Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Help me understand how you decided the Boulevard project was poorly built in 1969?
Public housing, built in the 1960s, tended to be low-quality, cheap as possible, and very energy inefficient. There's also a lot of wasted land onsite. I understand the need for rebuilding.
There was this whole notion back in the 1960s that if we made public housing "suburban" in nature, we wouldn't have the same problems as in urban areas. So we bulldozed the urban neighborhoods and all of the infrastructure in them. Unfortunately, it just turned out that you combined the isolation of the suburbs with the problems of poverty. So I think this is a step in the right direction.
Such a logical, sensible thought process. If only any of us had the answer.
The answer isn't taking food of the tables of working people and handing it over to people who refuse to take any responsibility for their life. I totally reject this notion that people, who can find time to reproduce like dogs in heat, commit dangerous crimes, and who do drugs, are incapable of doing real work.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is either on the take themselves, or has a vested interest in such a broken system.
The answer isn't taking food of the tables of working people and handing it over to people who refuse to take any responsibility for their life. I totally reject this notion that people, who can find time to reproduce like dogs in heat, commit dangerous crimes, and who do drugs, are incapable of doing real work.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is either on the take themselves, or has a vested interest in such a broken system.
I reject the notion that the majority of people in public housing are doing these things. There is a lot of "real work" being done by people who live in such places. And a lot of those working people are the ones really being terrorized by the element that commits the crimes. I believe legalizing drugs would be one of the quickest ways to solve the problem.
I reject the notion that the majority of people in public housing are doing these things.
I'm not buying it.
People who work and have some respect for themselves and take responsibility for their actions, don't live in public housing. I have already exempted the elderly and disabled. The rest, sorry. If they are taking food off the taxpayer'ss table, they need to make different decisions with their lives and stop having babies.
I totally reject this notion that government should be taking the hard earned money from one segment of society and handing it over to another. I don't care how carefully it's spun, this is what it is. Period.
People who work and have some respect for themselves and take responsibility for their actions, don't live in public housing. I have already exempted the elderly and disabled. The rest, sorry. If they are taking food off the taxpayer'ss table, they need to make different decisions with their lives and stop having babies.
I totally reject this notion that government should be taking the hard earned money from one segment of society and handing it over to another. I don't care how carefully it's spun, this is what it is. Period.
I'm not buying that. There are plenty of working people in public housing or some form of subsidized housing. Rents are skyrocketing and it is really not going to be possible to maintain housing for the workforce in this city without some subsidy.
Any government, ever, has entailed some form of redistribution. You can try to spin it like that's a bad thing or you can see it for what it is.
Any government, ever, has entailed some form of redistribution. You can try to spin it like that's a bad thing or you can see it for what it is.
Then you need to read up on your history. The USA did not have any ability to tax the public for these sorts of things for the first 130 years of its history and public housing as we know it now, has only existed since the 1960s. It's a failed experiment in bureaucratic social engineering and it's time to let it go.
Then you need to read up on your history. The USA did not have any ability to tax the public for these sorts of things for the first 130 years of its history and public housing as we know it now, has only existed since the 1960s. It's a failed experiment in bureaucratic social engineering and it's time to let it go.
Public housing was quite popular before the 1960s. Of course, back then it was white and seemed to truly work as a conduit to something else, largely because that "something else" included more subsidies for mortgages in the suburbs. Subsidies you couldn't get for homes in black neighborhoods. Couple that with the total decimation of manufacturing jobs in this country and the "PJs" were born. The majority of public housing these days is for seniors and disabled people at any rate. The rest goes to folks with kids. I don't know what the answer is, but kicking parents off the dole will only create more problems for those kids. The whole notion of "get rid of the subsidy" sounds nice in theory, but it's not that simple.
Part of the "need" for public housing comes from restrictive zoning and building codes. If we allowed the construction of what people at the bottom rung can really afford (single-wide trailers, shotgun shacks, and bare dirt floors) the supply of housing would increase, and people would become more responsible stakeholders in what they have.
Part of the "need" for public housing comes from restrictive zoning and building codes. If we allowed the construction of what people at the bottom rung can really afford (single-wide trailers, shotgun shacks, and bare dirt floors) the supply of housing would increase, and people would become more responsible stakeholders in what they have.
Agreed. Many folks (who can't really afford to live in Charlotte) are living in hotels and such places. These folks are often employed by more than one job and they still can't afford a place in this city. The median income for a single person here is only $32k; that means that 49.9999% of Charlotte earn less than that figure (with some barely earning half). Couple that with the fact that many of the newer contruction rentals do credit checks (which is just an undercover way of keeping out the working poor). It says alot about our society when almost every housing authority in the country has a waiting list that is 1-2 years long.
Part of the "need" for public housing comes from restrictive zoning and building codes. If we allowed the construction of what people at the bottom rung can really afford (single-wide trailers, shotgun shacks, and bare dirt floors) the supply of housing would increase, and people would become more responsible stakeholders in what they have.
Not sure I can agree. Allowing that kind of housing would raise all of our fire premiums and necessitate the hiring of more firefighters, not to mention the public health issues it would require.
I think the culture of 'dependency' is based more on the incentives provided by the illegal drug market. Legalize drugs and a lot of the violence will go away.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
