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.
Oh....they're absolutely "movin' on up." The question is - why does everyone else have to pay for it?
I'm for limited assistance (I'm not one of the extreme RW'ers who supports no social services), but luxury condos? ***Bashing head against wall***
I lived in San Francisco for awhile. If you were poor or "low income" (often anything below about $75,000/year), you could live in a new government-subsidized apartment building or even a new house - a very rare thing in that city. But if you made more than that, forget it. With the average house over $500,000, the only way you could buy a house in San Francisco was to either be "low income" or be wealthy. Middle-class to upper-middle-class people are screwed in that city.
I lived in San Francisco for awhile. If you were poor or "low income" (often anything below about $75,000/year), you could live in a new government-subsidized apartment building or even a new house - a very rare thing in that city. But if you made more than that, forget it. With the average house over $500,000, the only way you could buy a house in San Francisco was to either be "low income" or be wealthy. Middle-class to upper-middle-class people are screwed in that city.
The bold actually promotes people wanting to remain "low-income." That's one of my problems with this type of program. There's an incentive to remain on the bottom.
While I understand the cost of living in SF, NY, etc. is extremely high, we can't go around providing every little thing for everyone. You make a choice to live there - you better be able to afford it.
Why vilify a group of homeless people who just got incredibly lucky? That's misdirected (and malicious).
There is no way this deal occurred out of compassion for the poor. It's obvious that there was some shady dealings between the developer, who walked away happy, some non-profit execs and probably a public official or two.
It would make sense to investigate how this scenario came to be and who was involved in the deal before you all pick up your pitchforks and go after the homeless.
Why vilify a group of homeless people who just got incredibly lucky? That's misdirected (and malicious).
There is no way this deal occurred out of compassion for the poor. It's obvious that there was some shady dealings between the developer, who walked away happy, some non-profit execs and probably a public official or two.
It would make sense to investigate how this scenario came to be and who was involved in the deal before you all pick up your pitchforks and go after the homeless.
The bold actually promotes people wanting to remain "low-income." That's one of my problems with this type of program.
While I understand the cost of living in SF, NY, etc. is extremely high, we can't go around providing every little thing for everyone. You make a choice to live there - you better be able to afford it.
Yep, I agree, and the difference between the cost of living in San Francisco and Palm Springs is enormous - even with Palm Springs being in California, it's much cheaper. I'm paying less for a five-year-old, three-bedroom house in a gated community in Palm Springs than I was for a 550-square-foot, one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco. Oh - and my Hummer isn't in grave danger of being vandalized every time I park it!
Yep, I agree, and the difference between the cost of living in San Francisco and Palm Springs is enormous - even with Palm Springs being in California, it's much cheaper. I'm paying less for a five-year-old, three-bedroom house in a gated community in Palm Springs than I was for a 550-square-foot, one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco. Oh - and my Hummer isn't in grave danger of being vandalized every time I park it!
Don't tell me you actually had your Hummer when you lived in San Francisco?
The bold actually promotes people wanting to remain "low-income." That's one of my problems with this type of program. There's an incentive to remain on the bottom.
While I understand the cost of living in SF, NY, etc. is extremely high, we can't go around providing every little thing for everyone. You make a choice to live there - you better be able to afford it.
Place that are too expensive for most people have an abundance of jobs that don't pay enough for the workers to live near the jobs.....you know, those low income jobs that make living good for high income people.
Don't tell me you actually had your Hummer when you lived in San Francisco?
No, no. Owning an SUV in San Francisco is just asking for trouble. For a couple of years, I got around on a scooter. Probably not the safest way to travel, but it was definitely the easiest way to get around that city.
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.
