just saying that people enjoy the fruits of capitalism, even though it does have issues. There are no perfect systems.

Regarding government investment, you're right. However, capital investment is still needed to create products and services and to create a go-to-market strategy using these technologies. Firms also do continue their own R/D too.

We're kinda getting off topic, tho

 

[CornBurrito]

entrement I guess I have one question: How would you solve this issue without impacting property values?

Or is the solution simply to let people be homeless? Because I fail to see why it is crueler to let a person potentially die of untreated flu than it is it to let them die of exposure due to a lack of accessible shelter.

 

[Eidan]

Home owners only care about their own property value, not the long term growth and equity of their community. If one's goal is to increase density, supply, and the breadth of housing in a city, homeowners should be listened to, but largely ignored.

 

[Ultryx]

entrement I guess I have one question: How would you solve this issue without impacting property values?

Or is the solution simply to let people be homeless? Because I fail to see why it is crueler to let a person potentially die of untreated flu than it is it to let them die of exposure due to a lack of accessible shelter.

This is what I would be wondering also. People tend to associate these things with an increase in crime also and I fear that causes people to view these types of housing in a negative light.

 

[daviyoung]

US is big enough to just make ghetto towns if it needed, throw people in there and don't upset the wannabe Pennybags

 

[Magus1234]

Why make Ghettos? Just throw them in jail. The rich get richer, the poor get prison.

 

[entremet]

entrement I guess I have one question: How would you solve this issue without impacting property values?

Or is the solution simply to let people be homeless? Because I fail to see why it is crueler to let a person potentially die of untreated flu than it is it to let them die of exposure due to a lack of accessible shelter.

Personally, I'd do something about draconian zoning laws and up real estate investment (federally) beyond these shitty voucher programs like Section 8.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

I'm sure a big corp would love to profit big time off the building of said camps.

 

[CornBurrito]

Home owners only care about their own property value, not the long term growth and equity of their community. If one's goal is to increase density, supply, and the breadth of housing in a city, homeowners should be listened to, but largely ignored.

The real reason people support socialized healthcare is because they think it will be cheaper for them. To hell with the profits of the few in that case. Health care is a right!

But shelter? If you own a home suddenly you're in the few. Your profits matter! Shelter is not a right. The poor can just die in the streets.

That's also why it is funny when people in this thread say "if you own a home you'd oppose this." Well yes of course, because people are selfish. That doesn't change the fact that the opposition to low-income housing is fueled by selfishness.

Personally, I'd do something about draconian zoning laws and up real estate investment (federally) beyond these shitty voucher programs like Section 8.

Out of curiosity why do we need more real estate investment? There are currently more unoccupied homes in the US than there are homeless people in the US.

3.5 Million Americans are Homeless. 18.6 Million Homes are Empty.

What are you investing in with your increased federal spending?

 

[Gallbaro]

entrement I guess I have one question: How would you solve this issue without impacting property values?

Or is the solution simply to let people be homeless? Because I fail to see why it is crueler to let a person potentially die of untreated flu than it is it to let them die of exposure due to a lack of accessible shelter.

You do what San Francisco and NYC do.
-You stabilize rent so that "long term" residential renters A.K.A voters, are unaffected.
-You prevent construction so that "owner-occupiers" see their value of a limited resource, housing stock, go up drastically. They vote also.
-You keep real estate taxes low and do not implement an estate tax, so their heirs can enjoy the same city and lifestyle without being priced out.
-You then distribute funds to combat the "housing crisis" by using "non-profits" that are amazingly inefficient at actually helping the homeless and they really end up being middle class income centers. These administrators are typically long time residents who vote.
-You put most of the tax burden on the "new residents" who don't vote today because they have not yet bought into the great liberal society.

Basically you ignore the housing crisis that causes homelessness, keep your supporters happy and financially well off, and get re-elected.

Now San Francisco's non-rent regulated poor/middle class are permanently fucked, because even if liberal utopia actually became liberal and allowed housing they do not have the required capital nor labor stock to actually have a building boom.

However if San Francisco had the capacity and ability to build new housing stock, existing land owners would benefit because when you can build more housing on land, the economic value of that land increasing and the price of the land continues to increase. The group of people who do not benefit from new housing stock are existing stabilized renters, as with more people the utility they receive from public goods decreases.

