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.
That's odd, because for most of American urban development up until the early 20th century (particularly in those cities with a significant black population), the relatively poor servant class either lived in rear alley dwellings behind wealthy homes or lived in the same home as the wealthy families altogether.
There's a difference between the servant class (which essentially no longer exists) and the welfare class.
There's a difference between the servant class (which essentially no longer exists) and the welfare class.
It almost seems like the servant class still exists, but is just structured different with the "servants" being "shared" by many and employed by a third party. Most people may not have their own cooks, maids, etc., but I can't help but see those who cook and package ready-to-eat food at the grocery store for you, maid services, lawn/landscaping services, and restaurant servers as the modern "servant class".
Housing Preservation and Development Commissioner Vicki Been said the plan to build 80,000 new affordable apartments and preserve 120,000 units would create a more diverse city.
Sounds like a good idea. I think it might help enlighten some of the up-tight, close-minded, bigoted "rich" people.
Some of the nastiest people I have met were wealthy. It might be helpful for them to live around some "poor" people, whom I have usually found to be nicer, more honest, and more hard-working than entitled "job creators."
It's all part of the well-documented scheme to "redistribute" people--there's an entire agenda to make areas more diverse by zip code.
Then, when people who moved into neighborhoods for which they pay beaucoup taxes beef about it, they can be called intolerant, racists, etc. Memo to the PTB: Dropping people into better neighborhoods does not solve their problems. The problems come with them.
Sounds like a good idea. I think it might help enlighten some of the up-tight, close-minded, bigoted "rich" people.
Some of the nastiest people I have met were wealthy. It might be helpful for them to live around some "poor" people, whom I have usually found to be nicer, more honest, and more hard-working than entitled "job creators."
OK, we get it. You live in a poor neighborhood riddled with crime and abject poverty--the kind that the architects of the scheme want to move people out of. It's a free country, and people should be able to live where they want to live as long as they're paying for it.
P.S. If you don't live in that type of neighborhood, why not?
Housing Preservation and Development Commissioner Vicki Been said the plan to build 80,000 new affordable apartments and preserve 120,000 units would create a more diverse city.
I think it's a good idea AS LONG AS the low-income ppl are scattered throughout the middle class/rich areas in lower concentrations, so it would be harder for them to congregate with each other and create the same kind of environment as in their community of origin.
The reality is that as a child you really have zero control over:
- What neighborhood you happen to be born into.
- Who your parent/s happen to be and how much they make.
- What school system you happen to attend.
- What environment you happen to be brought up in.
.... So society should be taking steps to make sure as many people as possible can have a fair chance in life.
I don't know about this. Why GIVE some people affordable homes in better neighborhoods? Isn't that part of the "let me git dat" problem that makes people unmotivated to earn things?
Lets face it, the middle and upper class want to separate themselves from those that languish in poverty. Moving these people into better neighborhoods will likely lower property values and raise crime which will cause the wealthy to move somewhere else. If those with money wanted diversity, they would volunteer to move to poorer areas.
Class+racial strife is the weapon of the progressive.
It's all part of the well-documented scheme to "redistribute" people--there's an entire agenda to make areas more diverse by zip code.
Then, when people who moved into neighborhoods for which they pay beaucoup taxes beef about it, they can be called intolerant, racists, etc. Memo to the PTB: Dropping people into better neighborhoods does not solve their problems. The problems come with them.
I thought the middle class in NYC was already doing that involuntarily in regards to the hideous rents? Especially the singletons. "Brooklyn as steep as Manhattan" and all that. The hectic neighborhoods I've seen random Internet dudes advising people to consider buying in because they're "a great investment"... maybe the mayor should consider enforcing loitering laws first. There are a great many neighborhoods I'd help "gentrify" if walking down their streets didn't scare me solid, some of my friends are even afraid to walk down the streets of mine.
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.