U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 05-08-2012, 06:00 AM
 
2,408 posts, read 2,111,787 times
Reputation: 1389

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagobear View Post
If you can't afford to live in Lincoln Park, it is not the taxpayers' job to subsidize you so you can.
Agreed. Next thing you know, advocates for poor people are going to start bit*ching because they can't afford to shop at Whole Foods.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2012, 06:03 AM
 
2,408 posts, read 2,111,787 times
Reputation: 1389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamms View Post
Evidently it is the job of taxpayers to keep electing pols in Chicago and Illinois to assist banks, contractors, corporations and the pols in obtaining subsidies and kickbacks.

"the Chicago way"
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 06:38 AM
 
Location: Uptown
1,521 posts, read 1,244,462 times
Reputation: 1236
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptug101 View Post
not a good idea thers affordable housing in uptown, rogers park,chinatown etc etc.
if you cant afford to live somewhere you dont need to we dont need more poor service workers in the city
im pretty sure alll those jobs are filled.
classic chicago attitude
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Bay Area
1,490 posts, read 1,159,230 times
Reputation: 759
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenniel View Post
Agreed. Next thing you know, advocates for poor people are going to start bit*ching because they can't afford to shop at Whole Foods.
Devil's advocate: Probably ultimately cost less in the long run to eat healthier. Obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 09:15 AM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,281 posts, read 4,519,362 times
Reputation: 2393
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacksonPanther View Post
Don't worry yourself too much. If places like Beverly Hills can manage to find people close enough to do the grunt work, I'm sure Lincoln Park will somehow get by. Point me to any super-wealthy enclave, and I'll find you a ghetto/barrio/whatever within driving distance. They go hand-in-hand.

...
Just because the surgeons and chief residents can afford to live in Lincoln Park doesn't mean that the lab techs and registration clerks also "deserve" to live in Lincoln Park, let alone the janitors.

Affordable Housing proponents really need to understand that "this dog doesn't hunt" - the average Joe can't afford to live in Lincoln Park, so why should an arbitrary "low income" person be afforded that luxury?
I wouldn't frame it as someone "deserving" to live there, I'd look at it from an urban planning perspective and ensuring, say, a nurse, doesn't need to take a 75 minute two-CTA-bus journey to and from work every day.

Looking at Childrens' Memorial just for argument's sake, if Chicago wants to attract and keep the best doctors, you also have to attract and keep high-quality staff in the other jobs which support the rock star brain surgeons and the like. Sure, you can say a janitor is replaceable, but to the people who rely on the janitor, it's an important job.

I think the better question is who is designing the criteria/what is the vision for who is supposed to be living in these units (which as pointed out, ain't many)? Are these really going to be priced for janitors, or is it more like nurses?

Personally, I think affordable housing is doomed to be ineffective unless it's going to be mandatory in every neighborhood, as well as in the suburbs. And how to do that fairly while accomplishing something worthwhile is a pretty big question.

Last edited by Chi-town Native; 05-08-2012 at 09:57 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 09:54 AM
 
Location: Uptown
1,521 posts, read 1,244,462 times
Reputation: 1236
Some of the attitudes towards the poor here are pretty sick...the whole "why should so and so be entitled to live here" argument is gross and the slipperiest of slopes.

One of many major reasons why public/low-income housing has had so many issues is because it has have been hyper-concentrated and the handful of small-scale low-income residences in desirable neighborhoods are relatively low impact. Is the goal to empower, lift-up and break the cycle or is it simply NIMBY out of sight, out of mind? Because if it's the latter, we might as well hord the poor onto trucks and ship them to the type of shiitty hell hole they "deserve"...somewhere like Indianapolis.

Last edited by Aleking; 05-08-2012 at 10:03 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,281 posts, read 4,519,362 times
Reputation: 2393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleking View Post
Some of the attitudes towards the poor here are pretty sick...the whole "why should so and so be entitled to live here" argument is gross and the slipperiest of slopes.
...especially when you consider the fact the land was stolen in the first place by the US Government, which reneged on treaty after treaty.