Out of curiosity why do we need more real estate investment? There are currently more unoccupied homes in the US than there are homeless people in the US.

3.5 Million Americans are Homeless. 18.6 Million Homes are Empty.

What are you investing in with your increased federal spending?

The housing crises is rationalized, not a national crises, not a federal issue. Most housing constructed today can be purchased at near construction costs. The problem is only a few people want to live there as the in-demand jobs are in successful regions. Unfortunately once a region becomes a success, the existing landed gentry (even in TX) starts to, and continues to, keep others out.

 

[entremet]

The real reason people support socialized healthcare is because they think it will be cheaper for them. To hell with the profits of the few in that case. Health care is a right!

But shelter? If you own a home suddenly you're in the few. Your profits matter! Shelter is not a right. The poor can just die in the streets.

That's also why it is funny when people in this thread say "if you own a home you'd oppose this." Well yes of course, because people are selfish. That doesn't change the fact that the opposition to low-income housing is fueled by selfishness.



Out of curiosity why do we need more real estate investment? There are currently more unoccupied homes in the US than there are homeless people in the US.

3.5 Million Americans are Homeless. 18.6 Million Homes are Empty.

What are you investing in with your increased federal spending?

That's because those houses are in economically depressed areas that are low density and have no mass transit.

Jane Jacobs covered this. Incidentally this why the homeless go to cities.

It's not stock but access.

 

[Gallbaro]

That's because those houses are in economically depressed areas that are low density and have no mass transit.

Jane Jacobs covered this. Incidentally this why the homeless go to cities.

It's not stock but access.

Jane Jacobs was also a museum advocate. Its ironic that while her views ended up saving the village from outright destruction, they ultimately destroyed the Village anyway, by preventing organic change.

 

[Vanillalite]

Laughable if you think most of the people on this site are anti-capitalist. At best there are a larger than average number of social democrats that are by and large pro-capitalism.

You don't fix it this way by allowing shit to just be built near middle class neighborhoods

It just becomes punitive to the middle class.

If you solve the reasons people need section 8 housing then you don't have to worry about building as much section 8 housing.

Granted I'll give you that the other things I want done aren't gonna be passed either. Yet we need to improve job training. Move to nationalized healthcare so people can get treatment. Allow for cheaper to free post highschool education. Put money back into paying for higher quality public school teachers. Move towards a guaranteed minimum income. Create a public works project to fix our crubling infrastructure and modernize our power grid while reducing dependency on foreign oil while hiring people for decent paying jobs.

Building more section 8 or low income housing in better areas just keeps the current cycle going while negatively effecting the people in the middle the most.

 

[CornBurrito]

You don't fix it this way by allowing shit to just be built near middle class neighborhoods

It just becomes punitive to the middle class.

If you solve the reasons people need section 8 housing then you don't have to worry about building as much section 8 housing.

Granted I'll give you that the other things I want done aren't gonna be passed either. Yet we need to improve job training. Move to nationalized healthcare so people can get treatment. Allow for cheaper to free post highschool education. Put money back into paying for higher quality public school teachers. Move towards a guaranteed minimum income. Create a public works project to fix our crubling infrastructure and modernize our power grid while reducing dependency on foreign oil while hiring people for decent paying jobs.

Building more section 8 or low income housing in better areas just keeps the current cycle going while negatively effecting the people in the middle the most.

I agree that all needs to be done. But why should I have to pay for it? I have my property values and my own finances to think about.

 

[Fuchsdh]

The real reason people support socialized healthcare is because they think it will be cheaper for them. To hell with the profits of the few in that case. Health care is a right!

But shelter? If you own a home suddenly you're in the few. Your profits matter! Shelter is not a right. The poor can just die in the streets.

That's also why it is funny when people in this thread say "if you own a home you'd oppose this." Well yes of course, because people are selfish. That doesn't change the fact that the opposition to low-income housing is fueled by selfishness.



Out of curiosity why do we need more real estate investment? There are currently more unoccupied homes in the US than there are homeless people in the US.

3.5 Million Americans are Homeless. 18.6 Million Homes are Empty.

What are you investing in with your increased federal spending?

