U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-03-2009, 01:33 PM
 
943 posts, read 2,982,359 times
Reputation: 710

Advertisements

The model for many suburbs that were developed years ago was they were designed basically for a certain economic class of people. I doubt any suburbs were designed specifically for poor people but due to a variety of issues they decided to build a certain type of home traditionally or allow only large lots, or allow a large number of multi family homes, etc. The final result is some communities are known as places for rich people, others are working class suburbs and others have a large middle class.

If you look at the ethnic and educational breakdown of certain cities you will see that they traditionally have always had a certain demographic, and that type of population will likely continue. (Or will it with current policies)???

The new thinking is that all communities should be multi racial, diverse and full of a combination of rich and poor people living right next to each other. Many previously wealthy "single family home dominated communities" are being told that they should open up their last pieces of land to affordable housing and apartments. Those residents who do not support rezoning are accused of racism and classicism.

What do you think of the idea of opening up wealthy communities for the poor and require all new developments to have housing for the poor right next to the rich?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-03-2009, 06:22 PM
 
Location: Looking over your shoulder
31,304 posts, read 30,743,501 times
Reputation: 84411
Interesting thought but how do you know who is wealthy or not?

One of the last company ceo’s and many of his executive officers that I worked for lived in very wealthy neighborhoods in some of the other states over the past years and their homes are still there. However they are in federal jails for crimes that they committed during their employment. My guess is that there are now poor families without the primary male breadwinner living at home in these wealthy neighborhoods now. Daddy’s in prison and the family has to live off what little savings is left in the bank, you never really know who your neighbors are.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2014, 12:39 PM
 
524 posts, read 791,387 times
Reputation: 1018
Even when the development is meant for "all rich" the community will still end up establishing a pecking order based by income or popularity or home appearance etc. it is human nature
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2014, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Howard County, Maryland
12,061 posts, read 6,710,453 times
Reputation: 26889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weekend Traveler View Post
The new thinking is that all communities should be multi racial, diverse and full of a combination of rich and poor people living right next to each other.
Who is thinking this? Not I. People who desire to be around others like themselves should be free to settle in their mono-ethnic, same-income communities. (Freedom of association means the freedom not to associate as well.) And if I work hard to afford a nice house in a desirable area, why would I want the government to just hand over the next-door house to whatever poor family they feel like giving it to? After all, America's history of government-provided housing lends ample credence to the idea that people who are given something, rather than working for it, aren't as likely to take good care of their property and invest themselves in bettering their community. Indeed, quite the opposite.

I think that communities (cities, towns, etc.) should be allowed to move through life with as little governmental interference as is practiceable, and let their demographics shake out as they will. I place far, far more confidence in the collective wisdom of "the people" acting in their own interest than I do in any collection of do-gooder government bureaucrats and "community organizers."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2014, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Savannah GA
13,708 posts, read 19,557,645 times
Reputation: 10064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weekend Traveler View Post
The model for many suburbs that were developed years ago was they were designed basically for a certain economic class of people. I doubt any suburbs were designed specifically for poor people but due to a variety of issues they decided to build a certain type of home traditionally or allow only large lots, or allow a large number of multi family homes, etc. The final result is some communities are known as places for rich people, others are working class suburbs and others have a large middle class.

If you look at the ethnic and educational breakdown of certain cities you will see that they traditionally have always had a certain demographic, and that type of population will likely continue. (Or will it with current policies)???

The new thinking is that all communities should be multi racial, diverse and full of a combination of rich and poor people living right next to each other. Many previously wealthy "single family home dominated communities" are being told that they should open up their last pieces of land to affordable housing and apartments. Those residents who do not support rezoning are accused of racism and classicism.

