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 have just read this entire thread through, from page 1 to page 18, just to make sure I fully understood the views expressed and also to make sure I'm not being totally repetitive. I'm probably not going to be popular with everyone with my view on this, but here goes. My concern regarding income-restricted housing is not for riff-raff as that is not a given. We've lived in apartments before because we had to. I was able to become a stay at home mom *because* we did so, and therefore was way more involved with my children's education than I had been when I was working and we were living in a home that we owned. Yes, poor people need a place to live. Some poor people are good and some poor people are bad and the availability of this housing isn't what makes people good or bad. But, the people who eventually settle there long term are not people who 'just need a little help' or 'college kids who can't afford more'. The shameful truth of the matter (as seen firsthand here in Southern California by my husband who works for municipal government) is that after a while, all of the units will be filled with people that have no incentive to grow and improve in their lives. Their rent will be so low that if they get a better job or start making more money somehow they'll have to leave and pay two, three, four times as much rent. Why bother doing that when you can have a pretty good sized condo in a nice city and work the easiest, lowest expectation job out there? Yes, in the beginning, people will need more space and buck up and move out, but eventually, one by one, each unit will fall into the hands of someone who's just looking for the easy way out. And all the while, it's our taxpayer dollars subsidizing the difference. If it was people who needed to get back on their feet for one reason or another, or young families who just haven't quite made it yet, and it was a short term solution, then I am all for it, but based on what we've observed in other cities, people become life-long residents and there's a waiting list a mile long of other people who will never get in. The idea of subsidized housing comes from the right place, but in practice the truly lazy folk ruin it for the rest of the population.
I have just read this entire thread through, from page 1 to page 18, just to make sure I fully understood the views expressed and also to make sure I'm not being totally repetitive. I'm probably not going to be popular with everyone with my view on this, but here goes. My concern regarding income-restricted housing is not for riff-raff as that is not a given. We've lived in apartments before because we had to. I was able to become a stay at home mom *because* we did so, and therefore was way more involved with my children's education than I had been when I was working and we were living in a home that we owned. Yes, poor people need a place to live. Some poor people are good and some poor people are bad and the availability of this housing isn't what makes people good or bad. But, the people who eventually settle there long term are not people who 'just need a little help' or 'college kids who can't afford more'. The shameful truth of the matter (as seen firsthand here in Southern California by my husband who works for municipal government) is that after a while, all of the units will be filled with people that have no incentive to grow and improve in their lives. Their rent will be so low that if they get a better job or start making more money somehow they'll have to leave and pay two, three, four times as much rent. Why bother doing that when you can have a pretty good sized condo in a nice city and work the easiest, lowest expectation job out there? Yes, in the beginning, people will need more space and buck up and move out, but eventually, one by one, each unit will fall into the hands of someone who's just looking for the easy way out. And all the while, it's our taxpayer dollars subsidizing the difference. If it was people who needed to get back on their feet for one reason or another, or young families who just haven't quite made it yet, and it was a short term solution, then I am all for it, but based on what we've observed in other cities, people become life-long residents and there's a waiting list a mile long of other people who will never get in. The idea of subsidized housing comes from the right place, but in practice the truly lazy folk ruin it for the rest of the population.
Truly lazy folk? You do realize that the average IQ is 100, right? Nearly 7 percent of the population has an IQ between 70 and 79. Guess what? They aren't smart enough to do any better. It has nothing to do with laziness. If your IQ is 76, you aren't likely to ever make much more than 20,000 a year. Think about that for a moment. Seeing that like is attracted to like, people with lower IQ's marry others with low IQ's. They have to live somewhere too.
With that said, I do agree with AK123. Goldshire is a poorly run development. I wouldn't want those people building a development in my neighborhood whether it was hard core projects or nice big homes.
And, Callo what do you mean? Are there tigers and elephants running around Westfield high school? Do Fulanis attempt to open trade routes through the hallways? I don't get it. Just kidding. If I'm smart enough to know who Fulanis are, I'm obviously smart enough to get what you are saying. I'm glad I'm not like you.
You're glad that you refuse to say what a lot of people, and most of the people on this forum, are thinking? Whatever floats your boat. But I've been to the ghetto. I've seen the hate. I've seen the violence. I've seen the disregard for life. Don't for a second tell me the ghetto isn't real. Not only is it very real, it spreads. Alief and Sharpstown were it's first victims, then Greenspoint. Stafford never stood a chance. Now Bammel and Westfield have fallen. Katy's already been infected, whether it will survive is up to it's residents. Now it's turned it's sights on Sugar Land. What's next? Cypress? Tomball? Clear Lake? Klein? So far Klein's been able to contain it, but who knows what the future holds.
Seriously, does every single hard-working middle class person have to leave Travis County before anyone gets what's happening?
Location: The land of sugar... previously Houston and Austin
5,429 posts, read 14,851,505 times
Reputation: 3672
Just thought I'd share a few more updates:
Three members of our group (United77498) traveled to Austin at the end of June to share what we've found in our investigations of Goldshire Development. A lot of dirt was dug up so to say, and we shared all of this with TDHCA. After United77498 concluded their presentation, the Board said the TDHCA is engaged in an active investigation of Goldshire. They suspected that Goldshire would be disqualified. However, if Goldshire should somehow not be disqualified, the staff would not be recommending Goldshire’s approval. Furthermore, the Board said this project did not have a chance of making it before them for approval. We hope to receive the final official decision soon.
