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.
Trick-turnin transplant Trixie from Texas who got into the wrong crowd
[sigh ...] Who is posting on another thread about "creative" drug addiction and the joys and meaningfulness of "alternative" lifestyles such as hers.
Seriously, though, people will be dealt with, increasingly so is my sense, and we should be concerned about that.
People on another thread waving their big old PC banners about stop-and-frisk do not seem to realize that control will emerge in other, perhaps more insidious, ways.
You are the only person here consulting Wikipedia. This information can be found in, among other places, the very popular biography of Robert Moses from a few years ago, The Power Broker.
I also read a contemporary source on this when I was in college years ago. It was a short book on New York housing policy written some time in the early 1950s. I wish I could track it down now, but it made abundantly clear that the projects were not intended to be temporary.
There's a distinction to be drawn here between whether *the projects* were intended to be temporary and whether *the residents* were intended to be temporary. The projects were clearly supposed to be permanent. They were, after all, big hulking brick buildings. But they were originally intended to house a revolving door of residents, not provide permanent homes for any person or family. They made a mistake in not building in mandatory residency limits. That's happened in private housing, too; look at Westbeth (intended to be temporary housing for young, struggling artists, but the original residents decided they got theirs, screw later generations of artists).
Obama is identifying a real problem we all agree exists: segregation still exists, and marginalizing continuing generations of people with subpar resources, services, education, etc. And we know what doesn't work: plopping down housing projects, or simply moving mass amounts of low-income people into a community and expecting them to magically become middle class. But we do know what does work: mixed income housing communities, with a diversity of social classes (regardless of race/ethnicity) built to provide ladders of success in communities.
Over the past 2+ decades NYC has been creating mixed income housing, and specifically over the last decade or so, particularly in the Southern Bronx with huge success (Melrose)....and has become the model for mixed income housing throughout NYC and the country.
Seems that this Obama initiative has no teeth (yet), however I suspect it will be executed poorly (surprise!). Obama is trying to do the right thing...
Riverdale landlords aren't any less greedy than other Bronx neighborhoods.Section 8 pays the highest rents and money talks.
It must be a misprint. Then again I work for a living so I wouldn't have a clue about Section 8. I'm sure there are some in every neighborhood in the city, but we've got to limit them as much as possible. Luckily Riverdale mainly consists of coops, condos, and home owners so that keeps the neighborhood desirable.
What about dropping a homeless shelter right in the center of a residential middle class neighborhood? Can't be good for the local real estate. Guess real estate just got to expensive for them to put it in the logical place, Brooklyn.
this is the same thing as gentrification;
just from the opposite angle.
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.