U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > Westchester County
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-11-2009, 03:09 PM
 
Location: New York
2,003 posts, read 4,385,922 times
Reputation: 1990

Advertisements

These government ministries can't even pull off the purchase of a toilet without getting ripped off. How could they pull this off? Can we find a government housing success story amid the horrible failures? With their glaring lack of experience most could not run a hot dog stand, there is no way a government is going to be able to navigate the sea of unintended consequences to pull off a huge social engineering project like this. Once again people struggling to save for a house are screwed again by those that work the system.

The point of government is to provide some basic level of protection from other governments. Not sure who put those other foolish ideas in your mind about social engineering responsibility but the taxes are not meant for that. You should educate yourself, there is a wealth of history available about past peoples and the unintended consequences of a lumbering government biting off more than they can chew. Much of it is recent since the 1960's.


Here we have a state government billions in debt and on the verge of collapse. The arrogance of taking on programs like this at this times shows how far from reality these people are. Further burdening the most taxed people in the United States with a social program loaded with unintended consequences is not going to help anyone. It is going to lead to corruption and further social polarization as the bulk of the middle class taxpayers are forced out and replaced by the welfare class that has learned to survive off the system. The upper/upper-middle class protected from reality is going to collapse under the weight of all the programs they have created along with the staggering tax debt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dma1250 View Post
I couldn't disagree more. It is indeed the role of government to increase diversity. And the idea that paying taxes means that you should decide exactly what the town does on every level is, in my opinion, beyond silly. I totally disagree with the idea that there should be "broad agreement" about exactly how tax dollars are spent. The point of government is to have people who can see the big picture and are not completely ruled by petty self-intrerest. Obviosuly govrment often, if not usually, fails--but giving tax payers any more say is the stupidest possible thing we could do.

Indeed this is the perfect example of that problem. If taxpayers had less say and if local government had more backbone and were not so scared of upsetting voters then we would already have adequate affordable housing and a reasonable degree of diversity and the courts would not have been forced to mandate this program. So if you don't like the decison, you have no one to blame but yourself.

 
Old 08-11-2009, 03:12 PM
 
1,014 posts, read 2,588,928 times
Reputation: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by dma1250 View Post
According to the article, the income limit is $75,000 for a family to buy a house in the program and $54,000 for a family to rent. This is not about bringing in poor people, it is simply about increasing ethnic and racial diversity. So stop your Anti-American ranting.
Affordable housing as it is currently instituted runs directly counter to the idea of capitalism, which is one of the most important components of the idea of being "American". How in the world is being against this program anti-american?
 
Old 08-11-2009, 03:17 PM
 
1,014 posts, read 2,588,928 times
Reputation: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by samyn on the green View Post
These government ministries can't even pull off the purchase of a toilet without getting ripped off. How could they pull this off? Can we find a government housing success story amid the horrible failures? With their glaring lack of experience most could not run a hot dog stand, there is no way a government is going to be able to navigate the sea of unintended consequences to pull off a huge social engineering project like this.
The program is relatively small at 750 units. If they wanted to, they could fit that in a single building of approximately 40-50 stories. There are a bit more than 350,000 housing units in Westchester.

You are right that the government will spend way, way more than a private developer would to build and maintain these units. The statistics comparing what government agencies spend on operating housing versus what private industry does are insane.
 
Old 08-11-2009, 03:27 PM
 
1,014 posts, read 2,588,928 times
Reputation: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by dma1250 View Post
I couldn't disagree more. It is indeed the role of government to increase diversity. And the idea that paying taxes means that you should decide exactly what the town does on every level is, in my opinion, beyond silly. I totally disagree with the idea that there should be "broad agreement" about exactly how tax dollars are spent. The point of government is to have people who can see the big picture and are not completely ruled by petty self-intrerest. Obviosuly govrment often, if not usually, fails--but giving tax payers any more say is the stupidest possible thing we could do.

Indeed this is the perfect example of that problem. If taxpayers had less say and if local government had more backbone and were not so scared of upsetting voters then we would already have adequate affordable housing and a reasonable degree of diversity and the courts would not have been forced to mandate this program. So if you don't like the decison, you have no one to blame but yourself.
I feel like many government efforts to support racial integration, especially when they are rather dramatic, like this program, can serve to rile up racial tensions. Surely, racial integration that happens organically can lead to this also, but when you have government affordable housing that contains virtually the entire racial community in a broader community, you make it easy for members on both sides to adopt an "us vs. them" mentality.

I hope I'm wrong and members of these all-white enclaves accept their new neighbors with open arms and the new members of the communities feel comfortable, secure and happy in their new homes.
 
Old 08-11-2009, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Yorktown Heights NY
1,316 posts, read 4,556,571 times
Reputation: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgt04 View Post
Wow....just wow....

