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.
If 5 families are packed into a one family home, at least four probably are renting it (heck, probably all five). Obviously it's now worth a lot of money as a rental property and gets its taxes jacked up. They subsidize you. (I once lived in a duplex that had $1,200 extra property taxes because it was a rental - more renters equals subsidizing you.)
And there was a family of SIX renting the other unit, which was 2BR (but hey, who needs safety?) It was okay for the family of six to live in the unit but would have been unlawful (and costly with citations, fines, etc) for three unrelated to live in the same unit. Safety my eye.
Also, overnight parking was prohibited and rigorously enforced - just part of the code police patrols that inspected the rental neighborhoods day and night. No mess on the streets. At all. No zoning needed, just a parking ordinance. And no parking on lawns either, plus if there are "too many" cars in your driveway, the Neighborhood NIMBYs will report you for overoccupancy if the roving Code Police don't catch you first.
What's to stop people from zoning out the poor because they want it? Sometimes your zoning means poor people CAN'T live where they want. You certainly have a right to live where you want, but do you have a right to keep me from living where I want?
Actually they do not pay more taxes.
Just like near me, 3 families were living in a run down old single-wide trailer, and to save money they bent the chimney down to have the heated air sent to one of the bedroom where a family with newborn twins was residing and the babies died.
These neighborhoods with 4 to 5 families in one family residences and very crowded conditions also for some reason have very high gang rates. Something about very high population density I think -- crowding 20 or more people into 1500 sq feet living space leads to problems.
And why should someone with a good job, good education, responsible habits be forced to live in slum conditions?
Many of these "poor" people also don't follow the laws on building codes, they run extension cords from one house to another to avoid hooking up legally and paying extra. They choose to live in fire hazards, use indoor and illegal propane tanks.
Just let each community do it's own zoning -- if 5 families cannot rent a house together in a middle class neighborhood, they can rent one where 5 families to a home is allowed.
And why should someone with a good job, good education, responsible habits be forced to live in slum conditions?
Many of these "poor" people also don't follow the laws on building codes, they run extension cords from one house to another to avoid hooking up legally and paying extra. They choose to live in fire hazards, use indoor and illegal propane tanks.
Just let each community do it's own zoning -- if 5 families cannot rent a house together in a middle class neighborhood, they can rent one where 5 families to a home is allowed.
So you're just like the conservative who shrugs when asked where the poor should live - and says they should vote with there feet. Sounds like I'm stuck with whatever housing crumb options the middle class is willing to leave me.
As interesting as the voters' rejection of zoning is where the decisive opposition came from: low-income residents. As tabulated by the Post, 72 percent of "low-income blacks" and 68 percent of "low-mid-income whites" voted against zoning, results echoed by "affluent" voters (56 percent against) and "predominantly Hispanic" voters (58 percent).
Would anyone help me to understand this wildly contradictory statement? It appears that the majority of everybody opposed this zoning ordinance.
By the way, I find it maddening that the article omitted the issues around this particular ordinance as if voting for it was just a philosophical debate over the virtue or lack thereof, of zoning. Surely there were other issues than I'm opposed to zoning vs., I think zoning is a wonderful thing.
One reason why "Zoning" gets a rise out of minority neighborhoods is it is often directed against the minority community its in . When they tear down afordable albe it early 20th century housing to repalce it with highrise Luxury condos, a honking big expressway , new sports stadium or the ever popular recycling center, incinerator, sewage treatment plant or power plant. You can see why one gets a feeling of being dumped on.
Some one once defined Urban Renewal as Negro Removal.
So you're just like the conservative who shrugs when asked where the poor should live - and says they should vote with there feet. Sounds like I'm stuck with whatever housing crumb options the middle class is willing to leave me.
Why wouldn't the poor want to live with their fellow poor?
There are usually limited areas that have zoning laws, and it's up to people to buy houses where they want after checking into the zoning laws.
For example, I live where there isn't much zoning except for some reason you can't have a pig farm here. So if that's what I wanted, I would have had to choose to buy elsewhere.
I wouldn't want to live where certain things are not allowed but I don't care if others want to live with more zoning laws. To each his own.
As interesting as the voters' rejection of zoning is where the decisive opposition came from: low-income residents. As tabulated by the Post, 72 percent of "low-income blacks" and 68 percent of "low-mid-income whites" voted against zoning, results echoed by "affluent" voters (56 percent against) and "predominantly Hispanic" voters (58 percent).
Would anyone help me to understand this wildly contradictory statement? It appears that the majority of everybody opposed this zoning ordinance.
By the way, I find it maddening that the article omitted the issues around this particular ordinance as if voting for it was just a philosophical debate over the virtue or lack thereof, of zoning. Surely there were other issues than I'm opposed to zoning vs., I think zoning is a wonderful thing.
Middle-income voters supported it and they were probably a substantial majority of all the voters.
The numbers posted in the article are survey percentages drawn from neighborhoods and do not represent equal "raw" numbers of voters.
For example, the calculations might have been based on 100 middle-income neighborhoods with 1,000 voters each, 25 low-income black neighborhoods, and 20 "predomoinantly Hispanic" neighborhoods of 500 voters each.
Also, they don't define the proportion of each group in "their" neighborhoods, plus various groups had mich different rates of voter turnout. For example, affluent and middle-income voters are much more likely to vote in any specific election than are low-income voters.
One thing that absolutely drives me nuts about this piece is that the newspaper completely ignored what I consider the huge elephant in the room:
They didn't ask voters whether they own or rent, and that makes a huge difference in one's views on zoning. Low-income HOMEOWNERS probably voted for zoning out of desire to promote higher property values and keep out poor renters. If this is the case, low-income RENTERS - who need the greatest supply and diversity of rental housing the private sector can provide - opposed zoning by an even greater margin than the article suggests.
Why wouldn't the poor want to live with their fellow poor?
There are usually limited areas that have zoning laws, and it's up to people to buy houses where they want after checking into the zoning laws.
For example, I live where there isn't much zoning except for some reason you can't have a pig farm here. So if that's what I wanted, I would have had to choose to buy elsewhere.
I wouldn't want to live where certain things are not allowed but I don't care if others want to live with more zoning laws. To each his own.
Zoning typically says I can't buy ANY home here because minimum lot sizes mean more land than I can afford to buy is required, e.g. I can rent a cottage or guest house but I cannot buy it because the house cannot be bought without excess land.
Ghetto people want to live with their fellow ghetto people. Many of the poor are not ghetto, and some of us are even educated.
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.
