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.
So the government wants to control who lives in what neighborhood. I hope they consider character before salary. I would rather have poor people with character living next to me , more than some pervert living next to me or some drug dealer who had his customers coming or some drive by shooting happening .
And exactly who will be the judge of character? Me? OK! I'd exclude politicians, community organizers, socialists. Looks like I just cleaned out the most prominent public housing unit in Washington DC! (I know I certainly wouldn't want those particular residents living next to me.). Can I also exclude the delusional fools who follow the idea that men can marry men and women can marry women? Those who advocate denying decent people from protecting ourselves with our Constitutional right to own guns? Those who say we cannot stand our ground in the face of a threat but must retreat? Those who believe criminals are coming here for a better life, and that we must welcome them and learn their language? (Damn, I'm on a roll here!) People who breed like rats without benefit of commitment? The families of every felon now incarcerated?
Ok, all those who fit the above categories, and obviously lacking character must get out of the pool now!
How would you judge "character"? Who's criteria rules?
FWIW, I just learned there's a child molester living in our neighborhood. Can I kick him out? (My inclination at the moment is to just shoot him. Seriously.)
You seem to be saying that the ability of children to get a quality education is based on whether they win the parental earnings lottery. While winning that lottery properly entltles children to a superior education, it should not be required for obtaining a quality education.
What you're saying also suggests people with money are entitled to use government to exclude others who are not as good as you. That is properly an activity for the private sector.
People get an adaquite education where they are at. Believe it or not you get the education you earn. Parental involvement has more to do with the ability of a child to learn than the school they go to. Maybe if the parents took the time needed to develop and teach their children and not have kids out of wedlock the school the system and the community would be in better shape. But that requires people to take responsibility for their action and no one wants to do that so instead we will just move them to another area
I'm not excluding anyone from living in any school district, just pay the rent/mortgage.
And exactly who will be the judge of character? Me? OK! I'd exclude politicians, community organizers, socialists. Looks like I just cleaned out the most prominent public housing unit in Washington DC! (I know I certainly wouldn't want those particular residents living next to me.). Can I also exclude the delusional fools who follow the idea that men can marry men and women can marry women? Those who advocate denying decent people from protecting ourselves with our Constitutional right to own guns? Those who say we cannot stand our ground in the face of a threat but must retreat? Those who believe criminals are coming here for a better life, and that we must welcome them and learn their language? (Damn, I'm on a roll here!) People who breed like rats without benefit of commitment? The families of every felon now incarcerated?
Ok, all those who fit the above categories, and obviously lacking character must get out of the pool now!
How would you judge "character"? Who's criteria rules?
FWIW, I just learned there's a child molester living in our neighborhood. Can I kick him out? (My inclination at the moment is to just shoot him. Seriously.)
Historically, employers, landlords, and property sellers were the judge of character, and since they usually had the better market position their criteria ruled...until government decided that was racist when applied to housing.
You can't kick a child molester out of your neighbiohood, but a landlord can refuse to rent to a convicted or registered sex offender. (Note the responsibility landlords have in contributing to neighborhood decline by renting to lowlifes.) You can also refuse to sell to a convicted sex offender, as they are not a protected class.
People get an adaquite education where they are at. Believe it or not you get the education you earn. Parental involvement has more to do with the ability of a child to learn than the school they go to. Maybe if the parents took the time needed to develop and teach their children and not have kids out of wedlock the school the system and the community would be in better shape. But that requires people to take responsibility for their action and no one wants to do that so instead we will just move them to another area
I'm not excluding anyone from living in any school district, just pay the rent/mortgage.
??? You support exclusionary zoning that restricts affordable housing supply, jacks up prices and rents, and then you say you're not excluding anyone, "just pay the [artificially inflated] rent/mortgage" ???
??? You support exclusionary zoning that restricts affordable housing supply, jacks up prices and rents, and then you say you're not excluding anyone, "just pay the [artificially inflated] rent/mortgage" ???
I support zoning that prevents single family homes from becoming multi family homes.