Where oh where does it say it is the governments job to increase diversity in communities?
Oh, you mean if George Washington didn't put those words in the constitution then it isn't the role of government? Obviously, the government should not have to force communities to encourage socio-economic or racial diversity at all--but since the local governments fail to do their job, the federal goveremnt and (in this case) the courts have to step in.

I can't believe I am hearing such Anti-American, far-right, stupid drible.
 
Old 08-11-2009, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Yorktown Heights NY
1,316 posts, read 4,556,571 times
Reputation: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by gradstudent77 View Post
Affordable housing as it is currently instituted runs directly counter to the idea of capitalism, which is one of the most important components of the idea of being "American". How in the world is being against this program anti-american?
The soul of America is an acceptance of people from around the world, a belief that everyone should be given a fair chance at success, a belief that our diversity makes us stronger, and a belief that we are our very best when we come together. Those who cling to racism, xenophobia, fear of others, elitism, classism, and NIMBY-ism are un-American.
 
Old 08-11-2009, 04:21 PM
 
1,014 posts, read 2,588,928 times
Reputation: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by dma1250 View Post
Oh, you mean if George Washington didn't put those words in the constitution then it isn't the role of government? Obviously, the government should not have to force communities to encourage socio-economic or racial diversity at all--but since the local governments fail to do their job, the federal goveremnt and (in this case) the courts have to step in.

I can't believe I am hearing such Anti-American, far-right, stupid drible.
Its not a far-right idea to believe that the government has no business actively promoting racial integration. Some Americans feel that the government should have its hands in as few matters as possible. I suppose a very compelling argument can be made that the residential segregation in society violates the idea of equal protection, but that would be a fairly activist interpretation of the situation.
 
Old 08-11-2009, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC & New York
10,830 posts, read 26,347,923 times
Reputation: 6895
One single building would never the the proper course of action because that's Moses-esque consolidation, albeit this time not based upon slum clearance. I do not believe that government should be in the business of entitlement housing, but since it's a settlement because the county cannot adequately defend itself, and received money for affordable housing, the debate has been brought to the forefont.

In most of the areas affected, it's not going to put a huge drain on resources, since the settlement is discussing only 750 units in total, with 630 units spread among multiple towns/villages that do not meet the African-American and Hispanic population measures. It will put a dent in the respective budgets, but the people moving into these units will be working people, not those on public assistance, so they will pay income tax and sales tax on purchases. Granted, it's not the same as getting tax revenues on a market-rate housing unit, but I cannot forsee that in Bedford, for example, that I know well, that the influx of units will suddenly place a drain on police, fire, EMT, and school resources in numbers significant enough to constitute a drain on services, especially since there are families in the town who do not even use the public schools, either because their children are grown, or they are in private school.

I do not forsee this as a doom and gloom proposition, rather it has the potential of becoming a win-win proposal if people would wake up and not jump to conclusions because of a person's ethnicity or income level. Do I honestly think that people would freak out because their gardener or another service professional that they use is suddenly able to live in town? No, I don't, since I would not have a problem at all with the gardener's family being able to live in town.

Moderate income housing is not the same as low income housing. There is a vast difference between the two, since moderate families generally work and do not have a need for social programs and services in the same numbers asl ow income housing. There are many stable, respectable precedents in the city and state for moderate income housing being quite successful, especially with cooperatives and rentals. Mitchell-Lama programs and co-ops like Amalgamated have kept to affordable housing guidelines, and the buildings are not derelict, nor are they equal to housing projects.
__________________
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.
~William Shakespeare
(As You Like It Act II, Scene VII)

City-Data Terms of Service
City-Data FAQs
 
Old 08-11-2009, 06:26 PM
 
1,240 posts, read 2,975,787 times
Reputation: 1798
Oh, give me a break. So people in Scarsdale don't want "the help" living next door to them. What else is new. No, I guess the government can't legislate an end to elitism.
 
Old 08-11-2009, 06:31 PM
 
739 posts, read 1,605,633 times
Reputation: 811
The town in which we live in Oregon has several small town-house developments for affordable housing. They are lovely. The occupants keep them neat, tidy and cheerful. There is pride of ownership. The knee-jerk reaction against is is not appropriate. Moderate-income housing translates into working families and should attract productive members of the community.

The marketing is going to be done most heavily in minority areas. That won't automatically guarantee they will be flocking to live in these homes. OTOH, if those who qualify and have the proscribed income express interest, why not welcome them into the community?

The stereotype of 'these people' bringing in crime, problems and lowering property values is a dinosaur. Skin color won't determine whether or not a family puts more or less value on their home. Not all people of color aspire to trash their homes and ruin neighborhoods. Those who care enough to investigate this housing will do so to be part of a nice, safe environment for their kids and the education which they will receive.

Chill out, people. If it's done right, you won't even notice it.
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.


Closed Thread



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > Westchester County
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:58 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top