North Sacramento area? Concerns with crime. (Orange, Roseville: HOA, house, neighborhoods)

[things and stuff]

Originally Posted by wburg

Low-income people don't have families?

Are you disagreeing that low income correlates to higher rates of crime? Are you disagreeing that middle class families try to avoid areas with higher crime?



Mandate low income units and you are mandating increased crime in that area. I don't like that it's true but it is. Not my fault.

[wburg]

No, I'm disagreeing with your implication that low-income people don't have families. Not all families are middle-class. But we have had this argument elsewhere already...

[things and stuff]

Originally Posted by wburg

No, I'm disagreeing with your implication that low-income people don't have families..

Link to where I said that?

[wburg]

Originally Posted by things and stuff

Low income people are more likely to be criminals and to repel families.

The implication here is that low-income people are not families--I'd counter that low-income families would be attracted to low-income housing, rather than repelled.

Anyhow, the "WAL" apartment building on R Street opened up its waiting list a while ago, resulting in a waiting line full of hipsters resembling the line you'd see outside an Apple store when a new iPhone is about to be released. A lot of the young artists I know are trying to get apartments there, which they can afford because the building is mostly low-income, with some market-rate units. Sizes vary from studios to 3-bedrooms, which means there are places specifically for low-income families, with special features for artists including a collaborative studio space that will be one of the retail stores on the ground floor. It will also include a barbershop/bar, a record store, and another retail space that will probably focus on vintage and local designer clothes. So that's what "low-income" housing can mean. The stereotype is just that, a stereotype.

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by things and stuff

Didn't they make developers provide "low income housing" when they built in Natomas? That never helps with crime in the long-run. Low income people are more likely to be criminals and to repel families.

Or is it that criminals tend to end up with lower income? Bad habits and mores make one poorer and less economically productive. So I suppose the ultimate answer to the question is how the *children* of such people are faring in order to see if a low income neighborhood is on the way up or down. Unless of course, all the successful children of that neighborhood "move on up" and out of there.

That said, you are absolutely correct that attempts to "socially engineer" enough low income people into a high income people are bound to be folly.....

[shelato]

According to the most recent data I could find, as of 2008, 40.6% of all children in this country are to women who weren't married at the time they gave birth. (up from 33.2% in 2000).

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1335.pdf

Now the question is what do you with these kids? Do you expand the social safety net to protect these children? If so does that just encourage these women to have even more children, without the benefit of marriage? But if you limit the scope of the social safety net does that just create even more bad outcomes for these kids? If these kids aren't eating well enough, living in neighborhoods with high concentrations of poverty because of a weakened social safety net, does that just create more future Rodney King situations?

One other factor to consider, the longer someone has been in the US, the less likely they are to be married when they have children. Third generation Hispanic families are much more likely to be raised by a single parent, than first or second generation Hispanic families. Which seems to suggest that prolonged exposure to US culture seems to discourage saving procreation for marriage. (is it the social safety net, Hip hop values, some combination or something else?)

Latino Children: A Majority Are U.S.-Born Offspring of Immigrants | Pew Research Center's Hispanic Trends Project

[anderscl]

Originally Posted by things and stuff

Didn't they make developers provide "low income housing" when they built in Natomas? That never helps with crime in the long-run. Low income people are more likely to be criminals and to repel families.

40% of the homes in Natomas were foreclosed between 2006 and 2012. There was a massive decline in home values during the housing collapse, which hit that neighborhood hard. The long-run problem was an unsustainable housing bubble. As a result people have been moving and, also, there has been some conversion of previously owned homes into rental properties by large corporations like Blackstone. But currently families are clearly moving into Natomas and not out of it. Natomas schools have the fastest enrollment growth in Sacramento.

[caligirlz]

Originally Posted by things and stuff

Mandate low income units and you are mandating increased crime in that area. I don't like that it's true but it is. Not my fault.

Anyone remember that Folsom refused to include low income housing? Then got fined. Now, they are slowing adding it in select areas.

Originally Posted by NickB1967

Or is it that criminals tend to end up with lower income?

Which came first? low income or criminal behavior? I would suggest that the lifestyle results in income level

Originally Posted by anderscl

But currently families are clearly moving into Natomas and not out of it.

Because it's cheap.

[My Other Self]

Originally Posted by caligirlz

Anyone remember that Folsom refused to include low income housing? Then got fined. Now, they are slowing adding it in select areas.

It's funny to where they're actually adding it though. It's so detached from Folsom proper you'd think it was in Orangevale.

[CeJeH]

Originally Posted by wburg

The implication here is that low-income people are not families--I'd counter that low-income families would be attracted to low-income housing, rather than repelled.

Anyhow, the "WAL" apartment building on R Street opened up its waiting list a while ago, resulting in a waiting line full of hipsters resembling the line you'd see outside an Apple store when a new iPhone is about to be released. A lot of the young artists I know are trying to get apartments there, which they can afford because the building is mostly low-income, with some market-rate units. Sizes vary from studios to 3-bedrooms, which means there are places specifically for low-income families, with special features for artists including a collaborative studio space that will be one of the retail stores on the ground floor. It will also include a barbershop/bar, a record store, and another retail space that will probably focus on vintage and local designer clothes. So that's what "low-income" housing can mean. The stereotype is just that, a stereotype.

You can't possibly be a real person.