I have family that lives in an area with muti tenant single family homes. You can never find parking and you cannot actually have two people drive down the same street and pass each other. The neighborhood was not built to handle that many residents.
I have no problem with dense housing but not in already devolved neighboorhoods. Build it in empty land or re zone under utilized industrial/commercial space.
Unless you actually experience SFH being converted to MFH you will never understand how it affects communities. Where do you live? Because here in the San Francisco Bay Area many areas have MFH and suffer the problems that go along with it.
I support zoning that prevents single family homes from becoming multi family homes.
I have family that lives in an area with muti tenant single family homes. You can never find parking and you cannot actually have two people drive down the same street and pass each other. The neighborhood was not built to handle that many residents.
I have no problem with dense housing but not in already devolved neighboorhoods. Build it in empty land or re zone under utilized industrial/commercial space.
Unless you actually experience SFH being converted to MFH you will never understand how it affects communities. Where do you live? Because here in the San Francisco Bay Area many areas have MFH and suffer the problems that go along with it.
If the market is there for making single family homes multi-family then by all means don't mess with the market. Especially in bad economic times, it can help property owners keep their property. If not for zoning far more people would break up single family homes into multiple units, like in the Great Depression.
Minimum lot sizes are wastes of space.
And there's nothing wrong with MFH, especially given that people often do it anyways even if the zoning is R1. Might as well make it legal and up to code.
Sounds like you're fond of progressive social engineering if it matches your preferences.
I believe the middle class left Detroit and then the city became a festering ghetto.
Detroit was ALWAYS a "festering ghetto" in the minority neighborhoods. When the whites left, it just eliminated the "dilution" of those working for a living, paying taxes, and maintaining their property.
How to create a ghetto? Why....................... by the same method the new HUD initiative (another liberal brainchild) is destined to do.
Those with higher incomes, education, and jobs will leave areas of higher crime and worsened living conditions. Moving minorities into more affluent neighborhoods does not make them "good citizens". They just bring thier culture of crime, drugs, and lack of educational values along with them.
This "experiment" was recently played out over the last 15 years in the college town of Iowa City, Iowa. The socialists on the city council, seeking "diversity" sought to provide incentives for minorities from the Chicago area to move to Iowa City. Move they did. Now the entire southeast part of town, which used to be a low crime, safe area with nice middle class homes, is a dump.
Again, when you throw a carp into a pristine body of water, it does not change itself into a Marlin.
I support zoning that prevents single family homes from becoming multi family homes.
I have family that lives in an area with muti tenant single family homes. You can never find parking and you cannot actually have two people drive down the same street and pass each other. The neighborhood was not built to handle that many residents.
I have no problem with dense housing but not in already devolved neighboorhoods. Build it in empty land or re zone under utilized industrial/commercial space.
Unless you actually experience SFH being converted to MFH you will never understand how it affects communities. Where do you live? Because here in the San Francisco Bay Area many areas have MFH and suffer the problems that go along with it.
I've never lived in the Bay area, but I have seen the doubled-up lots in San Jose, where SFR have one or (!) more SFR in the back yard. As an individual who has no other hope of [being able to afford] living there, I an avid supporter, although as a living environment I expect they probably suck.
I've lived in places where there are parking issues, property owners establish and enforce their own standards, e.g. each apartment gets, say, two on-site parking permits which must be displayed prominently on the vehicle (often left on the dashboard or hung from the rear-view mirror), with unauthorized vehicles regularly towed away. In Michigan, and possibly other cold-winter areas, overnight street parking bans are common and regularly enforced (e.g. no street parking between 2am and 5am).
This country is doing a very poor job of handling the effects of declining incomes and downward mobility, such as people trying to densely cram into "already devolved' neighborhoods. People are doing that because they are unable to buy houses and are trying to get into the shrinking pool of affordable housing units.
One might expect that a rational and forward-seeing government might actually get out of the way of the private sector and perhaps even encourage it to build the housing needed to meet demand and resolve the crowding issues you cite, but one's expectations would sadly be unrealized.
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.