Giving people shelter doesn't actually do much to solve the homeless problem, because the very small percentage of people who are chronically homeless are homeless for mental health and substance issues, not just a lack of money. So if your goal is to end homelessness, you need a far more robust all-state and federal mental health plan.

As far as utilizing empty or unoccupied units and properties, the reality is that it's not a simple "number A is greater than number B, why doesn't it work out?" math. These vacant units are not uniformly distributed, nor are they desirable (because if they were, most would be occupied.) The unoccupied figure is not much of an example of anything but intrinsic inefficiencies.

There are some steps that could be taken to increase supply utilization without building more. Putting penalties on property owners who under-utilize space, for example (like leaving properties vacant for now in the hope that they'll be able to stick in higher-paying tenants and renters down the line, which is what's causing a lot of urban blight in Manhattan.) You could apply eminent domain on vacant properties and convert them to public housing. But that's still ignoring that there are plenty of situations where people choose to live on the street rather that in controlled housing.

 

[Gallbaro]

You don't fix it this way by allowing shit to just be built near middle class neighborhoods

It just becomes punitive to the middle class.

If you solve the reasons people need section 8 housing then you don't have to worry about building as much section 8 housing.

Granted I'll give you that the other things I want done aren't gonna be passed either. Yet we need to improve job training. Move to nationalized healthcare so people can get treatment. Allow for cheaper to free post highschool education. Put money back into paying for higher quality public school teachers. Move towards a guaranteed minimum income. Create a public works project to fix our crubling infrastructure and modernize our power grid while reducing dependency on foreign oil while hiring people for decent paying jobs.

Building more section 8 or low income housing in better areas just keeps the current cycle going while negatively effecting the people in the middle the most.

The biggest problem affecting the lower class today is the fact that the school's their children attend are Ghettos of poverty and broken families. A crappy way of fixing it is busing, because that then forces significant travel burdens on poor families.

The best way of fixing it is to provide poor people housing in middle class and upper class neighborhoods, so they have access to middle class and upper class services and environments.

Liberal white knighting of keeping undesirables in their own neighborhood, a safe distance away, while providing "the services they need to better themselves" might as well be a neo-klan policy.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Really a shame here.

"People are homeless"

"Bbbbut muh property values!"

Even better: 'You probably aren't even a home owner.'

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/section-8-is-failing/396650/

Here's some actual facts.

“The whole idea of Section 8 in the beginning was that it was going to allow people to get out of the ghetto,” said Mike Daniel, a lawyer for the Inclusive Communities Project, told me. (Daniel has sued HUD over the way it is carrying out the program in Dallas.) “But there’s tremendous political pressure on housing authorities and HUD to not let it become an instrument of desegregation.”

For example, in much of the country, landlords can refuse to take Section 8 vouchers, even if the voucher covers the rent. And, unlike the landlords in poor neighborhoods in Eva Rosen’s study, many landlords of buildings in nicer neighborhoods will do anything to keep voucher-holders out. The result is that Section 8 traps families in the poorest neighborhoods.

One study in Austin found that there were plenty of apartments around the city that voucher-holders could afford. But only a small portion of those apartments would rent to voucher-holders.

The report, by the Austin Tenant’s Council, found that 78,217 units in the Austin metro area—about 56 percent of those surveyed—had rents within the Fair Market Rent limits. But only 8,590 of those units accepted vouchers and did not have minimum income requirements for tenants. Most were located on the east side of Austin, in high-poverty areas with underperforming schools and high crime rates. (The survey only looked at apartment complexes with at least 50 units.)

“Families don't have very many choices as to where they can actually use the voucher,” said Nekesha Phoenix, the Fair Housing Program Director at the Austin Tenants’ Council. “Although there are properties north and west that they could actually afford to live in, they can't do it because the properties won't take the voucher.”

So maybe 10% of units available to people in section 8 in Austin accepted the vouchers, the total percentage is much lower. It's probably not section 8 causing crime but being forced into neighborhoods that are not the best.

Let's keep alternative facts out of this debate.

 

[Face it Tiger..]

Just apartheid already, why don't you.

 

[entremet]

The biggest problem affecting the lower class today is the fact that the school's their children attend are Ghettos of poverty and broken families. A crappy way of fixing it is busing, because that then forces significant travel burdens on poor families.

The best way of fixing it is to provide poor people housing in middle class and upper class neighborhoods, so they have access to middle class and upper class services and environments.

