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.
However when you have 30 unrelated people living in a 1500 sq ft house, you're going to see diseases like TB make a big come back. Also this does not help the tax base at all.
Let local communities do their own zoning.
How does it not help the tax base to break up structures into smaller units? Methinks eliminating lot size restrictions would mean more people owning property.
The tax base would be larger if we didn't ban so many things and drive so much economic activity into the black market. And that includes housing just as much as it includes drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc.
However when you have 30 unrelated people living in a 1500 sq ft house, you're going to see diseases like TB make a big come back. Also this does not help the tax base at all.
Let local communities do their own zoning.
The obvious equitable solution is to hold related individuals (families) and unrelated individuals to the same standard: if it is okay to have 30 related people in a 1500 sq ft house, on what basis do you have a problem with 30 unrelated people?
The standard most commonly applied is 2 individuals per bedroom, plus 1 additional person in a dwelling, e.g. a 3BR house could have up to 7 people, but couldn't have 30 whether or not they are related.
What happens when family structures change, e.g. more adults staying single today. What if your zoning discriminates against single people to the point where single people are displaced?
e.g. zoning allows total 20,000 related people to live in town, but only 5,000 unrelated people, and there are 10,000 related people currently living there in half of the homes, therefore only 2,500 unrelated people can live in the other half. now assume a static population where the number of ppl remains the same but couples get divorced and now there are 4,000 more unrelated people, which means that it becomes illegal for some of those 4,000 to stay in town. Doesn't the zoning make it more expensive for single people than for married people?
Men can adopt, but not if they are low income. It's disparate impact, right?
Can women adopt if they have low income? If not then there is no disparate impact. You can't really argue with biology. Women have kids, but they have a short time span to do so. Men have a much longer timespan to have kids. 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, it doesn't matter as long as you find a woman that is willing.
Meh, non white people have low incomes because they have lower educational achievements. The guy that hired me is black and he has no problem making $500K/year. Asian couples, in aggregate, have the highest incomes and higher educational achievements. Might there be a correlation here?
Correlation is NOT causation, good grief! Many educated white people have low incomes.
HUD's problem is that Westchester does not have "enough" residents of color; I have not seen discrimination against affluent people of color, but there is a lot of discrimination against poor people of color...on the basis of their income, not their color.
Section 8 is a voluntary program; landlords have the option to opt-in, and government has no business requiring landlords to participate.
Can women adopt if they have low income? If not then there is no disparate impact. You can't really argue with biology. Women have kids, but they have a short time span to do so. Men have a much longer timespan to have kids. 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, it doesn't matter as long as you find a woman that is willing.
I can argue with the fact that women get two bites at that apple.
Correlation is NOT causation, good grief! Many educated white people have low incomes.
HUD's problem is that Westchester does not have "enough" residents of color; I have not seen discrimination against affluent people of color, but there is a lot of discrimination against poor people of color...on the basis of their income, not their color.
Section 8 is a voluntary program; landlords have the option to opt-in, and government has no business requiring landlords to participate.
Discrimination against income isn't discrimination, it's discretion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
I can argue with the fact that women get two bites at that apple.
Discrimination against income isn't discrimination, it's discretion.
How so?
Right, landlords have a right to set minimum income standards, and I don't see where HUD has authority to require landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers, or the authority to require a county (or its constituent municipalities) to change its zoning.
STATES do have such authority, since municipalities derive their powers from their state.
I wasn't really arguing with the fact, more like grumbling that women get two bites at the Section 8 apple while men get only one - and that, only if they are lucky.
It's surprising that a state as liberal as New York hasn't done the sort of things HUD is trying to do although Republicans had a Senate majority there for a long long time.
Can women adopt if they hhttp://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/may/26/new-county-program-helping-low-income-families/ave low income? If not then there is no disparate impact. You can't really argue with biology. Women have kids, but they have a short time span to do so. Men have a much longer timespan to have kids. 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, it doesn't matter as long as you find a woman that is willing.
Depends on where you live...
at least one low-income woman was able to adopt...
How does it not help the tax base to break up structures into smaller units? Methinks eliminating lot size restrictions would mean more people owning property.
The tax base would be larger if we didn't ban so many things and drive so much economic activity into the black market. And that includes housing just as much as it includes drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc.
This is what is/has happened in my city...
I know several that applied for a conditional use permit/variance to operate from home... architects except for one... all decided to move after going through the city process.
My first home was around 600 square feet on a 25 by 100 city lot... had trouble getting insurance because the size of the home and the lot were non-conforming.
Mundane things like parking an RV in your driveway can be deal breakers.
All the sporting goods shops that sold rifles have been legislated out of the city also... they contributed a significant amount to the tax base...
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.
STOP IT!!!!!
