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.
Hey OP- Here's a link to a picture of what happened in new barrack at a military installation. How's that for government housing that was contracted through a private contractor...cause you know that for the sake of costs they go to the cheapest bidder. https://www.facebook.com/usawtfm/pho...type=3&theater
There are people making millions of dollars playing the blame game.
So, why aren't you?
Mack, you assume facts not in evidence. The evidence suggests he is someone adopting an online persona just to be combative. Afterall, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
I think it's high time we start talking about a REAL crisis: The Price of a Porsche is Too Darn High! The Government needs to step in and do something.
I want a Porsche Panamera Turbo S. I went to the Porsche website. THE MSRP PRICE IS $180,300 !!!!! Once I configured it nicely with options, the price went UP TO A SHOCKING $230,180 !!!
How is someone supposed to to buy a $230,180 car!!!
The GOVERMENT needs to step in and do something!!! The Price of a Porsche is Too Darn High!
Completely wrong scenario. The government already provides you with public transportation. You don't get a Porsche, but you do get a bus or train to ride with others. Same with the rental market, you don't get a mansion, you get a tiny one bedroom apartment and you will still be paying rent on it every month. The government just needs to help us get more SUPPLY because builders haven't been building enough multi family housing for decades.
Hey OP- Here's a link to a picture of what happened in new barrack at a military installation. How's that for government housing that was contracted through a private contractor...cause you know that for the sake of costs they go to the cheapest bidder. https://www.facebook.com/usawtfm/pho...type=3&theater
And I have had apartment complex not built by government funds have floods, fires, security issues, etc.
Because someone shouldn't have to pay a thousand dollars a month for a one bedroom apartment in a bad area or suburb of a city that isn't NYC, DC, San Fran, or Boston.
I agree. They should be required to pay a minimum of two thousand dollars a month.
Completely wrong scenario. The government already provides you with public transportation. You don't get a Porsche, but you do get a bus or train to ride with others.
* There are no trains where I live.
* There are no buses either.
* I want that Porsche.
* I need that Porsche.
* I deserve that Porsche.
* I would look good in that Porsche.
* The Government needs to subsidize my acquiring that Porsche.
* The government just needs to help us get more SUPPLY of Porsches...
Quote:
The government just needs to help us get more SUPPLY ...
Repeat after me: "It is not the job of the government to take care of me."
It has become easily obvious to anyone that this thread had nothing to do with the rental market, that was a ploy to inject a socialist agenda by those who see non-contributors to the economy and society as a necessary ingredient to it. Actually, the rest of us can do without them.
Just one look at the things that get injected here such as loaded question about who is to blame, the drugee or drug dealer. That has what to do with anything here? Nothing.
But lets take that question put forth as part of a socialist or communist agenda. You have the drugee or adict/use and dealer. Common sense and anyone who has taken even basic economics knows that without a customer nothing can be sold. There is no chicken and the egg scenario, the drug user came first. You want proof? Here it comes but remember how it applies to the context of those who want something for nothing:
The first person to try the drug was a user. That user figured out that with little effort they could get other people to try it and if they liked it or otherwise became addicted to it, they'd have customers.
Only after first using it did that first user become a dealer so who is to blame? The drug user.
A drug dealer can offer all the drugs they have for free but if no one wants them they are stuck with them.
Now apply this to the socialist/communist agenda so prevalent in this thread. The user is the one wanting something for nothing. Their stated agenda is wealth re-distribution, taking from those that earn or create it and simply giving it to those who demand it only because they happen to be alive.
There was no pusher, there was first the user, the first person who took from someone else and having success decided to make promises to other like minded entitlement demanding people.
One these people became accustomed to getting most of their lives paid for by others, they figured that this was the best way to go, they need do nothing but blame someone else for their miseries and then use whatever free things were offered. After a time, the offers mounted to the point they were unsustainable and you are witnessing right on this thread the consequences, people who blame everyone else for their own failures in life.
So this thread isn't about the few posting here, on the contrary, it represents a growing segment of the population with their hands out and when something free isn't put into it, the demand no less than taking it from others.
All you have to do is read through the posts to see what started. The original post was just window dressing to introduce socialism and communism as an agenda, housing had almost nothing to do with it.
I do not agree this is about socialism. It is more about urban planning. That is why I think it is a local government issue.
Take for example Asheville NC. Up until the 90's it was your typical run down southern city. There was little commerce going on downtown and a lot of poverty. They the artists came in and made it the 21st century version of Greenwich Village. Then wealthy started coming in and taking up all the downtown real estate. Now all the people working the restaurants and funky shops can't afford to live there. There is little mass transit and runs only to 7pm. Roads are congested and it is difficult to expand since it is mountainous terrain. So Asheville needs to find a solution otherwise what brought the money to town (tourism) will leave.
There are many buildings that the city owns that are condemned. They could choose to sell them to developers to be used for affordable housing and in turn give them a property tax break. It would probably be a better economic solution than to deal with transportation issues.
Dear City Council Members and Palo Alto Residents,
This letter serves as my official resignation from the Planning and Transportation Commission. My family has decided to move to Santa Cruz. After many years of trying to make it work in Palo Alto, my husband and I cannot see a way to stay in Palo Alto and raise a family here. We rent our current home with another couple for $6200 a month; if we wanted to buy the same home and share it with children and not roommates, it would cost $2.7M and our monthly payment would be $12,177 a month in mortgage, taxes, and insurance. That’s $146,127 per year — an entire professional’s income before taxes. This is unaffordable even for an attorney and a software engineer...
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.
