If public housing, i.e. housing projects were eliminated from Birmingham would it cut much of the violent crime problem? (Mountain Brook: rent, neighborhood)
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.
Most landlords with desirable properties aren’t going to accept section 8, too much risk, and too many rules and forms to fill out. The ones who accept section 8 are the ones with properties in declining areas, where they can’t find good tenants otherwise.
I would think that's true but I've heard in the news here (Dallas) recently that the city is offering developers good incentives to provide low-income housing in one of our hottest areas called Knox-Henderson. There's articles out there about it and when there's articles that means there'll be political pressure. Cities can tie the hands of developers so much that it can stifle growth and sometimes developers give in.
I remember wanting to live in Phoenix Lofts in downtown Birmingham like 10-12 years ago. They asked my my income and I asked why they needed to know. They said because if I made less than $23k per year that I qualify for 1/2 rent! I had never heard of such before but needless to say, I left and never went back.
Location: Atlanta, Birmingham, Charlotte, and Raleigh
2,580 posts, read 2,463,511 times
Reputation: 1614
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfmx1
I would think that's true but I've heard in the news here (Dallas) recently that the city is offering developers good incentives to provide low-income housing in one of our hottest areas called Knox-Henderson. There's articles out there about it and when there's articles that means there'll be political pressure. Cities can tie the hands of developers so much that it can stifle growth and sometimes developers give in.
I remember wanting to live in Phoenix Lofts in downtown Birmingham like 10-12 years ago. They asked my my income and I asked why they needed to know. They said because if I made less than $23k per year that I qualify for 1/2 rent! I had never heard of such before but needless to say, I left and never went back.
That's quite common in most large cities to offer incentives for lower income housing within a new development. It's not unusual to provide those incentives to supplement the financial tools to get the development to the letting stage. Especially, as more large core urban jurisdictions push more and more affordable housing statutes on their books with the onslaught of more infill developments. If more developers took advantage of such it will eliminate the primary purpose of housing projects.
That's quite common in most large cities to offer incentives for lower income housing within a new development. It's not unusual to provide those incentives to supplement the financial tools to get the development to the letting stage. Especially, as more large core urban jurisdictions push more and more affordable housing statutes on their books with the onslaught of more infill developments. If more developers took advantage of such it will eliminate the primary purpose of housing projects.
If you want to give those incentives for the new infill i.e. redevelopment of the areas where the housing projects are, or in the same vicinity, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. Crime may slightly decrease as all these tunnel 'studies' indicate.
What most people would have a problem with, is the shipping of those residents to other municipalities.
That's quite common in most large cities to offer incentives for lower income housing within a new development. It's not unusual to provide those incentives to supplement the financial tools to get the development to the letting stage. Especially, as more large core urban jurisdictions push more and more affordable housing statutes on their books with the onslaught of more infill developments. If more developers took advantage of such it will eliminate the primary purpose of housing projects.
But, wouldn't that just become the next "project" by default (in 10-20 years)? Because, people like me don't want to live in an area where others are given rent vouchers just because. Therefore, I move out along with a slew of others like me leaving the area desolate again.
Then what we're left with is hundreds of thousands of dollars (maybe millions) in government money spent just to have the same ole problem that we did before.
I personally would refuse to live in mixed income housing as would most people I know and on this board.
The way I look at it is I pay my way out of high-crime areas, now the government is paying to have those criminals be my neighbor again so maybe some of my good will rub off on them.
Location: Atlanta, Birmingham, Charlotte, and Raleigh
2,580 posts, read 2,463,511 times
Reputation: 1614
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfmx1
But, wouldn't that just become the next "project" by default (in 10-20 years)? Because, people like me don't want to live in an area where others are given rent vouchers just because. Therefore, I move out along with a slew of others like me leaving the area desolate again.
Then what we're left with is hundreds of thousands of dollars (maybe millions) in government money spent just to have the same ole problem that we did before.
I personally would refuse to live in mixed income housing as would most people I know and on this board.
The way I look at it is I pay my way out of high-crime areas, now the government is paying to have those criminals be my neighbor again so maybe some of my good will rub off on them.
Actually, that doesn't happen at all. I don't know where you get that assumption from that somehow because someone makes below $40K in household income they are criminal. It's the biggest reach I've heard awhile now. Additionally, other cities that permit that like Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, Jacksonville, Charlotte that does these practices of incentivizing developers to set aside a specific number of units within their new residential developments as a slum when they are not. Most of the time the incentives have a term limit on them and are gradually phased out. That assumption just does not occur...