Liberal white knighting of keeping undesirables in their own neighborhood, a safe distance away, while providing "the services they need to better themselves" might as well be a neo-klan policy.

Always on point.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

And let me debunk a myth: section 8 housing is nearby and i have the means to move but prefer to live where i am.

I rather take my chances with people in section 8 versus the hillbillies of Cobb county.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

The biggest problem affecting the lower class today is the fact that the school's their children attend are Ghettos of poverty and broken families. A crappy way of fixing it is busing, because that then forces significant travel burdens on poor families.

The best way of fixing it is to provide poor people housing in middle class and upper class neighborhoods, so they have access to middle class and upper class services and environments.

Liberal white knighting of keeping undesirables in their own neighborhood, a safe distance away, while providing "the services they need to better themselves" might as well be a neo-klan policy.

http://www.northjersey.com/story/ne...owns-affordable-housing-obligations/96712760/

Unfortunately, communities will fight, even in 2016.

NJ had a landmark case in Mount Laurel, in the 70's. They passed a law. And recently, a bunch of communities have wiggled their way out of enforcement. Just a shit show across the country.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

And let me debunk a myth: section 8 housing is nearby and i have the means to move but prefer to live where i am.

I rather take my chances with people in section 8 versus the hillbillies of Cobb county.

You didn't debunk anything, the landscape at large supports the claims of white flight over your anecdotal evidence. I also live in Cobb County so let me ask, do you have children and which high school district do you live in? I currently live in the Pebblebrook district which is one of the few Cobb schools that is a poor performer, it also pulls in from low income neighborhoods. This area is unique as even though the schools are poor there are some high value homes in the area. My neighborhood is pretty mixed demographics wise but when you look at the bus stop in the morning it is 100% black. All of the white and Asian families send their kids to a very expensive local private school. The proximity to Atlanta, our gated community, and the private schools are what keep those families here. As we can't afford that private school we will have to move to West cobb or kennesaw in order to send out kids to good schools.

 

[ezrarh]

The biggest problem affecting the lower class today is the fact that the school's their children attend are Ghettos of poverty and broken families. A crappy way of fixing it is busing, because that then forces significant travel burdens on poor families.

The best way of fixing it is to provide poor people housing in middle class and upper class neighborhoods, so they have access to middle class and upper class services and environments.

Liberal white knighting of keeping undesirables in their own neighborhood, a safe distance away, while providing "the services they need to better themselves" might as well be a neo-klan policy.

Totally agree with this. Also target what's causing broken families in the first place. Although I dislike the notion that to do well we have to put people, especially minorities into "well off white neighborhoods". Not to say there weren't issues back in the 50s and 60s, but there were a lot stable black and minority neighborhoods that were torn down for urban renewal - which we're still dealing with the repercussions today. We should have neighborhoods grow and get better incrementally than trying to do these drastic actions that pisses everyone off without really improving outcomes.

 

[Gallbaro]

Totally agree with this. Also target what's causing broken families in the first place. Although I dislike the notion that to do well we have to put people, especially minorities into "well off white neighborhoods". Not to say there weren't issues back in the 50s and 60s, but there were a lot stable black and minority neighborhoods that were torn down for urban renewal - which we're still dealing with the repercussions today. We should have neighborhoods grow and get better incrementally than trying to do these drastic actions that pisses everyone off without really improving outcomes.

It is very rare to find "drastic" action anywhere. The most liberal districts in the country fight tooth-and-nail minor action.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/...west-side-is-approved-after-bitter-fight.html

This is a problem that liberal racists need to reflect on, acknowledge and fix today in their own neighborhoods and perception.

 

[Shoeless]

Now San Francisco's non-rent regulated poor/middle class are permanently fucked, because even if liberal utopia actually became liberal and allowed housing they do not have the required capital nor labor stock to actually have a building boom.

Sounds like we're right on schedule for the Bell Riots that Star Trek: Deep Space 9 predicted.

 

[Andrew Korenchkin]

Real estate is very fascinating.

The incentive for private builders is to target higher income earners. However, low to middle income earners also need places to live, yet the incentive are not there. You do have programs like the one listed in the OP, but they face a lot of opposition.

