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.
I would say that residents should make a stink & demand that it be for low income elderly & disabled. The people who are pushing it will look bad if they say no.
I don't mind it being for low income elderly but there is a problem when drug addiction and alcoholism are considered disabilities.
Hmmm. Good point, BUSINESSPERSON. Well, do druggies/alcholics get subsistence from SS and vouchers from HUD? I honestly don't know.
Can you get declared "disabled" just cause you are addicted to something? I have a feeling you can get SS # or "welfare" money but I believe we wouldn't have homeless folks on the street if they got HUD $$. But to be honest, I really have never researched that.
Absolutely Ani. Addiction is a legitimate disability and addicts qualify for SSI Disability payments.
Wow. I didn't know that, altho I do know hat alcoholism is a disease and addictions are definitely disabling (and probably genetic in the sense of a person having the propensity to become addicted to substances).
I sure didn't know that. Wonder why so many folks w/ addictions are on the street? If they can get vouchers, looks like they would be in an apt rather than out in the cold in a terrible situation.
Absolutely Ani. Addiction is a legitimate disability and addicts qualify for SSI Disability payments.
Not true. Took a quick look at Social Security Claimant Lawyers' websites and the general consensus is that an alcoholic can get disability ONLY if his disability is separate from his alcoholism...So, no, you don't get disability just by being an alcoholic. But it's possible that an alcoholic who might have also lost a leg on the job (while not drunk) might qualify for disability...Or a guy who lost his leg on the job and later becomes an alcoholic still qualifies for disability.
Not true. Took a quick look at Social Security Claimant Lawyers' websites and the general consensus is that an alcoholic can get disability ONLY if his disability is separate from his alcoholism...So, no, you don't get disability just by being an alcoholic. But it's possible that an alcoholic who might have also lost a leg on the job (while not drunk) might qualify for disability...Or a guy who lost his leg on the job and later becomes an alcoholic still qualifies for disability.
Another scenario - mental illness does qualify for disability - and some alcoholics are mentally ill and self medicate with alcohol. So I would suppose that is another way that a person could get qualified to receive SS Disability.
So, bottomline of 5 pages is: Formerly commercial property that everyone thought would be a Saks Fifth Ave store will be a low income housing project.Not good for property values or walking home alone at nite alone.
One would think that someone got the upper hand here and "we're screwed".Maybe.
But you know, for every really smart guy that graduated near the head of his class, there was one smarter than him.
There is someone out there, really smart, charges a lot of money, that has done this before, and knows how to put some paper in place that will stop this in its' tracks.It never fails. When we think the race is over--Oh,
crap, here he comes someone busting up the party.
My take: Media is interested in the story but will do nothing to save you.
Town meeting---Get together a couple of nites and start a bonfire that goes out quickly b/c the opposition has millions at stake and works at it daily while others go off to work to survive.
Find real quick the the white knight. Where is he? Don't know, but use all resources, contacts, networking, google, schmoogle, to find the man that knows how to say"No, no, you can't do this because____________".
So, bottomline of 5 pages is: Formerly commercial property that everyone thought would be a Saks Fifth Ave store will be a low income housing project.Not good for property values or walking home alone at nite alone.
One would think that someone got the upper hand here and "we're screwed".Maybe.
But you know, for every really smart guy that graduated near the head of his class, there was one smarter than him.
There is someone out there, really smart, charges a lot of money, that has done this before, and knows how to put some paper in place that will stop this in its' tracks.It never fails. When we think the race is over--Oh,
crap, here he comes someone busting up the party.
My take: Media is interested in the story but will do nothing to save you.
Town meeting---Get together a couple of nites and start a bonfire that goes out quickly b/c the opposition has millions at stake and works at it daily while others go off to work to survive.
Find real quick the the white knight. Where is he? Don't know, but use all resources, contacts, networking, google, schmoogle, to find the man that knows how to say"No, no, you can't do this because____________".
Ordinarily, I would agree with you 100% on this. But the cards are stacked against Ballantyne area property owners, b/c the council can pass whatever they wish to pass - they have a solid majority - and they have no reason NOT to go forward as it benefits their constituents.
Ballantyne has attorneys living there . . . maybe one of them will step forward and donate some time and find a loophole, such as something to do w/ the legalities in this state in re: to rent control . . . or some other approach along those lines.
I seriously doubt folks understand the longterm effects of an inexperienced mayor and newbie council moving forward too quickly with this project and unless people consider it urgent - they are not likely to write out the checks required to pay an attorney. People have to feel pretty threatened b/f they start contributing the $$$$.
I've seen argument out there that in terms of affordable/low-income housing, Charlotte has historically placed these in East and West Charlotte, avoiding South Charlotte for the most part?
There are other similar housing authority proposals on the table...for example, Strawn (sp) Court on South Blvd in the South End, which is currently for low-income seniors, is proposed to be re-developed into mixed-use, mixed income housing.
I also think that there are also different variations of "inclusive housing" - for example, mandated set asides in developments where some percentage of units are discounted based on income. I have seen this used as a way to try to help people like police officers, school teachers etc afford to live in areas that they otherwise not be able to afford - which is different than straight Section 8...don't know if there are such programs or rules in place in Charlotte.
My experience w/ Section 8 is that in many cases, it is not the residents themselves who are the main issues - but rather, people whom the residents may associate with - be they friends, family, etc.
The local media will never portray any of these programs, such as Section 8 rentals in Ballentyne, in a negative manner. They are absolutely scared at upsetting certain demographics in this city and won't do anything to tip the boat.
If the local mayor wants to increase the limit on section 8 from $800 to $1800, like we have all this money laying around, then the media will applaud him for helping people. They absolutely won't challenge him on the idea.
The local media will interview people outraged about the idea of the government and Mayor wanting to pay low income people, with tax money, to live in upper middle class neighborhoods. When they do, anyone interviewed will be made out to be bigots, selfish, and and a very small minority of the population. I feel sorry for anyone who will go on camera for this.
The local media will not challenge the Mayor and local city council on spending time on this sort of thing. They are going to parrot them on this. They only time they challenge the power base in this city, is if one of them gets caught in some sort of sex scandal, or has committed a crime so bad it has to be deal with in a negative manner. Even then, it's limited. The current police scandal is an example of that.
IMO, when section 8 rentals start showing up, the neighborhood starts sinking below the water. It is a slap in the face to the people who did work hard to be in a house. It's a double slap given that they are paying taxes for the "family" to be moved into the house next door.
The fact of the matter is the Mayor and the Charlotte city council to do lame stuff such as this because people simply don't go out to vote. Anthony Fox got voted in by a slim majority of a very dismal turnout. But even worse, the city council got voted in with almost no challenge at all. 1/2 of them didn't even have challengers. This is the only power you have to deal with this as the media isn't going to help on the matter. They are self serving and if it is something that is going to rock the boat, they simply are not interested.
How many of you who are upset with this, voted in last November's city election? How many voted in the primary before that? What? You didn't vote? OK lesson learnt.
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.
