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.
I am from eastern Europe. Back home all kinds of people live in most neighborhoods, for example a doctor's neighbor might be an unemployed alcoholic, and all parts of the city are similarly unsafe. I grew up in an environment like that, thinking it is normal. In the meantime cities in the United States had segregation based on mainly economic lines. Now economic lines also follow racial lines some races are more successful than others in generating wealth. Since I have been living here started to understand why most American people dont want to live next door to anyone but rather to people with similar economic background that also imply similar work ethic and (low) level of crime and decency. So I think econimic segregation invented here is a good way of rewarding productive people with a pleasant living environment.
So, most decent hard working intelligent people prefer not to live next door to "those people". The reason is their level of decency is lower, for example they dont maintain their front yard being the eyesore of the whole street, their house looks falling apart due to lack of maintenance, they typically are noisier, park multiple junk cars... Usually this happens when a single family home in a noce neighborhood is bought by a slumlord turning the house into a rental. And for some reason the slumlord instesad of renting the house to a nice famaily, they rent it to multiple families of "those people". Each get a cheap rental opportunity and the slumlord get cash flow without having to do maintenance. "those people" while living under he same roof fight loudly that sounds like killing each other, often do it outside so all neighbors have to suffer the noise of their fight. As a side effect all neighbors' property values fall and quality of life falls.
I think it is a good thing that people who achieved a decent life and wealth don't want to live next door to people who have lower ethics and decency. Obama wants to make a housing reform to allow more of "those people" to move into any neighborhood they want. A war of liberals against decency continues.
I know HOAs would prevent that, but living in a HOA would be too restrictive to many things. There doesnt seem to be a way to force out indecent people from a decent neighborhood? Even houses zoned as "single family" being occupied by 4 families in the same time should violate the zoning laws. But there doesnt seem to be any kind of enforcement of the "single family neighborhood" zoning, or the protection of private property values of neighbors from slumlords.
So on one hand the concept of single family neighborhoods was invented to reward the productive part of the society, while slumlords and liberal politicians are working to reward the non productive part of the society. Conservatives (like me) want decency enforced, liberals want needs of the non productive to be provided on the expense of everyone's decency. Liberals say the "have"s are depreving the "have not"s, while I think they are helping the takers to steal form the earners.
I agree--more or less--with citylove. Many people who don't live in my neighborhood would call it "the ghetto." There are plenty of "those people" around.
So on one hand the concept of single family neighborhoods was invented to reward the productive part of the society, while slumlords and liberal politicians are working to reward the non productive part of the society. Conservatives (like me) want decency enforced, liberals want needs of the non productive to be provided on the expense of everyone's decency. Liberals say the "have"s are depreving the "have not"s, while I think they are helping the takers to steal form the earners.
Poster who's rented in a subdivided house for years. I would add a number of comments towards your ideas but they'd be against the forum rules. I see no reason to privilege single-family homeowners just because they have more money and your ideas are a recipe for higher housing prices. Do not want.
Insted looking at it from a liberal vs conservative point of view; think of it from a big vs small government. Why should it be the government's job to decide who's better? Or what housing is better?
Insted looking at it from a liberal vs conservative point of view; think of it from a big vs small government. Why should it be the government's job to decide who's better? Or what housing is better?
Actually it is the government that pushes poor people into rich neighborhoods, trying to balance the scale. But we pay for it by tolarating anti social people living in an otherwise decent neighborhood. Example1: section-8 housing in new developments. Example2: Secretary of justice threateneing all officials to force them not issue code violation fines (indecent people run down house, illegal unpermitted gas plumbing endangering a neighborhood) or prison sentences (crimes like burglary, theft) to minorities: AG Loretta Lynch wants to let nation break law without consequences | New York Post Example3: President purposely put poor people into rich neighborhoods: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...on-across-u-s/
Upper middleclass neighborhoods would not have "those people" in them unless the government's liberal ideology driven polocies didnt push them in there. Example4: lots of renters in the same single family home, like my next door neighbor. The slumlord didnt want to keep up his investment property, so instead of renting to a nice family he still receives the rental income by pushing 4 families into one house and all four paying 1/4 the normal rent.
Hopefully the blatant racism of that graphic is evident to you.
The U.S. already tried to concentrate poverty and segregate the poorest of the poor away from everyone else (housing projects) and they failed miserably.
True segregation of the rich and poor is a recent invention historically anyway. It only dates to the very late 19th century. Basically in the pedestrian-oriented urban era, there was the understanding that even wealthy communities needed to have middle-class and poor sections, because there had to be somewhere for the shopkeepers and the domestic servants to live. You can see this if you look at somewhere like Fairfield County Connecticut. The oldest railroad suburb - Greenwich - became a playground for the wealthy, but had a specially constructed area down by the railroad station for people of more modest income, which until recent gentrification was still lower-income. Then the next set of suburbs up - Darien and New Canaan - were set up as exclusively wealthy areas, with the assumption poor people would take the train into town to work.
Hopefully the blatant racism of that graphic is evident to you.
The U.S. already tried to concentrate poverty and segregate the poorest of the poor away from everyone else (housing projects) and they failed miserably.
what do you mean by they failed?
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.