Moreover, cities and state services rely on property taxes heavily. So if you're in a low income neighborhood, access to quality schools is difficult.

It's a very complex problem. Then add job markets to mix, which are heavily urban, yet have high prices, so many young careerists are cash flow poor.

I read somewhere that we tend to focus on providing housing that will provide for the highest revenue, failing to realize that a population is diverse and we need a supply for all income levels. We tend to measure success by value and rent prices, the higher the better.

 

[Gallbaro]

I read somewhere that we tend to focus on providing housing that will provide for the highest revenue, failing to realize that a population is diverse and we need a supply for all income levels. We tend to measure success by value and rent prices, the higher the better.

New supply for high earners is fine, when built in sufficient quantities "used stock" becomes the housing supply for relatively lower earners and so on.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

The biggest problem affecting the lower class today is the fact that the school's their children attend are Ghettos of poverty and broken families. A crappy way of fixing it is busing, because that then forces significant travel burdens on poor families.

The best way of fixing it is to provide poor people housing in middle class and upper class neighborhoods, so they have access to middle class and upper class services and environments.

Liberal white knighting of keeping undesirables in their own neighborhood, a safe distance away, while providing "the services they need to better themselves" might as well be a neo-klan policy.

Those people might call themselves liberals, but they may as well be called blue dog democrats. In the modern era, I've branded them yuppie/corporate democrats. They define NIMBYism, as that was the real push for full-on globalism in the first place. Instead of trying to confront and solve problems having to do with labor and the environment domestically head on, they took the path of diverting the problem to a foreign land, where the autocratic rulers had no problem shitting on their peasant citizens and their habitat. As part of this transaction that was terrible for the poor/working class domestically and abroad and the environment as well, both the corporate elites and autocratic rulers of foreign lands made out like bandits, skimming off the top as each sold out their own people. This is how the hollowing out of the middle and working classes of America happened.

Dumping a shitload of projects well outside the nice neighborhoods is shitty and lazy and racist/classist by design. The solution is to reform zoning laws to allow for more efficient/denser usage of well-established communities. This will allow more evenly distributed affordable housing to spring up. Integration really means "mixing evenly"...not just dumping a whole lot of people in concentrated section 8 housing.

Being progressive means that you should care about solving the underlying problem because you actually empathize with people, not just offloading the problem somewhere else because it is convenient.

 

[Mesousa]

You didn't debunk anything, the landscape at large supports the claims of white flight over your anecdotal evidence. I also live in Cobb County so let me ask, do you have children and which high school district do you live in? I currently live in the Pebblebrook district which is one of the few Cobb schools that is a poor performer, it also pulls in from low income neighborhoods. This area is unique as even though the schools are poor there are some high value homes in the area. My neighborhood is pretty mixed demographics wise but when you look at the bus stop in the morning it is 100% black. All of the white and Asian families send their kids to a very expensive local private school. The proximity to Atlanta, our gated community, and the private schools are what keep those families here. As we can't afford that private school we will have to move to West cobb or kennesaw in order to send out kids to good schools.

Pebblebrook is a true shithole. Dont ever send your kids there.

Section 8 turned Six Flags Drive, which was nice when I was a kid, into the middle of bankhead.

 

[Andrew Korenchkin]

New supply for high earners is fine, when built in sufficient quantities "used stock" becomes the housing supply for relatively lower earners and so on.

We don't do that as much, it seems. Housing is not my field of expertise, though.

 

[Vanillalite]

The biggest problem affecting the lower class today is the fact that the school's their children attend are Ghettos of poverty and broken families. A crappy way of fixing it is busing, because that then forces significant travel burdens on poor families.

The best way of fixing it is to provide poor people housing in middle class and upper class neighborhoods, so they have access to middle class and upper class services and environments.

Liberal white knighting of keeping undesirables in their own neighborhood, a safe distance away, while providing "the services they need to better themselves" might as well be a neo-klan policy.

If you fix the other underlying problems they won't actually BE super poor and lower class.

 

[CornBurrito]

If you fix the other underlying problems they won't actually BE super poor and lower class.

What's the underlying problem? Our current economic systems require that their be winners and losers.

"Improved job training" as you suggested is going to be rendered fucking worthless near soon enough. Education can only go so far. Not everyone can be some STEM guru or an engineer or a doctor. And even if everyone could, that would push wages down for those professions.

