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.
youve made the inference that poor minorities are going to ruin white neighborhoods if they are allowed to move in next to them, stating that these white neighborhoods should have all the perks to themselves, and nobody else should get any of them.
it sounds like in your opinion that the lower the income of a person, the lower quality of the person.
Why are you bringing race into this? It's economics, pure and simple.
Just drive through higher income and lower income neighborhoods. Then tell me which neighborhoods are better taken care of.
One thing not being discussed is the fact that the higher income neighborhoods are in better shape because they are paying for the house themselves. Subsidies take the skin out of the game, and eliminate the motivation to keep the neighborhood looking nice.
another conservative saying everyone is beneath him.
this attitude i quoted is what needs to change.
No, the attitude that needs to change is the one that says there is equal outcome. You want to live in a nice neighborhood, then do something about that.
Sadly, if this does happen, liberals will look around and wonder what happened. Kind of like ObamaCare....
Childless has nothing to do with anything. I don't have any children yet I pay out the ass to educate other people's kids. Minorities have destroyed many of the neighborhoods here on Long Island since the 70s.
[Quote:]
Originally Posted by shiftymh No thank you. Not only will crime skyrocket, but so will my property taxes since low income people can't pay their fair share to educate their children. This is just a scam to take wealth from white people.[/quote]
childless has a lot to do with many things, see above. people here are saying they don't want low-income people moving into their neighborhoods, because they don't want to pick up the tab for the costs (e.g. education) imposed by low-income people (primarily, those with children, as crime is driven largely by teen gangbangers).
people who generalize about keeping low-income people are imposing guilt by association on low-income, low-maintenance, childless adults.
do low-wage, childless workers, destroy neighborhoods? not that i have seen.
Nothing says you can't move there. But don't expect someone else to pay for it.
I don't expect someone else to pay for it, but I do expect government to get out of the way and let the private sector build as much housing as it is willing and capable of building. Imagine if government imposed a quota on the number of cars which could be imported. Oh wait, we already tried that, and then decided that was protectionism and anti-competitive and un-American.
The game is rigged and it's wrong to jack up the price of housing through regulation (supply control) and then tell me nothing says I can't move there. The regulation was intended to send and enforce the message that people like me can't move there.
Why are you bringing race into this? It's economics, pure and simple.
Just drive through higher income and lower income neighborhoods. Then tell me which neighborhoods are better taken care of.
One thing not being discussed is the fact that the higher income neighborhoods are in better shape because they are paying for the house themselves. Subsidies take the skin out of the game, and eliminate the motivation to keep the neighborhood looking nice.
One could just as well blame greedy absentee landlords for not taking proper care of their properties.
The typical landlord-tenant relationship is not conducive to tenant improvements, since leasehold improvements are retained by the landlord. The house in which I live has a resident handyman and has had numerous tenant improvements including a deck, because we have an atypically great landlord-tenant relationship, with stable, long-term affordable tenure.
No, the attitude that needs to change is the one that says there is equal outcome. You want to live in a nice neighborhood, then do something about that.
Sadly, if this does happen, liberals will look around and wonder what happened. Kind of like ObamaCare....
It's inappropriate to claim that equal opportunity exists where government controls the supply of housing to exclusionary ends.
It's inappropriate to claim that equal opportunity exists where government controls the supply of housing to exclusionary ends.
You are really overplaying the role of government in the quantity of available housing.
In fact, it is in the governments best interests for more dense housing to be built because it means more people paying property taxes which means more money to the government.
Land constraints are what drive housing supply. Why do you think housing is so expensive in San Francisco and Manhattan? Because they are surrounded by water.
Lack of land in urban areas decreases supply. Some cities, such as New York, San Francisco or LA cannot grown outward. It is very expensive to grow upward.
Home prices are very low in certain metropolitan areas because growth outward is unlimited.
I am wondering why low income housing in metropolitan areas is garunteed?
I didn't know it was guaranteed, in addition to those who are homeless by choice, there are also many people who want housing but can't afford it.
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.
