does anyone else agree that demolishing all housing projects would be better for the city as a whole? (Mexico: income, tax)
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.
Airborneguy I am glad grammer is of great importance to you!!!!!
However it doesnt change the fact that you and the rest of the ignorant *******s have your minds set on nycha or any public housing. Hey I wouldn't mind them tearing it down just so the ppl you despise the most can be your next door neighbors!!! Have a great day
Being called "ignorant" by uneducated dependents of the government will never get old. Thanks for another chuckle!
In fact, it's mostly unprecedented *not* to tear down housing projects. NYC is the only major city that hasn't torn down and replaced most of its 50s/60s public housing.
the only projects that were partially or maybe by now are torn down was prospect plaza, something like that.
they made the people move, promised them to come back, only decades went by, and still nothing.
not sure what they ever needed everyone to move in the first place.
Being called "ignorant" by uneducated dependents of the government will never get old. Thanks for another chuckle!
Far from uneducated!! Dependent of the gov't not even close maybe you collect the welfare and ssi checks considering you know so much about that. I mean since you allowed your fingers to type this B.S. While you continue too speak on what you dont know. Im going to have a good day. <3
everyone in this country depends on the government
for something or it wouldn't be a nation. america
would be all torn up without it by now, as divided
as people are.
That may be true, but there are so few people who are homeless "by choice" that it's not even worth mentioning them. Most homeless people aren't out sleeping in the streets - you probably wouldn't even be able to pick them out in a crowd. In these rough economic times, there are entire families living in cars, moving between the homes of relatives and friends, living in shelters, etc. So really, the homeless people you speak of, who are often mentally unstable, make up a fraction of a percent of the homeless people out there. So why mention them? What are you getting at?
To the OP, from what I've seen on this forum there are more than a few posters who would probably agree with you. Chicago tore down many of its projects, and the rate of violent crime is as bad as ever. What do you think happens to the tens of thousands of people who are rendered homeless when projects are torn down? They stream into other low-income neighbourhoods, where they destabilize these already fragile communities. I suppose that would suit you, as long as you didn't have to look at them, or be reminded of their presence.
Your impressions of poor people lead me to believe that you have never suffered any real economic hardship in your life, that you've never actually interacted with poor people, and that you know nothing of their lives and struggles. In the free market paradise you imagine, America would resemble sub-Saharan Africa. Perhaps you should move there.
But I don't see why NYC has to be the northern version of latin america/caribbean/african welfare support system. That half of puerto rico is living in NYC housing projects - benefitting from my tax dollars - is obscene.
The far left in this country whines that "the US is not the world's policeman!" when it comes to foreign policy, but gets suddenly silent when asked why then should the US be the repository of the world's poor? Why is it my responsibility to financially support not only my family, but that of huge numbers of poor (and in some cases, quite lazy) welfare handout queens from Mexico, perto rico, africa, etc.?
NYC offers far, far too many incentives to the poor to come here (often illegally) and suck the city dry of benefits. OVER ONE THIRD of the city's ENTIRE BUDGET goes to welfare, that is simply INSANE, and totally unacceptable - and unsustainable.
Argue all you want about being kindly to those in need, but the pendulum has swung way, way too far and needs to be corrected, and I hate to say this, but large numbers of people need to have their benefits, including project house supports, welfare, etc., so they can leave this country. The sooner they do so, the better, so that the labor market might eventually find a better balance, as they tell their friends and relatives back home that the gravy train is over, and there is no reason to come here anymore.
But I don't see why NYC has to be the northern version of latin america/caribbean/african welfare support system. That half of puerto rico is living in NYC housing projects - benefitting from my tax dollars - is obscene.
The far left in this country whines that "the US is not the world's policeman!" when it comes to foreign policy, but gets suddenly silent when asked why then should the US be the repository of the world's poor? Why is it my responsibility to financially support not only my family, but that of huge numbers of poor (and in some cases, quite lazy) welfare handout queens from Mexico, perto rico, africa, etc.?
NYC offers far, far too many incentives to the poor to come here (often illegally) and suck the city dry of benefits. OVER ONE THIRD of the city's ENTIRE BUDGET goes to welfare, that is simply INSANE, and totally unacceptable - and unsustainable.
Argue all you want about being kindly to those in need, but the pendulum has swung way, way too far and needs to be corrected, and I hate to say this, but large numbers of people need to have their benefits, including project house supports, welfare, etc., so they can leave this country. The sooner they do so, the better, so that the labor market might eventually find a better balance, as they tell their friends and relatives back home that the gravy train is over, and there is no reason to come here anymore.
No sane person or even an insane person would come to NYC to get welfare these days. Benefits have been gutted. To get NYCHA or Section 8 means you have to be on a waitlist for MANY YEARS.
With that said, definitely in the 60s-90s lots of poor people came to NYC to get welfare. The first cutback was Clinton's welfare reform. Much bigger cuts came post economic collapse. Each federal and state budget trims welfare programs in NYC.
