Public Housing in the Banks (Cincinnati: middle-class, fit in, section 8)

[QCP]

I read this on Cincinnati.com this morning and it really concerned me: The Enquirer - Housing at Banks now an issue

I'm not even going to pretend that I know the integral parts of assignments for public housing, but I just can't see this being good for the project. Before some of you jump all over me, yes I know there are many great people that need public assistance for their housing. But I also see the bad that comes with much public housing (crime, drugs, loitering, etc) and I can't help seeing this bringing even more controversy to an already controversial project.

What do you guys think?

[HuskerDu]

That article alone may have just dropped condo values in The Banks area. Not to stir up stuff but damn... can you imagine how livid those who bought units ahead of time, only to discover this is being considered, must be?

[The Don]

A sure fire way to sabotage the project. We see this time and time again: mix low income with middle/upper income families and the middle/upper income people move away - for a variety of reasons -- higher crime, more blight, lack of commonality of purpose.

I just can't see an upper class couple (nee Yuppy) living in the same community as a single mother lead family. It just doesn't happen - and since the upwardly mobile couple have other choices they will exercise them and move elsewhere.

[rant]What these pointy headed social architects have to understand is that a community is more than just a random set of people living together.[/rant]

What I can't figure out is why Pete Witte is behind this rediculus idea... I always thought the guy was a level headed clear thinking guy - the kind of person who would be a real asset in a leadership role.

Am I missing something here?

[Crew Chief]

My wife and I together earn a comfortable amount of money and live in a very nice subdivision. Even so, I don't believe a condo in the Banks project would fit in our budget. So I don't believe we should be allowed to live there. (oh, wait... I could get an ARM from a shady mortgage broker, default on a Banks condo then have the government bail me out. Hmmm...) Now WHY IN THE WORLD should people that (for the most part; I'm not referring to those who truly need our help) have very little ambition in life be subsidized or just given a condo on the some of the most expensive real estate in Southwest Ohio???

Why isn't the purpose of public housing to be uncomfortable enough to where those who are given it quickly choose to better themselves so that they move out and into their own apartment? I have a couple of personal experiences with Section 8 recipients, and I don't think anyone (especially those with enough ability and desire to earn the kind of money it will take to purchase a condo at the Banks) should have to live in close proximity to Section 8 recipients. I will never do that again.

[Crew Chief]

Originally Posted by HuskerDu

That article alone may have just dropped condo values in The Banks area. Not to stir up stuff but damn... can you imagine how livid those who bought units ahead of time, only to discover this is being considered, must be?

Good point! Why did Witte and the Cincy Metro Housing Authority wait until NOW to float that idea???

[Igor1977]

Originally Posted by Crew Chief

Good point! Why did Witte and the Cincy Metro Housing Authority wait until NOW to float that idea???

This is a political stunt by the West Side contingent led by Witte.

[yayoi]

Must they put public housing in every damn community????? Middle-class people can't even afford those condos at the market rate, so why in the world should someone who pays $15/month rent get a apartment with a river view???!!! There will always be areas off-limits to the lower classes. This is just a fact of life. People need to learn to live with it!

[Cincy-Rise]

Originally Posted by HuskerDu

That article alone may have just dropped condo values in The Banks area. Not to stir up stuff but damn... can you imagine how livid those who bought units ahead of time, only to discover this is being considered, must be?

Lol ... I wouldn't worry too much, Husker! They're a little late to the game!

I'm with you guys though, I don't think "section 8" will work ... I can see them putting middle-class down there, but not "poverty level".

[hillside]

think about this...if public housing is part of the banks, it is the opposite of otr. why the double standard? why is it okay for someone with means to take advantage of low housing prices in an eclectic area but not okay for someone who is struggling to be afforded the chance to live in an area with similar civic value?

concentrated poverty with scattered upward social mobility - otr

concentrated wealth with scattered poverty - the banks

[jstn]

Originally Posted by hillside

think about this...if public housing is part of the banks, it is the opposite of otr. why the double standard? why is it okay for someone with means to take advantage of low housing prices in an eclectic area but not okay for someone who is struggling to be afforded the chance to live in an area with similar civic value?

concentrated poverty with scattered upward social mobility - otr

concentrated wealth with scattered poverty - the banks

So, I should tell my children to quit doing their homework, dropout when they reach 16, have 5 kids by the time they are 20 and in the end it will pay off because they will be rewarded with one of the hottest pieces of real estate in the midwest?

People should be rewarded for their hard work, not for their existance. What about the hard working people that make make up 90% of the metro area that won't be able to afford a home in the Banks? Will they be offered the same opportunity?