That's your personal choice and you cannot speak for the majority of individuals on the board. You can only speak for yourself.
I don't know where you get that assumption from that somehow because someone makes below $40K in household income they are criminal.
And I don't get where you got that he made that assumption.
Quote:
It's the biggest reach I've heard awhile now.
And unless I'm blind, it's a straw man.
Quote:
That's your personal choice and you cannot speak for the majority of individuals on the board. You can only speak for yourself.
He speaks for me as well. He also speaks for most of my friends. And to be quite frank, it is common sense. Who wants to pay $2000 rent and live next to people who pay $500 rent?
If two buildings are identical... with one having all tenants paying market rate, and the other with some paying market rate and some being subsidized by taxpayers, why on earth would anyone choose the latter building? You can stick your head in the sand and pretend that nobody would care as long as the buildings are nice, but everyone knows that's just bs. And that's for rentals.
Change it to owned units like condos and single family homes instead of apartments and it would be even more pronounced because the buyers have more skin in the game.
I personally would refuse to live in mixed income housing as would most people I know and on this board.
The way I look at it is I pay my way out of high-crime areas, now the government is paying to have those criminals be my neighbor again so maybe some of my good will rub off on them.
I get not wanting to be in mixed income housing, that's an understandable preference, but the government paying criminals to be your neighbor?! (Reach of the day!) That is certainly a terrible assumption about people in working class or poor conditions that they don't deserve. The generalization there doesn't ring true from my perspective. Furthermore several successful cities (Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas etc) use these vouchers more aggressively and have been growing for years while Birmingham has been slower to use them and perhaps that is part and parcel of the reason we have seen slow growth rather than the explosive fast paced growth that other sunbelt cities have. Young professionals and the wealthy are not the only target population when it comes to growing a city and metro, 40k and below have a big impact on population growth too.
I get not wanting to be in mixed income housing, that's an understandable preference, but the government paying criminals to be your neighbor?! (Reach of the day!) That is certainly a terrible assumption about people in working class or poor conditions that they don't deserve. The generalization there doesn't ring true from my perspective. Furthermore several successful cities (Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas etc) use these vouchers more aggressively and have been growing for years while Birmingham has been slower to use them and perhaps that is part and parcel of the reason we have seen slow growth rather than the explosive fast paced growth that other sunbelt cities have. Young professionals and the wealthy are not the only target population when it comes to growing a city and metro, 40k and below have a big impact on population growth too.
Why is that the reach of the day? The whole premise of the original article and argument here is breaking up crime-ridden projects or areas and disbursing them to other places. And it's the government that pays for it.
Sorry for not ticking every single PC box.. Yes there are some great people in that situation, but it's also inviting people with higher criminal tendencies to be my neighbor.
Why is that the reach of the day? The whole premise of the original article and argument here is breaking up crime-ridden projects or areas and dispersing* them to other places. And it's the government that pays for it.
Sorry for not ticking every single PC box.. Yes there are some great people in that situation, but it's also inviting people with higher criminal tendencies to be my neighbor.
Here's why:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfmx1
The way I look at it is I pay my way out of high-crime areas, now the government is paying to have those criminals be my neighbor again so maybe some of my good will rub off on them.
This statement in particular laid bare a broad generalization that all people that utilize housing vouchers are criminals and the government is paying to house them next to you. It is noted that the generalization you provided did not attempt to draw a distinction based on conduct(criminal action is conduct based) but on income alone, obviously that is problematic. That idea fails to stand up to scrutiny due to the fact that generalizations are usually too broadly applied to be accurate as is the case here, thus it is a reach. As you attempted to clarify in your later statement regarding dispersing people from housing projects to other areas, there are great people (not criminal) there as well wholly undermining the inaccurate generalization that the reach of the day was sitting upon.
This statement in particular laid bare a broad generalization that all people that utilize housing vouchers are criminals and the government is paying to house them next to you. It is noted that the generalization you provided did not attempt to draw a distinction based on conduct(criminal action is conduct based) but on income alone, obviously that is problematic. That idea fails to stand up to scrutiny due to the fact that generalizations are usually too broadly applied to be accurate as is the case here, thus it is a reach. As you attempted to clarify in your later statement regarding dispersing people from housing projects to other areas, there are great people (not criminal) there as well wholly undermining the inaccurate generalization that the reach of the day was sitting upon.
People who are in poverty are far more likely to be violent criminals that will commit crimes of opportunity than people who make good money. Is that better for you?
Nobody is saying everyone who is poor is a criminal. What people are saying is that where poor people go, crime, almost without exception, follows. I can't believe this still has to be clarified.
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.
