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.
The private sector really CAN solve issues like this.
What I have in mind - what I would do if I had the money - is a small subdivision with small lots and small houses...and DEED RESTRICTIONS limiting occupancy to two persons.
Right there you effectively eliminate the problem of large families or too many kids in small houses.
Deed restrictions can be enforced, and other residents in the subdivision will surely act to protect themselves.
Who is going to buy this land? I would if I had the money. Who's going to buy the individual lots or houses? There are plenty of low-wage workers who would love the opportunity to own a small house. If I had a choice between paying $500 to rent a room in a house, and owning a tiny house, I'll take the house, thank you.
Owning a small house means no more landlord hassles, no more rent increases, no more involuntary moving (because you can't afford the rent increase), stable housing costs (very important on a low income), and the other benefits of homeownership
Well, there are several flaws in your idealistic world suggestion:
1-ok, only 2 people can live in one of these little houses, so Jane and John have a baby, now what do you do? Remember they own the house, so who is going to tell them they have to move? and if they do move where will they live?
2-now you think the private sector is going to step in? Where will they make their money. Private corporations are in business to make money, not support the poor?
3-no rental raises, do you have any idea what it costs to maintain a home? Let me tell you. It only takes about 5 years for things to start wearing out. There are roofs, paint, yardwork, plumbing, new carpet, appliances, etc. I think you get the picture.
Well, there are several flaws in your idealistic world suggestion:
1-ok, only 2 people can live in one of these little houses, so Jane and John have a baby, now what do you do? Remember they own the house, so who is going to tell them they have to move? and if they do move where will they live?
2-now you think the private sector is going to step in? Where will they make their money. Private corporations are in business to make money, not support the poor?
3-no rental raises, do you have any idea what it costs to maintain a home? Let me tell you. It only takes about 5 years for things to start wearing out. There are roofs, paint, yardwork, plumbing, new carpet, appliances, etc. I think you get the picture.
NIta
1) Most communities have local occupancy restrictions. Where I live, I don't think three would be legal in one of these houses. Having said that, it is also true that local regs are often more friendly toward families than to unrelated individuals - in many places, this family of three would be allowed, but three unrelated would not be allowed. I have long considered the unequal treatment of families and unrelated people in occupancy egregiously unfair, and point to this example as a good reason to have equal occupancy standards for everybody.
2) In a different thread, I gave this example: if a developer has a 10,000 sf piece of land, currently (where I live) they can build only one house, so let's say the developer builds a ($200,000) 2000 sf house...now let's say the developer is allowed to divide the land into four lots, and builds four ($75,000) houses of 500 sf each. The developer is unlikely to be worse off and will probably make a bigger profit with the smaller houses.
3) Yes, I understand there is considerable hassle and expense in owning a home. Since most Americans have chosen to own a home, I must presume that most Americans consider the expense worth it. Expenses will of course be lower on small houses - how much can a new roof cost on a 500 sf house? - and on properly built new homes, expenses will initially be low. There should be no difficulty for people who plan ahead and budget/save money regularly - if you put aside the 'extra' money you have when you get a raise, or when rents went up but you didn't have to pay the rent increase (because now you own your home), you should be fine.
We saw exactly what you are talking about when we drove through So Ar into Mississippi a few months ago. There were single wides that appeared to have large families living in them and the structures were falling apart. The same was true in some areas south of Albuquerque when we lived there.
Nita
I suspect this is a largely rural phenomenon; cities and suburbs tend to have ordinances intended to prevent this sort of thing - for example, there may be no place zoned to allow trailers.
I see the ghettos here, and think sadly, that many of the inhabitants have kept themselves there. Why would a woman, who cannot support herself, living in a one bedroom apt, have six kids? I guess she has them to increase her benefit amount? I was in the ghetto the other day, and NO ONE has a job! They are all on SSI or welfare, it was crazy.
Should whites feel bad about this? Is this whole mess still a left over from slavery, and has racism kept these people down?
I don't know. But I have been to "ghettos" in other countries, and yes, they make our ghettos look pretty good. Even in the ghetto here, everyone has cable tv, and cell phones.
The parents are lazy. They don't work, but they don't even care about their kids education, or volunteer at the school.
We worry about stray dogs in our country...in South America kids live in dumps, and live off of garbage. I wonder how we would feel about that issue if that started happening here?
Even the worst places I see are an improvement since 1990's, I don't know why. They got rid of a lot of the buildings with elevators, and went to a more open concept here, with court yards, smaller buildings.
People say you can't get out of the ghetto, that is B*.
I suspect this is a largely rural phenomenon; cities and suburbs tend to have ordinances intended to prevent this sort of thing - for example, there may be no place zoned to allow trailers.
And you would be wrong! I can point you to many places inside of city limits where there are strict ordinances where people live sometimes 3-6 families in one abode. That happens a lot in the southwest. And don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about because I do, since I used to live in NM.
There is an interesting thread right now in the General U.S. forum that is comparing U.S. ghettos to third world ghettos, with the general consensus that third world ghettos make U.S. ghettos look like the middle class. But what if, as many conservatives desire, we eliminated or at least drastically reduced welfare programs and public housing, would our ghettos turn into third world slums? Would you be willing to live in a country like that for the sake of reducing spending?
That is a pretty condescending attitude you have regarding people on welfare. Assuming that without the trap of welfare they would not be able to better themselves? How sad.
Look back to the ghettos before we started "helping" people like we do now.
We have done a great job basically entrapping people.
Ban drugs, create an underground.
Create a minimum wage, eliminate entry level and apprenticeship jobs.
Create welfare that stops if you start to get a ahead.
Jail people as they try and get ahead by dealing in illegal trades.
We could go back all the way to 1900...when one-quarter of adults over 25 were unmarried and didn't have kids.
Yes...I think by cutting off urban generational programs...it would force many to 'grow up'...
The maternal instinct in city women, would come back...and they would become much more picky over which guy they allowed to 'whoo' them...and may even start demanding commitment and or marriage again before sex...
And males, well, now that mom can't just get help with housing and food stamps and ect ect, would be held to a much higher account...
Women wouldn't tolerate dead beat dads, and instead get court ordered child payments...
Cutting stuff off would be painful at first, for many, but people adapt, learn, and overcome...always have.
If all responsibilities started falling on families again...families would start stepping up, holding members accountable...expecially when their daughters or sons recklessness starts hitting them in the wallet or purse...
Then you would start getting those old style fierce, strict 1950's mothers and fathers again, within the urban community...that were there until the crack wave of the 80's wiped that generation out...and left a big parental void...
(the following link shows how the CIA orchestrated, funded, organized much of the crack cocaine wave that his urban streets in the 80's, as a way of funding South American wars)
Ghettos or Government housing is already looking like a third world slum.
It does not take much to see this if you have spent any time in towns like Detroit, St Louis, Philly, Memphis, Newark, Chicago etc.
Hopefully one day you won't end up living in one...
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.