 

[shiftplusone]

The People in my current neighborhood are for this. They've fought against low income housing in our area for years now. The area is like 94% white.

My wife and I grew up in an incredibly diverse school district and neighborhoods and I don't know the answer but keeping the area at its current ratios is insane to me.

I don't want to raise my kids around this yuppie shit and is the primary reason we're moving this year. I can't stand it

 

[Deepwater]

If you fix the other underlying problems they won't actually BE super poor and lower class.

A lot of the underlying problems lie in access to healthcare, affordable healthy food, and good schooling. Which is caused by where people live

We're really just going in a circle here. Some people (not saying you specifically Vanillalite) want to help them poor colored folk get better, just not by moving into their neighborhoods. So instead, we help their other underlying issues and poverty and crime and property values will magically correct themselves.

Housing and neighborhoods will be, and continue to be, the last bastion of racism in this country. It will be the last thing to die (if it ever does), because so much of it happens and is regulated on a local level. You'd be surprised on how much the same rhetoric about property values and the 'quality of school' that happens today, even in this very thread, was the same rhetoric used against busing and desegregation in the 60s.

Nobody wants to live near crime, I get that. Everybody wants the best for their child, I get that. But I feel like everybody in America has to truly do some introspection about what that means as a collective and be honest about how we got here. And at the same time not fake the funk about what we're willing to do, to get out of it

 

[Gallbaro]

The People in my current neighborhood are for this. They've fought against low income housing in our area for years now. The area is like 94% white.

My wife and I grew up in an incredibly diverse school district and neighborhoods and I don't know the answer but keeping the area at its current ratios is insane to me.

I don't want to raise my kids around this yuppie shit and is the primary reason we're moving this year. I can't stand it

If you own.
Consider some affirmative action to a black family when you sell. Maybe even allow a few grand differential in their favor for shits and giggles against your neighbors.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

And let me debunk a myth: section 8 housing is nearby and i have the means to move but prefer to live where i am.

I rather take my chances with people in section 8 versus the hillbillies of Cobb county.

Yo I live in Cobb County.

Too many Trumpers here.


Save me

 

[Vanillalite]

A lot of the underlying problems lie in access to healthcare, affordable healthy food, and good schooling. Which is caused by where people live

We're really just going in a circle here. Some people (not saying you specifically Vanillalite) want to help them poor colored folk get better, just not by moving into their neighborhoods. So instead, we help their other underlying issues and poverty and crime and property values will magically correct themselves.

Housing and neighborhoods will be, and continue to be, the last bastion of racism in this country. It will be the last thing to die (if it ever does), because so much of it happens and is regulated on a local level. You'd be surprised on how much the same rhetoric about property values and the 'quality of school' that happens today, even in this very thread, was the same rhetoric used against busing and desegregation in the 60s.

Nobody wants to live near crime, I get that. Everybody wants the best for their child, I get that. But I feel like everybody in America has to truly do some introspection about what that means as a collective and be honest about how we got here. And at the same time not fake the funk about what we're willing to do, to get out of it

You can move them and integrate all races much easier for people in the middle and center left of the political spectrum when you take away even needing the issue in this thread.

Of course there will always be the alt right opposed to integration cause they are racists.

But if the people you are moving in and integrating are of a higher economical status then you can help eliminate the idea of integration via section 8 housing. You'd just integrate via other means like easier access to home loans for minorities into regular middle class housing that white people live in.

 

[Zeus Molecules]

This is Government sanctioned red lining..... plain and simple and if the SC wasn't going to be ransacked by republicans I would say it wouldn't hold up in court

 

[Deepwater]

You can move them and integrate all races much easier for people in the middle and center left of the political spectrum when you take away even needing the issue in this thread.

Of course there will always be the alt right opposed to integration cause they are racists.

But if the people you are moving in and integrating are of a higher economical status then you can help eliminate the idea of integration via section 8 housing. You'd just integrate via other means like easier access to home loans for minorities into regular middle class housing that white people live in.

In that case the alt right has existed for over a century now. You'd be surprised on how many "non racists" today don't want to live near black or brown people and mask it with crime and failing schools.

Also better access to home loans won't solve the problem of people delisting their home once they find out a black person is trying to buy it. That happens, even today.