What are they thinking in Smithtown? (showing, income, jobs)

[Glad2BHere]

Originally Posted by OhBeeHave

And who pays the federal money but the taxpayers? A Smithtown taxpayer should have priority over a non Smithtown taxpayer or non Smithtown assistance recipient.

The Town advertised within the Township boundaries to update the list before seeking out non residents.

As somebody asked early on, why is it that only African American and Hispanic non resident assistance recipients who are suing? White non resident assistance recipients were shut out, too.

Why isn't anyone addressing that?

B/c they want to make something racial when it may not be at all. I guess some want to play the race card and see what they can get.

Even some of the new developments going up that have Next Generation housing (lower priced housing) are restricting them to people who have lived in the town for over a year I have heard. So this is nothing new.

[Walter Greenspan]

Originally Posted by etaoin

Doing good for one doesn't mean taking away from another.

When it's the gov't that's "doing good", it certainly means that there is a taking away from one to give to another. In order for the gov't to pay for the housing subsidy the gov't needs to either collect money as taxes or borrow money, with the indebtedness being paid by the same people who pay taxes, and then use this money to pay for the subsidy. This is referred to this as income redistribution.

[Manigault]

Originally Posted by OhBeeHave

As somebody asked early on, why is it that only African American and Hispanic non resident assistance recipients who are suing? White non resident assistance recipients were shut out, too.

Why isn't anyone addressing that?

I addressed that question yesterday: "Whites could sue about Smithtown cooking the books in favor of town residents and charge discrimination, as noted, because they are being deprived of the right to associate with others in a diverse community. [All of this is mentioned in the filed complaint.] So the lawsuit challenging the practice is not just for minorities. One other thing about lawsuits, in order to sue you have to be a person disadvantaged by the act you are complaining about -- you can't just sue for fun there's a requirement of 'standing'. So it stands to reason a minority member might sue. "

[Manigault]

Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan

It's my understanding that the courts have ruled that race or religion based restrictive covenants are not legally enforceable.

That's now. While he was going to school on the GI bill and working two jobs, my father built a house in Westchester for his burgeoning family in 1956. It was next to his father's house in a tract set aside for "our kind" in the 1920's. The school in that tract had to close in 1955 due to a Supreme Court ruling on schools in Delaware, Georgia and Topeka, KS.

Its a good thing he didn't try to move to Smithtown. And, yes, the fence at the end of the street is still there.


Red Lines, Black Spaces: The Politics of Race and Space in a Black Middle-Class Suburb. (Race, Class, and Place).~(book review) | Journal of the American Planning Association | Find Articles at BNET.com (broken link)

[Jrock247]

Wow sounds like somebody has a prosecution complex. Basically it sounds like Smithtown doesn't want to have to take in the trash from outside towns. The town happens to be primarily white.

[TomMoser]

Originally Posted by OhBeeHave

And who pays the federal money but the taxpayers? A Smithtown taxpayer should have priority over a non Smithtown taxpayer or non Smithtown assistance recipient.

The Town advertised within the Township boundaries to update the list before seeking out non residents.

As somebody asked early on, why is it that only African American and Hispanic non resident assistance recipients who are suing? White non resident assistance recipients were shut out, too.

Why isn't anyone addressing that?

I agree that the suit would be stronger if they added a white plaintiff. It would take away that argurment.

[OhBeeHave]

Originally Posted by Manigault

I addressed that question yesterday: "Whites could sue about Smithtown cooking the books in favor of town residents and charge discrimination, as noted, because they are being deprived of the right to associate with others in a diverse community. [All of this is mentioned in the filed complaint.] So the lawsuit challenging the practice is not just for minorities. One other thing about lawsuits, in order to sue you have to be a person disadvantaged by the act you are complaining about -- you can't just sue for fun there's a requirement of 'standing'. So it stands to reason a minority member might sue. "

I apologize, when I pressed 'view first unread' it passed over your post, as well as several others.

Mea culpa!

[Manigault]

Te absolvo!

[etaoin]

<i>When it's the gov't that's "doing good", it certainly means that there is a taking away from one to give to another. In order for the gov't to pay for the housing subsidy the gov't needs to either collect money as taxes or borrow money, with the indebtedness being paid by the same people who pay taxes, and then use this money to pay for the subsidy. This is referred to this as income redistribution.</i>
If the town had to go out of its way to find more applicants, then it doesn't sound to me as if anyone is taking away anything from one group to give to another. There is a pot of money, federally controlled, that all taxpayers have paid into. The town ran out of local residents, meaning it would have to go to "outsiders" who also either are or represent taxpayers. There is "income redistribution" only if you think all government programs who assist people--including any poor white people in Smithtown--are simply redistributing money. But the town does not get to decide how that local residents are more worthy than others. If they want to control who gets the benefit of the program and limit it to local residents, then it needs to be a local program. I don't get to decide that the Pentagon should buy bullets made in my hometown, or treat veterans in one local differently from another; I don't get to decide how immigration funds are divvied up. The enforcement/spending is for all. You can disagree with that; you can lobby your politicians for more but if the local folks don't raise the money, they don't get to spend it only on their people. It simply doesn't work that way. Someone yesterday compared this to being at the post office--you might go to the counter, be sent off to do something else, and then be allowed to return to the counter ahead of others standing in line, and how those people might object but it was only fair. No, it's not that situation at all. A more accurate comparison would be people standing in line, the guy at the counter deciding he didn't want to serve you, for whatever reason, and running out onto the sidewalk to invite others that he does like to get service ahead of those in line. That's BS.

[Walter Greenspan]

Originally Posted by etaoin

There is "income redistribution" only if you think all government programs who assist people--including any poor white people in Smithtown--are simply redistributing money.

Yes it is, and it is wrong: it is both unethical and immoral, for any level of govt to take from one group of people and give to another group of people, for any reason.