As for why NYC tolerated this, it wasn't because they gave a damn about the poor. Lots of poor people and lots of unemployed people drove wages down and kept a big supply of unskilled labor that can be used in fields like shipping, retail, construction, etc. Get rid of these people you detest, and wages MIGHT have to go up (real estate costs might go down). For that reason this status quo is supported by the real estate industry and certain businesses who are defacto subsidized by your same tax dollars (the government is subsidizing the cost of living of their part time and low skill workers).
But I really wouldn't worry about welfare so long as the Republicans control the House. Each time a budget is passed and each time money is appropriated it gets cut. I don't understand why right wing people on this site ignore that. Do you want everyone immediately kicked out on the street from NYCHA, instead of letting it happen gradually? Homelessness is at record levels in NYCHA as getting a welfare apartment has become nearly impossible (multiyear wait lists in order to get approved).
And by the way, a lot of poor people are being pushed out of NYC. Just give it time. You should be happy.
I have only a short retort of the general theme I have observed
on this thread.
A lot of people have mentioned about how when housing projects
where demolished, crime went up around the region. Therefore
demolish = bad.
The question becomes then, do housing projects breed bad behavior?
I would answer yes. The reason crime went up throughout the region
was due to the spread of criminal behavior created where????
Ding, ding, ding, ding!!! Housing Projects.
So the generation of high crime person's, will eventually dissipate.
PJ's gone, so no more crime farms.
It is wrong to box up poor people together like that in the first place.
PJ's in prime locations should be demolished first, so you can take
the massive amount of cash made from the sales and relocate these
people responsibly. That doesn't mean sending them all hundred's of
miles away either, as displacing them from the city they where likely
born in and have strong familial ties.
Simply use those hundreds of billions raised to do a vast beautification
and upgrading work on the more dilapidated parts of the city and move
the displaced into those lower density areas. Also use the money to
upgrade transit in the city, expand rail even more, so that those displaced
can get around easier.
You have to admit, the massive cash inflow from demolishing these projects
and selling the parcels would bring in could do miracles to upgrade this city.
I have only a short retort of the general theme I have observed
on this thread.
A lot of people have mentioned about how when housing projects
where demolished, crime went up around the region. Therefore
demolish = bad.
The question becomes then, do housing projects breed bad behavior?
I would answer yes. The reason crime went up throughout the region
was due to the spread of criminal behavior created where????
Ding, ding, ding, ding!!! Housing Projects.
So the generation of high crime person's, will eventually dissipate.
PJ's gone, so no more crime farms.
It is wrong to box up poor people together like that in the first place.
PJ's in prime locations should be demolished first, so you can take
the massive amount of cash made from the sales and relocate these
people responsibly. That doesn't mean sending them all hundred's of
miles away either, as displacing them from the city they where likely
born in and have strong familial ties.
Simply use those hundreds of billions raised to do a vast beautification
and upgrading work on the more dilapidated parts of the city and move
the displaced into those lower density areas. Also use the money to
upgrade transit in the city, expand rail even more, so that those displaced
can get around easier.
You have to admit, the massive cash inflow from demolishing these projects
and selling the parcels would bring in could do miracles to upgrade this city.
But wouldn't these areas become 'project like' again since you are just moving the people into lower density areas? Wouldn't the increasing concentration of these peoples just create the same situations but in different areas?
I have only a short retort of the general theme I have observed
on this thread.
A lot of people have mentioned about how when housing projects
where demolished, crime went up around the region. Therefore
demolish = bad.
The question becomes then, do housing projects breed bad behavior?
I would answer yes. The reason crime went up throughout the region
was due to the spread of criminal behavior created where????
Ding, ding, ding, ding!!! Housing Projects.
So the generation of high crime person's, will eventually dissipate.
PJ's gone, so no more crime farms.
It is wrong to box up poor people together like that in the first place.
PJ's in prime locations should be demolished first, so you can take
the massive amount of cash made from the sales and relocate these
people responsibly. That doesn't mean sending them all hundred's of
miles away either, as displacing them from the city they where likely
born in and have strong familial ties.
Simply use those hundreds of billions raised to do a vast beautification
and upgrading work on the more dilapidated parts of the city and move
the displaced into those lower density areas. Also use the money to
upgrade transit in the city, expand rail even more, so that those displaced
can get around easier.
You have to admit, the massive cash inflow from demolishing these projects
and selling the parcels would bring in could do miracles to upgrade this city.
The city would have to resettle them somewhere. There would be litigation around this and moving all these people would cost a fantastic amount of money. The project behavior will not disappear, but it will be transferred to the new ghettos that are created.
Btw the people in lower density areas will not want people from the projects moving it.
The housing projects serve other purposes too. They keep neighborhoods like Harlem and Bedstuy from becoming super expensive. This is important for working class people, students, artists, and civil servants.
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.
