NYC's future = disneyland for yuppies ?? (New York, York: coupons, renting, health insurance)
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.
What Materialism wants is a city without poor people, and has chosen to pick on New York, but of course that's completely unrealistic no matter which city you want to talk about. That's why you can't really take him (or her) seriously.
I think he's saying that there should be no public housing in Manhattan whatsoever because people work hard to be able to afford/live in Manhattan so it isn't fair poor people get to live there for basically free. I kind of agree with that.
From what I'm reading, he wants public housing moved to the boroughs, outside of Manhattan.
I think he's saying that there should be no public housing in Manhattan whatsoever because people work hard to be able to afford/live in Manhattan so it isn't fair poor people get to live there for basically free. I kind of agree with that.
From what I'm reading, he wants public housing moved to the boroughs, outside of Manhattan.
So you move all of the poor people to the Bronx, you are still going to have people living in public housing for free, next to people working hard for a living. What is the difference?
So people who work hard in Manhattan are superior and should not have to live around public housing, but people who work hard in the Bronx should have all of the public housing relocated near them??
I think he's saying that there should be no public housing in Manhattan whatsoever because people work hard to be able to afford/live in Manhattan so it isn't fair poor people get to live there for basically free. I kind of agree with that.
From what I'm reading, he wants public housing moved to the boroughs, outside of Manhattan.
Some people in public housing work hard also. I guess what the real thought process is, is that people who have jobs that make money (regardless of how hard you work) or inheritances or trust funds or whatever should have the opportunity to live in Manhattan but those that do not get the high income jobs or have inheritances or trust funds should be moved to the outerboroughs. Just saying, because people who work in McDonalds or as Custodial Engineers or waiters or whatever can work just as hard as people who work on Wall Street and some of those people live in public housing. Should they be eliminated from the Manhattan residential scence because they don't have the high paying jobs? I thnk it is a misconception to think that everyone in Public Housing is living there free without working for a living wage. Anyway, just wanted to comment and I was also curious about what the thoughts were.
I think people think about this stuff too much. The world changes, areas get better and worse, popular/unpopular. Its the natural order of things. Things won't be the same as when you were a kid. Things are changing! Deal with it!
Some people in public housing work hard also. I guess what the real thought process is, is that people who have jobs that make money (regardless of how hard you work) or inheritances or trust funds or whatever should have the opportunity to live in Manhattan but those that do not get the high income jobs or have inheritances or trust funds should be moved to the outerboroughs. Just saying, because people who work in McDonalds or as Custodial Engineers or waiters or whatever can work just as hard as people who work on Wall Street and some of those people live in public housing. Should they be eliminated from the Manhattan residential scence because they don't have the high paying jobs? I thnk it is a misconception to think that everyone in Public Housing is living there free without working for a living wage. Anyway, just wanted to comment and I was also curious about what the thoughts were.
Yes, lower-income people work hard so they should get whatever they want. Let's give them penthouses, Prada, first class tickets, luxury condos and Bentleys for 90 percent off because they work hard too!
Last edited by Viralmd; 07-18-2008 at 05:10 AM..
Reason: Rude
Yes, lower-income people work hard so they should get whatever they want. Let's give them penthouses, Prada, first class tickets, luxury condos and Bentleys for 90 percent off because they work hard too!
No one said anything about that. They said we don't need to kick them out because of people like you who only want to be surrounded by rich things. What you don't realize is that if there was no lower or middle class, then the upper class wouldn't exist anymore.
Many people living in public housing have jobs and are kind, hardworking people who pay rent. They just cant afford the high rents of Manhattan. Besides, many people making quite high incomes pay even less than them living in rent stabilized apartments. Why not get rid of those too if all cheap housing should be banned?
So your premise is that people who have lived here for decades should move to the boroughs in favor of wealthy new arrivals?
Last edited by Viralmd; 07-18-2008 at 06:39 AM..
Reason: Personal attack; rude
What Materialism wants is a city without poor people, and has chosen to pick on New York, but of course that's completely unrealistic no matter which city you want to talk about. That's why you can't really take him (or her) seriously.
How about a city with 1/10th as many Wall Street parasites?
There are positive and negative aspects of living in any of the five boroughs - including Manhattan. Yes, Manhattan is desirable because of its easier access to where many work, its conveniences, transportation options, excellent medical and educational facilities, and so forth.
But the outer boroughs also have areas that excel in many of these areas. Being part of NYC, the residents also pay NYC taxes and are governed by the same executive, legislative, judicial systems peculiar to the city.
They also have something that Manhattan lacks - the ability to look up and see the sky, neighborhoods with a sometimes suburban flair, a littlle less hectic pace where one can take a breather, national and international airports, major league baseball stadiums, solid middle class homes and individuals living side by side, lovely ethnic cuisines represenative of the world we live in, and yes - many lower income as well as upper income people and homes. Regarding homes, it is in the outer boroughs that one can also find a variety of housing including detached houses, co-ops, condos, townhouses, row houses, etc.
As desirable as Manhattan is, here in America, we attempt to be as egalitarian a society as any country can ever be. It is not in keeping with the character of our great country and metropolis that we should allow only a small cadre of elites to live in the epicenter of America. Apart from issues of equity, it clearly sends a wrong signal to the world if Manhattan were to become Beverly Hills.
Despite all the wishful thinking of some Manahttan-centric individulas, that scenario is unlikely - thanks to rent control, rent stabalization, projects, etc.
Yes, the ultra rich should have a shot at Manhattan, but let them stand in line like everyone else.
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.