What do you think of the idea of opening up wealthy communities for the poor and require all new developments to have housing for the poor right next to the rich?
Nice concept, but it simply doesn't work that way and never has -- anywhere, ever. The very first efforts at establishing affordable mix-income (re: government) housing in the 1930s created the ghettos many cities are still trying to eradicate today. And the more modern effort at gentrification of inner-cities by replacing low-income subsidized housing with mixed-income developments has in fact created the phenomenon of higher-income persons displacing low-income residents, many of whom have been "forced" to the suburbs. This has been especially true in Atlanta.


Read up on this subject: White flight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It's a vicious cycle.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2014, 12:14 AM
 
Location: south central
606 posts, read 1,066,980 times
Reputation: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by AksarbeN View Post
Interesting thought but how do you know who is wealthy or not?

One of the last company ceo’s and many of his executive officers that I worked for lived in very wealthy neighborhoods in some of the other states over the past years and their homes are still there. However they are in federal jails for crimes that they committed during their employment. My guess is that there are now poor families without the primary male breadwinner living at home in these wealthy neighborhoods now. Daddy’s in prison and the family has to live off what little savings is left in the bank, you never really know who your neighbors are.
This is such an unnecessary complications why would you even answer the question like this?

Anyways, I think yes and no. People should be able to live where they want to live, and if people can afford to live in a wealthy neighborhood because they are also wealthy, then they should be able to. However, I'm also against it to some extent. Many communities, such as many wealthy suburbs of Boston, where I'm from, make up ways to keep their city or town exclusive. Many of these people are supposedly conservative or centrist, right, or at least believe in free markets, but then they play with zoning codes to make artifice of lot sizes, what commercial retailers can establish themselves in these towns, and they exert power over the market that other lower and oftentimes middle class people do not have. The town governments of these cities and towns basically manipulate rules to avoid market consequences and ergo, avoid having to live with poor people. It's all about "people should be able to live where they wanna live" and "If I wanna live this way I can you can't tell me what to do" and in fact it's not even "rich people can afford to live where/how they want so they should be able to." The reality is that it's "rich people have the money and power to create exclusive communities limiting the choices of others."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2014, 07:12 AM
 
19,039 posts, read 4,650,594 times
Reputation: 34078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weekend Traveler View Post
The model for many suburbs that were developed years ago was they were designed basically for a certain economic class of people. I doubt any suburbs were designed specifically for poor people but due to a variety of issues they decided to build a certain type of home traditionally or allow only large lots, or allow a large number of multi family homes, etc. The final result is some communities are known as places for rich people, others are working class suburbs and others have a large middle class.?
How about shotgun houses? Or have you ever been to an old mill town?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weekend Traveler View Post
If you look at the ethnic and educational breakdown of certain cities you will see that they traditionally have always had a certain demographic, and that type of population will likely continue. (Or will it with current policies)????
Who else can pay for it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weekend Traveler View Post
The new thinking is that all communities should be multi racial, diverse and full of a combination of rich and poor people living right next to each other. Many previously wealthy "single family home dominated communities" are being told that they should open up their last pieces of land to affordable housing and apartments. Those residents who do not support rezoning are accused of racism and classicism.?
Who does the telling? The good ol' race card is getting old.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weekend Traveler View Post
What do you think of the idea of opening up wealthy communities for the poor and require all new developments to have housing for the poor right next to the rich?
Have you ever owned a home, enjoyed it, were proud of it?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2014, 07:50 AM
 
3,201 posts, read 4,070,647 times
Reputation: 4433
these concfepts arent logical

people live where they can afford to live

if you have medium->long paper and can afford a million+ dollar home and live in a gated community then great

if you make $20k/yr you may live in a small apartment

why would the millionaire and the $20k/yr person need to stay in the same place?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2014, 02:11 PM
 
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,123 posts, read 39,427,277 times
Reputation: 15773
Such a notion is called socialism. NO.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2014, 03:28 PM
 
Location: MD suburbs of DC
607 posts, read 1,243,238 times
Reputation: 451
For all I care, they can stay in their little enclaves but if a person of lesser wealth wants to join them, they shouldn't refuse the newcomer(s).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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 > General U.S.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:28 AM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top