Thanks to everyone who mailed in opposition letters. The final count was 2,605!
As far as future development in this area of Sugar Land, you can bet United77498 will be keeping watch. Some other good news: this particular area of Sugar Land has mostly Sugar Land postal addresses but is technically in Houston's ETJ (extraterritorial jurisdiction). It's only a small portion but includes subdivisions such as Orchard Lake Estates, Chelsea Harbour, Stratford Park, Summerfield, Village of Oak Lake, and Old Orchard (Richmond postal addresses). All of these are part of MUD 25, which is currently in negotiations with the City of Sugar Land for an ETJ swap. This means the area will likely be switched from Houston ETJ to Sugar Land ETJ, which will make it a candidate for future annexation by Sugar Land. But even just being in Sugar Land's ETJ will put limits on undesirable development (although unincorporated Fort Bend County is still better than unincorporated Harris County, being that Fort Bend has stricter building codes and restrictions.)
Anyway, will post more updates on Goldshire from TDHCA as I get them.
Great job! keep us updated. This would have really hurt real estate value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK123
Just thought I'd share a few more updates:
Three members of our group (United77498) traveled to Austin at the end of June to share what we've found in our investigations of Goldshire Development. A lot of dirt was dug up so to say, and we shared all of this with TDHCA. After United77498 concluded their presentation, the Board said the TDHCA is engaged in an active investigation of Goldshire. They suspected that Goldshire would be disqualified. However, if Goldshire should somehow not be disqualified, the staff would not be recommending Goldshire’s approval. Furthermore, the Board said this project did not have a chance of making it before them for approval. We hope to receive the final official decision soon.
Thanks to everyone who mailed in opposition letters. The final count was 2,605!
As far as future development in this area of Sugar Land, you can bet United77498 will be keeping watch. Some other good news: this particular area of Sugar Land has mostly Sugar Land postal addresses but is technically in Houston's ETJ (extraterritorial jurisdiction). It's only a small portion but includes subdivisions such as Orchard Lake Estates, Chelsea Harbour, Stratford Park, Summerfield, Village of Oak Lake, and Old Orchard (Richmond postal addresses). All of these are part of MUD 25, which is currently in negotiations with the City of Sugar Land for an ETJ swap. This means the area will likely be switched from Houston ETJ to Sugar Land ETJ, which will make it a candidate for future annexation by Sugar Land. But even just being in Sugar Land's ETJ will put limits on undesirable development (although unincorporated Fort Bend County is still better than unincorporated Harris County, being that Fort Bend has stricter building codes and restrictions.)
Anyway, will post more updates on Goldshire from TDHCA as I get them.
You're glad that you refuse to say what a lot of people, and most of the people on this forum, are thinking? Whatever floats your boat. But I've been to the ghetto. I've seen the hate. I've seen the violence. I've seen the disregard for life. Don't for a second tell me the ghetto isn't real. Not only is it very real, it spreads. Alief and Sharpstown were it's first victims, then Greenspoint. Stafford never stood a chance. Now Bammel and Westfield have fallen. Katy's already been infected, whether it will survive is up to it's residents. Now it's turned it's sights on Sugar Land. What's next? Cypress? Tomball? Clear Lake? Klein? So far Klein's been able to contain it, but who knows what the future holds.
Seriously, does every single hard-working middle class person have to leave Travis County before anyone gets what's happening?
Then I would say what is happening is the working poor to lower middle class groups is expanding. Furthermore, I have noticed in Houston, when lower income apartments pop up, people turn their backs on the residents. They want nothing to do with the residents. My brother and his wife live in Meadows Place. My niece attends Meadows Elementary (Fort Bend ISD). A few years back, they built some apartments on Bellfort. You would have thought Cabrini Green was being rebuilt in Houston the way some people reacted. Fortunately, it has worked out. Turns out, the complex is mostly families saving up for houses. I understand the ghetto is real. But what I take issue with is you calling every neighborhood where the household income is 30 to 50 thousand dollars a year a ghetto.
I've never appreciated Sugar Landers' general attitudes toward the poor. I've lived here my whole life, and it's a disgusting attitude that people take.
The poor are here, they live here, all around us. Moving to some shiny new neighbourhood and pretending they don't exist isn't going to make them magically disappear.
I see the heart of the issue is "My Kids!". If you're so darn concerned with their education being 'spoiled' by those horrible ghetto people, send them to Awty or whatever.
Education is what you make out of it. If you really, honestly feel like your kid is not going to be able to get the very best at some FBISD school because someone whose mum makes under 35k lives down the street, then I feel horrible for you.
Location: The land of sugar... previously Houston and Austin
5,429 posts, read 14,851,505 times
Reputation: 3672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiaomao
I've never appreciated Sugar Landers' general attitudes toward the poor. I've lived here my whole life, and it's a disgusting attitude that people take.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiaomao
Our lawn is green. Only because my dad leaves the sprinkler on...
Wow. Another highly enlightened teen from Sugar Land full of life experiences appears.
If you had been around on this issue for more than one day as most of the rest of us have, you'd realize there was a lot more to it than just the fact of it being a low-income complex. It's a lot more complicated than that. All of the shadiness surrounding Goldshire Development, a fake HOA created to garner points with the state, the horribly unsafe road the development was proposed for, among all kinds of other things I won't go into here were of much more importance. I think you should educate yourself on the situation before making such foolish and simple-minded comments.
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.
Terminated
