Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-13-2013, 08:33 PM
 
Location: WY
6,273 posts, read 5,102,580 times
Reputation: 8021

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda View Post
I detect a little envy there.
Misreading the signals there Ken. More like annoyance.

I should have just stayed out of the thread instead of trying to be a smart ass. Carry on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-13-2013, 08:38 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,862,264 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda View Post
who says they don't work?

I"m sure plenty have jobs - and why make it even harder for them to look for work by shoving them out into the suburbs - or is it more a case of 'out of sight, out of mind'?
Some work sure, but many are generational in the projects.

The area is desirable to those who want to live near work (agenda 21), when people pay their own way then they get to make their own decisions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 08:38 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,481,091 times
Reputation: 3142
If you own the house and don't want it torn down to build a condo, then don't sell it. If it isn't your house, then it's not your business what the owner does with it. If the government is tearing it down with eminent domain, then it has nothing to do with you being poor as that can target anybody.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 09:18 PM
 
1,730 posts, read 1,366,753 times
Reputation: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda View Post
where do they end up living though?
Maybe go rent or buy a house? With their own money?
Foreign thought for the left, I know. But, believe it or not, its actually OK for somebody that was previously on welfare to do something for themselves.
Certain people treat them like they're stupid or worthless, encourage them to pass the welfare mentality to their kids, all so they can get votes.
You're the perfect example. Bawling all day about a kid riding his bike.
I'm betting if that was a military family in that situation, you'd be screeching that they should never have had kids in the first place.
You must hate kids, because you're trying to wreck society and whatever future we can give them.
Its OK for people to work for themselves, really. Happens all the time. You should try it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 09:21 PM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,807 posts, read 4,290,991 times
Reputation: 3989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda View Post
who says they don't work?

I"m sure plenty have jobs - and why make it even harder for them to look for work by shoving them out into the suburbs - or is it more a case of 'out of sight, out of mind'?
Then I guess they need to work more. Why should I subsidize their lifestyle with my money? You haven't given an explanation for that.

If you FORCE people to work and fend for themselves, they will. Give them everything they want and there is no incentive for them to do anything. Why should they work to get themselves out of a situation? Everything is provided for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 09:53 PM
 
5,190 posts, read 4,853,792 times
Reputation: 1115
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Some work sure, but many are generational in the projects.

The area is desirable to those who want to live near work (agenda 21), when people pay their own way then they get to make their own decisions.
how about for those who pay the rent (and also work) in their project houses/apts?

why should they be turfed out to make way for those that can afford higher rents?


or is it a different set of laws depending on how much you earn - sounds like it to me
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 09:56 PM
 
5,190 posts, read 4,853,792 times
Reputation: 1115
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2 View Post
If you own the house and don't want it torn down to build a condo, then don't sell it. If it isn't your house, then it's not your business what the owner does with it. If the government is tearing it down with eminent domain, then it has nothing to do with you being poor as that can target anybody.
so how about the govt targets luxury apartments instead - tears them down to make way for a new municipal building.

the individual apt. owners do not actually own the whole building.

I imagine there would be one hell of a fuss if the govt. tried doing this, because we all know that the more money you have, the more 'leeway' you have with the law.

this is not democracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 09:59 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,862,264 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda View Post
how about for those who pay the rent (and also work) in their project houses/apts?

why should they be turfed out to make way for those that can afford higher rents?


or is it a different set of laws depending on how much you earn - sounds like it to me
When they own the house the get to make the decisions. If the government owns the house, it gets to make the decision. You are forgetting the golden rule.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 10:03 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,862,264 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda View Post
so how about the govt targets luxury apartments instead - tears them down to make way for a new municipal building.

the individual apt. owners do not actually own the whole building.

I imagine there would be one hell of a fuss if the govt. tried doing this, because we all know that the more money you have, the more 'leeway' you have with the law.

this is not democracy.
Plenty of times higher end properties get eminent domain. But the government has to pay out FMV, so it is cheaper for the tax payers for the government to build in lower income areas (because the property is worth less).

Nevertheless, if your on the dole you don't get the perks of ownership.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 10:10 PM
 
5,190 posts, read 4,853,792 times
Reputation: 1115
no, you get shoved out into the wasteland like a third rate citizen.

is that right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:56 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top