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.
About about these rules for "non-desirability" in the projects:
-A record of anti-social behavior
-Birth out of wedlock(unless the couple plans to marry)
-Potential tenants who's children who are not their off-spring
-Single parents
-Unmarried couples who have not lived together continuously in the last 2 years
-Evidence of lack of parental control over their children
-Use of drugs & alcohol
-And just to add, anyone who's "developmentally disabled"
I'd think it'd make the projects better.
Thought I should interject, I know a few "developmentally disabled" people who are amazing - interesting, kind, hard working.
People have no choice about that. It is usually mild mental retardation.
"Social" is not the right word, because it pushes responsibility out, away from the individual who makes choices to adhere to one set of cultural norms or another. These choices can have quite negative consequences. For example:
Why was your child shot one evening ?
Because she was unsupervised and on the streets at 3 AM.
Why have you experienced "severe economic hardship" over the past three years ?
Because while unemployed and living in a homeless shelter, you gave birth to not one but two children, from different fathers, and you recently gave birth to a third. See ? You are holding them in the news story picture about how "they" have cut off your Advantage benefits exactly when they said they would. Instead of gaining employment, you gave birth. Three times.
After years of experience, I realized that while attempting to help people improve their lives was good, if largely unsuccessful, there was another ethical imperative - being sure that decent people would be protected from the anti-socials. This means everything from safety from gun violence, assaults, and robberies, to freedom from litter everywhere, freedom from aggressive and unsupervised children, freedom from street harassment by the sub-welfare tenants on 127th street who insist on hanging out on the front steps for precisely that reason.
I think my understanding partly grew out of the concrete observation that there are A LOT of programs and resources to help people, and that few people will try to do anything without a legal imperative. People either want to change or they do not, and before they want to change, they should be prevented from impacting the lives of others negatively.
So ... I think you misunderstood. I would not propose anything as a "help." They need to help themselves. I am now thinking more of mitigating the truly negative impact the ghetto lifestyle has for everyone around - no exception, and especially including their own children, who, by the time they are finally removed, are often too far gone.
It's normal for socialworkers to lose faith in their clients or psychiatric in their patients at some point. But the important thing is to carry on and try to find those little everyday miracles. But if you completely lose faith in clientel or patients carry on but please try not to show that to them.
About about these rules for "non-desirability" in the projects:
-A record of anti-social behavior
What exactly does that mean? That's a very broad term that needs to be specified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 009
-Birth out of wedlock(unless the couple plans to marry)
So we're gonna dictate people to marry each other just because they have kids? What is that?!! There is a such thing as cohabiting you know! Even if the parents weren't cohabiting, that is none of your business and a prime example of punishing others because they don't live a lifestyle that is seen as correct by the majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 009
-Potential tenants who's children who are not their off-spring
What if the grandmother is taking care of those kids? Or an aunt, uncle, cousin, or a very close godparent?! Once again, mind your own business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 009
-Single parents
Oh yes, punish those who have to deal with circumstances such as their partner leaving them to fend for themselves or maybe their partner died. How brilliant is that?! To improve the struggling single parent, we're gonna throw them out of the projects which is most likely their only way of remaining in NYC...genius, I tell you!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by 009
-Unmarried couples who have not lived together continuously in the last 2 years
For the last time, mind your own business. You don't know what kind of arrangement those couples may have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 009
-Evidence of lack of parental control over their children
This somewhat makes sense, unlike the rest, however this can be a slippery slope as you need to be specific about the evidence. If it's such thing as abuse towards kids, then yes they should be kicked out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 009
-Use of drugs & alcohol
This can also be a slippery slope. Flat out abuse of drugs and alcohol should not be tolerated, but instead of flat out kicking them out, there should be an offer of rehabilitation and if the tenant refuses, then kick them out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 009
-And just to add, anyone who's "developmentally disabled"
So you plan to build more shelters and nursing facilities to help the disabled? If not, sit down...
``Are there no prisons?'' asked Scrooge.
``Plenty of prisons,'' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
``And the Union workhouses?'' demanded Scrooge. ``Are they still in operation?''
``They are. Still,'' returned the gentleman, `` I wish I could say they were not.''
``The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?'' said Scrooge.
``Both very busy, sir.''
``Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,'' said Scrooge. ``I'm very glad to hear it.''
I'm astonished that people are discussing this civilly. I think I would be unable to, since we are a few steps away from eugenics in sone of these theories.
Are you serious? Or sarcastic?
My guess is sarcastic.
If he's being sarcastic, then good job of fooling me cause it sounds exactly like what some people would actually suggest. If he's serious, well...you saw my reply above.
Are you serious? Or sarcastic?
My guess is sarcastic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by njnyckid
If he's being sarcastic, then good job of fooling me cause it sounds exactly like what some people would actually suggest. If he's serious, well...you saw my reply above.
Oh I'm quite serious, but the ideas aren't mine. In fact, those were actual rules and regulations of the projects up until the 60s. If a potential resident violated one of those rules, they were outright denied an apartment or at the very least, sent to a social worker. Regardless of the rules, overall the projects were safe places to live up to that time period. How times change...
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.
