How oligarchs destroyed a major American city - Houston (homes, restaurants)

[cBach]

Originally Posted by ipuck

I made my point and now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said zero government involvement. I said the existing controls in place is sufficient. Is only some of you throwing liberation crap and twist my position to zero involvement.

I give you another example. That Ashby high-rise. So for the benefit of a few residents, the tower was delay for 7 years. Is this what we want Houston to become?

How many projects will still be around when approval takes 7 years?

I don't care how long a project takes to develop, that's the developer's problem.

But I don't want my taxpayer money subsidizing for profit development via TIFs (Tax Increment Financing) or other scams that are welfare for corporations. Nope, keep my taxes for schools, sanitary, sewer, parks, recreation, and police protection. Oh and welfare for the poor and needy

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by cBach

I don't care how long a project takes to develop, that's the developer's problem.

But I don't want my taxpayer money subsidizing for profit development via TIFs (Tax Increment Financing) or other scams that are welfare for corporations. Nope, keep my taxes for schools, sanitary, sewer, parks, recreation, and police protection. Oh and welfare for the poor and needy

Bravo! Well said.

[jerbear30]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

No.

The question is who is to primarily to blame, the cheating husband or the temptress?

The question isn't either since it is a private matter and therefore none of my business, whereas the situation you're comparing it to is public. There is a question of blame to be assigned for graft, accepting bribes, etc...

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by jerbear30

The question isn't either since it is a private matter and therefore none of my business, whereas the situation you're comparing it to is public. There is a question of blame to be assigned for graft, accepting bribes, etc...

You really need to try processing this again.

Does the primary responsibility fall on the person who pledges to do the right thing or the person who tempts them to violate that trust?

[ipuck]

Originally Posted by cBach

I don't care how long a project takes to develop, that's the developer's problem.

But I don't want my taxpayer money subsidizing for profit development via TIFs (Tax Increment Financing) or other scams that are welfare for corporations. Nope, keep my taxes for schools, sanitary, sewer, parks, recreation, and police protection. Oh and welfare for the poor and needy

The article nor the original discussion had anything to do with tax abatement or TIF or whatever you are referring to. We are discussing additional controls for development. Are you just yapping about or you really have no idea but just want to babble?

[Bike4Life]

Some re-development control by a collaboration with the owners, civic association, community, and government - good.

A narcissistic, tasteless, pain-in-the-azz, for-profit seeking bulldozer at the expense of the poor and widows to re-develop whatever they want - bad.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by ipuck

The article nor the original discussion had anything to do with tax abatement or TIF or whatever you are referring to. We are discussing additional controls for development. Are you just yapping about or you really have no idea but just want to babble?

Instead of redirecting, why don't you tell me if you think TIFs are good use of "gub'ment money"?

[astrohip]

Originally Posted by Bike4Life

Some re-development control by a collaboration with the owners, civic association, community, and government - good.

A narcissistic, tasteless, pain-in-the-azz, for-profit seeking bulldozer at the expense of the poor and widows to re-develop whatever they want - bad.

Sorry, but that's zoning. You say "some control", but what's SOME? And who decides what's tasteless, and what's not?

In general, the free market is still the best control over property use. Development controls are needed, such as COH's Section 42. That prevents abuse (like building on a property line), while still allowing the market to decide the best use of land.

Houston works exactly because we DON'T allow "civic associations" to decide what I can do with MY land.

There was a reason in this last recession that housing prices dropped 30-75% across the country, except for Houston.

And as a final thought... why should "the poor and widows" be excused from having decisions affect them? Sure I'm being cold & callous on purpose, and exaggerating to make a point, but think about it. Why them? Let's throw in orphans, homeless, persecuted religious minorities and the ugly. Don't they deserve cheap housing too? I say we screw the family that's owned the land for 80 years, and is finally ready to cash in their chips. Let's give a break to those poor widows.

[ipuck]

Originally Posted by astrohip

Sorry, but that's zoning. You say "some control", but what's SOME? And who decides what's tasteless, and what's not?

In general, the free market is still the best control over property use. Development controls are needed, such as COH's Section 42. That prevents abuse (like building on a property line), while still allowing the market to decide the best use of land.

Houston works exactly because we DON'T allow "civic associations" to decide what I can do with MY land.

There was a reason in this last recession that housing prices dropped 30-75% across the country, except for Houston.

And as a final thought... why should "the poor and widows" be excused from having decisions affect them? Sure I'm being cold & callous on purpose, and exaggerating to make a point, but think about it. Why them? Let's throw in orphans, homeless, persecuted religious minorities and the ugly. Don't they deserve cheap housing too? I say we screw the family that's owned the land for 80 years, and is finally ready to cash in their chips. Let's give a break to those poor widows.

Exactly my point. Seems like we are getting more and more of that 47% that want handouts and gov't control for anything and everything here.

I want to live in downtown but I don't want to paid more. Let's make the developers save 25% of the condo for low income housing and let him build it.

You want a shopping center? Sure give a free clinic rent free location in your center and we will approve it.

A big reason this city's housing is affordable is because of current regulations or lack of. Putting in more restrictions will only make the 47% less able to afford this city. But they are too stupid to realize that as usual.

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by ipuck

Exactly my point. Seems like we are getting more and more of that 47% that want handouts and gov't control for anything and everything here.

I want to live in downtown but I don't want to paid more. Let's make the developers save 25% of the condo for low income housing and let him build it.

You want a shopping center? Sure give a free clinic rent free location in your center and we will approve it.

A big reason this city's housing is affordable is because of current regulations or lack of. Putting in more restrictions will only make the 47% less able to afford this city. But they are too stupid to realize that as usual.

What the hell does that have to do with gentrification?