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.
The whole point from many low income people is that for them it's convenient for them to move to a well to do town in housing designated for low income. They get the benefits without paying the taxes or cost of living there at the expense of residents. How is that fair? They're not paying their fair share into the cost of the town. It's another handout.
You are supposed to live where you can afford, if the place is a ghetto. That's what you paid for.
Well said, but having said this - where do the working poor or poor by other reasons (legit and or within the law) live?
Where they can afford to live using money they earn and own. And not money earned and owned by others. Will that be a somewhat crappy area? Yes. With mixed land uses such as commercial and industrial and residential? Yes. In areas where crime is higher than average? Yes. Until someone makes himself valuable enough to afford a better class of living, he is going to have to live where prices can be paid with his income. That should be motivational. Make yourself better by working harder and smarter to afford a classier neighborhood. Then move there using ONLY your own money. Don’t expect the state to drain other people and make your life easier. That’s just immoral and wrong.
Where they can afford to live using money they earn and own. And not money earned and owned by others. Will that be a somewhat crappy area? Yes. With mixed land uses such as commercial and industrial and residential? Yes. In areas where crime is higher than average? Yes. Until someone makes himself valuable enough to afford a better class of living, he is going to have to live where prices can be paid with his income. That should be motivational. Make yourself better by working harder and smarter to afford a classier neighborhood. Then move there using ONLY your own money. Don’t expect the state to drain other people and make your life easier. That’s just immoral and wrong.
As much as I agree with that line of thinking, meritocracy is dead and not encouraged or fostered these days.
This notion that there’s going to be ghetto moms with 1000 kids in the richest neighborhoods it’s just plain ridiculous fear mongering.
That's definitely true, but there's no reason they must put someone disabled or elderly in a very expensive town just to meet the quotas.
Take Englewood, which is one of the most richest zip code. They've been disobeying affordable zoning requirements and the courts threaten to block access to housing development approvals if they delay their zoning requirements. Now why would you want to stick a disabled Vietnam Vet in a that area? Everything there is super expensive.
That's my problem with their activist policies is that they put people in these well to do towns and then the recipients can't afford anything and need more help to get by. Most of these disabled need community outreach to help them with basic necessities and it becomes a huge problem for care givers trying to help them living in an expensive town in NJ. That's why NYC does their own affordable building management but it is still poorly managed because the cost and labor is very difficult. Socialism is highly resource intensive.
That's definitely true, but there's no reason they must put someone disabled or elderly in a very expensive town just to meet the quotas.
Take Englewood, which is one of the most richest zip code. They've been disobeying affordable zoning requirements and the courts threaten to block access to housing development approvals if they delay their zoning requirements. Now why would you want to stick a disabled Vietnam Vet in a that area? Everything there is super expensive.
That's my problem with their activist policies is that they put people in these well to do towns and then the recipients can't afford anything and need more help to get by. Most of these disabled need community outreach to help them with basic necessities and it becomes a huge problem for care givers trying to help them living in an expensive town in NJ. That's why NYC does their own affordable building management but it is still poorly managed because the cost and labor is very difficult. Socialism is highly resource intensive.
Ocean City has 2 large low income senior housing complexes for years, one a high rise at 6th street and one that looks like condos on Bay Avenue, and that's an expensive town. The residents like it there. They can also take the fare free bus to Somers Point if they can't afford something in Ocean City.
The majority of mentally and developmentally disabled are and will continue to be in large apartment complexes in not so nice towns. But they gotta go somewhere since the push to close the residential facilities, and they were not able to make their lives better nor earn more money.
Someone on economics thread yesterday said something that struck a nerve with me and I think it's true. He said there's a Calvinism aspect to the way some people think of those less fortunate, in which morality is attached to success and poverty, with those who have less means seen as morally weak and less deserving. It made a lot of sense when he said it. I don't think that way but it appears many do by the tone of some of the posts.
Regardless I think the fear that the poor are about to invade the suburbs and Bubba and his meth lab is moving next door to you is election year rubbish.
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.