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.
There's a local developer who wants to build 10 "affordable" rowhouses. They are intended to be affordable to families at 60 percent of the area median income.
The neighborhood association and some residents are opposing the proposal.
They say there is already too much low-income housing in the neighborhood, noting that there are four different organizations currently managing or building low-income housing in the neighborhood. (It's a low-income neighborhood with a hint of recent gentrification.)
A neighborhood association leader, in reference to the proposed low-income housing, said:
"If these are so great, why don't we share the wealth? That's the ugly secret nobody wants to talk about."
I have an opinion (which I'll post soon) but what do you think?
Should the developer go find a different neighborhood, give up entirely, or full speed ahead?
Should the supply of "low-income" housing in a neighborhood be capped by government, or should that be up to market forces?
If supply should be capped - if the developer should not be allowed to build it in this neighborhood - should a builder be compensated for increased costs of building in a more expensive neighborhood? Or do we tell the developer he can't built it here and tough luck if he can't afford to build it elsewhere?
Whoever owns the property should be able to develop as they see fit so long as within the same zoning and codes as applied to anyone else.
Having said that, the government should not be subsidizing anyone's housing development.
And what's the association leader mean by "If these are so great, why don't we share the wealth?"
The newspaper article on which my post is based) does not specifically say whether it is intended to be subsidized housing, although there is federal money involved in the form of a low-interest loan through a local development agency. (I don't know enough about this sort of development to tell if the rents are subsidized, but I wouldn't put it past a newspaper to deliberately be unclear in order to cover for such a thing - so I'm going to guess that at least some of the houses will be subsidized.
The association leader meant "if these projects are so great, why do we have so many while other neighborhoods don't have their fair share?" Like, why do so many neighborhoods have ZERO?
There seems to be an impossible economics to this: it's too expensive to build them in upscale neighborhoods without even bigger subsidies, so that's not realistically gonna happen.
How does "They don't want affordable housing in their neighborhood" differ from class warfare?
How does one class trying to exclude another class from a neighborhood not constitute class warfare?
Eh?
Because of this (I'm quoting you):
Quote:
The neighborhood association and some residents are opposing the proposal. They say there is already too much low-income housing in the neighborhood, noting that there are four different organizations currently managing or building low-income housing in the neighborhood. (It's a low-income neighborhood with a hint of recent gentrification.)
How is this class warfare? It appears they want something else in the neighborhood.
[for continuing discussion please provide a link]
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.
