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.
So that's bad for the City to provide housing for its workers? Nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head to submit an application to work for the City. Maybe they can implement something like after you worked for the City for 10 years minimum then you could move out, or something to that effect.
There are so many negative implications to this idea that I'm not even sure where to begin.
What qualified candidate for almost any city job, especially the ones that already have equivalents in other municipalities which "steal" some of our better candidates would take the job knowing that they would be forced to live in projects, or, the be a little more general, forced to live in a building? Plenty of very qualified candidates grew up in nice homes, nice neighborhoods, within the city. I'm not talking about Long Islanders or people from even further than that, what about those who grew up on Staten Island in a nice middle class residential neighborhood or Bensonhurst? Hell, even East Flatbush has row after row of nice attached homes with small yards. You're telling me you think these people should be forced into projects if they want a city job?
Unlike two other frequent posters in this forum, I actually enjoy conversing with you, but Seventh, this is a flat out ridiculous idea. Sorry pal.
The city should not (and probably cannot) provide housing to its thousands of workers. It's neither feasible nor fair. You can and probably should, require that they live within city limits but you cannot force them to live in a specific area within the city.
Nevertheless, I think a vesting period (10 yrs sounds about right) requiring them to live in the city before they can move out (within the state, of course) could be a workable compromise.
But again, we are just discussing hypothetical scenarios here.
This isn't happening anytime soon!
When applied to the whole City as you state here, the idea seems much more reasonable, and honestly plenty of cities do actually have requirements such as this. But the projects specifically? That's absolutely insane. Many city jobs require expensive educations and perfect backgrounds. Who the hell with those qualifications is going to accept a job under the condition that they live in the projects amongst some of the lowest elements of society?
When applied to the whole City as you state here, the idea seems much more reasonable, and honestly plenty of cities do actually have requirements such as this. But the projects specifically? That's absolutely insane. Many city jobs require expensive educations and perfect backgrounds. Who the hell with those qualifications is going to accept a job under the condition that they live in the projects amongst some of the lowest elements of society?
I said the projects should be for city employees ONLY.
Imagine if the projects along Avenue D were filled with nothing but city workers....IMO it would be no less different than living in a regular middle-upper income development. The buildings would be kept cleaner because there would be a better demographic living there, and the city recoups. Then after 10 years or so, if you want to move, you can.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Slightly better, but again, how about those who want a small yard? Not to be attached (yes, still affordable for many if you're smart with money)? Living in the city is not such a unique requirement. It's fairly common actually around the country. But what you're suggesting is a majorly restrictive social engineering project at what benefit? If its to fix the projects themselves, then I'd posit that knocking them down and building affordable less dense housing is a far better idea.
Slightly better, but again, how about those who want a small yard? Not to be attached (yes, still affordable for many if you're smart with money)? Living in the city is not such a unique requirement. It's fairly common actually around the country. But what you're suggesting is a majorly restrictive social engineering project at what benefit? If its to fix the projects themselves, then I'd posit that knocking them down and building affordable less dense housing is a far better idea.
Then after 10 years they'll go somewhere that has a small yard....you come off as seeming like it's bad to live in any type of building period. Some people prefer living in a building regardless of their economic status. I grew up in a house and live in a building now. No snow shoveling or raking leaves for me anymore.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Of course some people are fine with that living in buildings, there's nothing wrong with that. But plenty of people don't live that way and won't ever. Are you saying you're okay with the city losing a huge pool of applicants who wouldn't want to live in an apartment building, especially ones built and maintained as poorly as the projects?
Can we at least agree that you are talking about a hugely restrictive requirement, and one that would be unprecedented in the civil service community with no comparison anywhere else in the country? This alone would make it a disaster for NYC. If the city is already having trouble recruiting quality cops, how would this idea help?
I think all city workers should be required to live in the 5 boroughs. Why should another municipality receive that tax money? We pay their salaries.
I always thought that a good way to stabilize the projects would be to make them for city workers only. If they don't want to live in the projects, and decide to move into a house, they can seek employment elsewhere.
I have to feverishly disagree. Unless the "tax payer" is willing to cover the cost of housing and other living expenses, I do not believe that they should be entitled to dictate as to what boundaries someone should accustomed to living within.
If I can commute to China back and fourth everyday and report to work as scheduled, then it's none of the city's or tax payers business that I can do so.
In terms of tax money and revenue? So what? Once the services rendered are exchanged for a worker's labor it is no longer the city's money. What's next? Should the city be enabled to dictate what stores an employee can shop in? Should the city be able to dictate what stores that the money can be spent to best suit NYC and it's interests? I don't think so.
Of course some people are fine with that living in buildings, there's nothing wrong with that. But plenty of people don't live that way and won't ever. Are you saying you're okay with the city losing a huge pool of applicants who wouldn't want to live in an apartment building, especially ones built and maintained as poorly as the projects?
Can we at least agree that you are talking about a hugely restrictive requirement, and one that would be unprecedented in the civil service community with no comparison anywhere else in the country? This alone would make it a disaster for NYC. If the city is already having trouble recruiting quality cops, how would this idea help?
The projects are not built poorly. Maintained poorly yes, but not built poorly. They're more durable than some of the new construction that's being put up now. That's for another discussion however.
Yes we can agree that it is hugely restrictive, and unprecedented. But disaster I think not.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
I think all city workers should be required to live in the 5 boroughs. Why should another municipality receive that tax money? We pay their salaries.
I always thought that a good way to stabilize the projects would be to make them for city workers only. If they don't want to live in the projects, and decide to move into a house, they can seek employment elsewhere.
For all the people saying SeventhFloor's idea is "ridiculous" --
There actually was a time when city workers lived in housing projects.
Thousands of working-class families moved from places like Manhattan’s Lower East Side into Pomonok Houses, completed in 1952, which then were brick monoliths jutting up from the unpopulated rural Queens landscape.
I know someone who grew up in Pomonok and her dad was NYPD.
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.