I would strongly suggest that anyone who really wants to understand land rights at least read "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee."
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 10:48 AM
 
Location: North Jackson
1,296 posts, read 1,365,669 times
Reputation: 1549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
I wouldn't frame it as someone "deserving" to live there, I'd look at it from an urban planning perspective and ensuring, say, a nurse, doesn't need to take a 75 minute two-CTA-bus journey to and from work every day.
This doesn't make sense. Children's Hospital (or whatever hospital, it doesn't matter which) CHOSE to locate themselves in Lincoln Park and now Streeterville. They CHOSE to place their facility in expensive, inaccessible locations. They made a business decision to place that hospital where it is, it was no accident. So now why is the public being asked to subsidize their inability to get low-wage people to work there? Instead of asking the public to provide cheap housing in the neighborhood, Children's Hospital should be paying their nurses and janitors a higher wage, to convince them to travel to their faciity instead of a hospital with a better location. It's not as if Children's is the only hospital in Chicagoland.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
Looking at Childrens' Memorial just for argument's sake, if Chicago wants to attract and keep the best doctors, you also have to attract and keep high-quality staff in the other jobs which support the rock star brain surgeons and the like. Sure, you can say a janitor is replaceable, but to the people who rely on the janitor, it's an important job.
Of course the janitors and the nurses are important. Again, Children's made a business decision to locate themselves where they are. I guarantee you they thought about the impact their move would have on all their current employees, and on their ability to attract new employees. I also guarantee that Children's management decided that the benefits outweighed the drawbacks. So let them live with their decision, why should the public be asked to build affordable housing so that Children's can have a "company town" near their facility?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
Personally, I think affordable housing is doomed to be ineffective unless it's going to be mandatory in every neighborhood, as well as in the suburbs. And how to do that fairly while accomplishing something worthwhile is a pretty big question.
Bingo! Until I see Section 8 holders in Glencoe and Hinsdale, until I see affordable housing being built in significant numbers in Winnetka and Barrington Hills, until that happens I know it's all a joke and no one has any real intent to make a difference. Yes, I will admit to having a NIMBY attitude, until I see EVERYONE taking a bite of the bitter apple. If I some communities getting away without it, then yes I'm going to try to join them.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 10:58 AM
 
1,896 posts, read 1,067,987 times
Reputation: 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenniel View Post
"the Chicago way"
It is the ''Chicago way''; however, the "Chicago way" is way out of date in the 21st Century as the city and state both find huge amounts of debt that will increase taxes and drive business away.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 11:14 AM
 
Location: Chicago, Tri-Taylor
2,184 posts, read 4,212,279 times
Reputation: 1163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleking View Post
Some of the attitudes towards the poor here are pretty sick...the whole "why should so and so be entitled to live here" argument is gross and the slipperiest of slopes.

One of many major reasons why public/low-income housing has had so many issues is because it has have been hyper-concentrated and the handful of small-scale low-income residences in desirable neighborhoods are relatively low impact. Is the goal to empower, lift-up and break the cycle or is it simply NIMBY out of sight, out of mind? Because if it's the latter, we might as well hord the poor onto trucks and ship them to the type of shiitty hell hole they "deserve"...somewhere like Indianapolis.
NOBODY deserves to be shipped to Indianapolis. Please don't start talking crazy here ok?

Unfortunately, the concept of "mixed income" will never translate into widespread practice absent some kind of Federal mandate by an administration that knows it's one-and-done and just wants to do good (I'm holding my breath over here FWIW). The main stumbling block is that many of those who preach the mixed income utopia don't want to live in a truly mixed income area. They think you should of course but they do not.

Think about the land bank program I cited above. That's about as dumb as they come. On the surface it seems evenhanded. Turn foreclosures into low income rentals, and every community has foreclosures right? Well...they do, but are foreclosures evenly distributed? No, of course not. You can go to Blockshopper.com and figure that out in about 10 seconds. A community like Cicero, for example, has more, a lot more, than Oak Park, and so on.

So, at the end of the day, those marginally incomed people who will be placed in foreclosed single family homes throughout Cook County will for the most part be in areas out of sight, out of mind to most of the middle and upper middle classes. And so the beat will go on.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top