Does Clarke want neighborhoods to flourish or not? (Philadelphia: middle-class, section 8)

[Larry Bowa]

Clarke unveils plan for affordable housing

[rainrock]

No he doesn't.

Clarkes #1 concern is self-preservation,long term job security and a fat pension. That does not happen if his district goes majority middle class/upper middle class. It doesn't happen if his district goes from poor to wealthy, or if it goes from minority to white. Once the neighborhood loses the majority of his current constituents he will no longer have a job.

Theres a bunch of leaders in the city just like him who are running scared and doing everything they can to keep the status quo. Been going on for 40 years.

There are plenty of areas in Philadelphia where lower income investment could and should go without road-blocking gentrification and top notch neighborhoods on the rise.

[mancat100]

Originally Posted by rainrock

There are plenty of areas in Philadelphia where lower income investment could and should go without road-blocking gentrification and top notch neighborhoods on the rise.

Exactly. This is a form of reverse blockbusting. I also don't buy the argument about a lack of "workforce" housing, as he puts it. This city is largely made up of two story row homes, the very definition of workforce housing. He's a poverty pimp.

[Larry Bowa]

If this proposal passes, these neighborhoods will never reach their full potential.

A cup of tea?

[FindingZen]

I'm not sure why this is considered a bad thing.

According to the article, one in six Philadelphia households are looking for affordable housing.

Housing would be provided for working-to-middle-class households, not "Section 8" occupants.

Dilapidated properties would be rehabbed and subsidized with money already on the books.
(EDIT: Re-reading the article, I see that $100 million in bonds would be floated as well. Still, we've "invested" more in arenas and stadiums than that.)

Does Darrell Clarke have political motivations behind this? Surely. But what is wrong with providing more opportunities for stable households and their moderate tax base to stay in the city?

[FindingZen]

Originally Posted by mancat100

Exactly. This is a form of reverse blockbusting. I also don't buy the argument about a lack of "workforce" housing, as he puts it. This city is largely made up of two story row homes, the very definition of workforce housing. He's a poverty pimp.

I would predict that a lot of said rowhomes are located in communities that leave a lot to be desired. Granted, such working-to-lower middle-class households could help bring stability to those areas...but perhaps they decided not to be trailblazers, so to speak. Buying apparently isn't an option, either.

IMO In a city that is becoming increasingly stratified between the "haves" and "have nots", there is not so much left for those in the middle. I feel the program will help to address an obvious need.

[2e1m5a]

I'd rather see that money used to nicely rehab the thousands upon thousands of vacant homes throughout the city to sell or rent at discount to lower/middle income earners. It's true that Philly is already saturated with working class homes-which will actually be a big asset for the city in the coming years IMO. Neighborhoods improve as vacancies decrease and ownership increases.

Let developers build the new homes with their own private funds.

[FindingZen]

Originally Posted by 2e1m5a

I'd rather see that money used to nicely rehab the thousands upon thousands of vacant homes throughout the city to sell or rent at discount to lower/middle income earners. It's true that Philly is already saturated with working class homes-which will actually be a big asset for the city in the coming years IMO. Neighborhoods improve as vacancies decrease and ownership increases.

Let developers build the new homes with their own private funds.

Fair enough; I'd prefer that scenario as well.

However, given the choice between Clarke's proposal and nothing, I see the former as more desirable. At least the level of impact would be easier to determine IMO than that of buildings in South Philly that generally go unused up to half of the year. (Mind you, I'm as big a sports fan as anyone; I'm just sayin'...)

[2e1m5a]

Originally Posted by Tone509

Fair enough; I'd prefer that scenario as well.

However, given the choice between Clarke's proposal and nothing, I see the former as more desirable. At least the level of impact would be easier to determine IMO than that of buildings in South Philly that are generally go unused up to half of the year. (Mind you, I'm as big a sports fan as anyone; I'm just sayin'...)

Agreed

[mancat100]

Originally Posted by Tone509

Fair enough; I'd prefer that scenario as well.

However, given the choice between Clarke's proposal and nothing, I see the former as more desirable. At least the level of impact would be easier to determine IMO than that of buildings in South Philly that generally go unused up to half of the year. (Mind you, I'm as big a sports fan as anyone; I'm just sayin'...)

Except in the particular areas he's targeting, it's not a choice between Clark's proposal and nothing. Those areas are headed for substantial reinvestment using private funds no matter what. Clark's proposal has one purpose - gentrification mitigation. I wish he'd target areas that actually need the help. Then I'd support him.