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.
It requires them building low income mixed used housing apartments, every where. That's it. There is no reason for it not to happen other than those municipalities are dedicated to violating our laws.
Yes there is a reason for it to not happen. It's called dedicated to keeping crime, violence and chaos out of good neighborhoods by using your returned tax money as you see fit.
Your basic thinking is wrong. No community is without crime. Period. So no integrated neighborhoods won't end crime.
What it will do is stop concentrating the conditions that make criminal behavior more likely, IE bad schools, high poverty, high crime by having everyone live every where the government is incentivized, all American are incentivized to have good neighborhoods for everyone that's the goal.
Again, for all the rhetoric, just think logically for one second forget your racist prejudices.
Why woukd good government housing policy allow the creation of high crime, high poverty, bad school neighborhoods along racial lines?
Why does that make good housing policy?
Why would good housing policy support racially segregated neighborhoods?
Again, you alls position is not a defensible position if one views all Americans as equal, then US housing policy has to treat them as such.
And housing policy that says we are only going to have low income Americans living in certain neighborhoods by along racial lines is against the law and immoral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
Lol this is the opposition to fair housing. This is the arguments they make to support their position. SMH
In practice in each specific enforcement attempt you're not asking people to solve broad social ills and segregation in the nation but to narrowly accept something that will increase crime and social problems in their local community. If people are insulated from crime and social problems in other places, why would you expect them to willingly import them? Do you think they will say, "this will be good for other neighborhoods so ho-hum we'll not do anything to prevent it?" That's not realistic. "Not in my backyard" might be self-interested but it's a completely reasonable response. Target suburbs will, if this is aggressively pushed in practice, stop taking federal housing money, and once they do their political representatives will over time shift towards voting against public housing budgets as a whole because it's money that comes out of their constituents' pockets and goes only to other places; never a popular thing.
I really don't think the administration is thinking sufficiently about how the actions of others will be impacted by their own actions and what the second-order effects will be. It's like the guy who hits his wife because she keeps burning dinner, he does it out of emotion and because he thinks it'll get her to watch the stove more carefully but it ends in her leaving him and getting a restraining order.
But it clearly isn't working. The problem is the people living there.
And those people won't all the sudden become assets to society when they move to the suburbs. I have seen it first hand, an increase of section 8 housing and the crime that follows along with it. Destroying property values, overburdening limited social services, etc.
I grew up in this city, I saw a middle class suburb turned into a crime ridden **** hole. My uncle still lives there, neighbor a couple houses down the street was a victim of a home invasion. The city right next door with similar houses but without the increased section 8 rates has property value at three times higher than comparable homes.
This is a lie. This is not new. It is part of the fair housing act passed in the late 1960's following the murder of MLK.
All President Obama is doing is trying to fulfill the law of desegregation.
But this gives rise to another point.
We often hear how America isn't a racist society.
Yet we continue to have extremely racially segregated neighborhoods.
In a non racist society, the race or ethnicity of one's neighbors is irrelevant and not a factor at all.
If people aren't racist then this has to be the case.
Anything else involves people making decisions on the race of their neighbors because certain races behave this or that way, which is connecting behavior with skin color which is racist.
So which one is it America?
If racism is dead and race is irrelevant why is the race of your neighbors so important when deciding where to live?
Why is there still a legal need for the fair housing act passed in the late 1960's to be enforced?
Oh yes, the "fair housing act". Wasn't this the time bomb developed by Carter that ended up being the recession we just experienced? Ya, what a great idea.
Yes there is a reason for it to not happen. It's called dedicated to keeping crime, violence and chaos out of good neighborhoods by using your returned tax money as you see fit.
This is a lie, the vast majority of low income Americans are not criminals.
Your position that they are all or mostly criminals is just dishonest and ugly slandering of millions of Americans.
If your position is right why do you have to lie and paint everyone as a criminal?
In practice in each specific enforcement attempt you're not asking people to solve broad social ills and segregation in the nation but to narrowly accept something that will increase crime and social problems in their local community. If people are insulated from crime and social problems in other places, why would you expect them to willingly import them? Do you think they will say, "this will be good for other neighborhoods so ho-hum we'll not do anything to prevent it?" That's not realistic. "Not in my backyard" might be self-interested but it's a completely reasonable response. Target suburbs will, if this is aggressively pushed in practice, stop taking federal housing money, and once they do their political representatives will over time shift towards voting against public housing budgets as a whole because it's money that comes out of their constituents' pockets and goes only to other places; never a popular thing.
I really don't think the administration is thinking sufficiently about how the actions of others will be impacted by their own actions and what the second-order effects will be. It's like the guy who hits his wife because she keeps burning dinner, he does it out of emotion and because he thinks it'll get her to watch the stove more carefully but it ends in her leaving him and getting a restraining order.
No that's not true. We are saying American housing policy should follow the law. Should desegregate America along racial lines.
You alls position is that those people are all bad and need to be kept where they are.
This is an indefensible position. It is racist, immoral, and illegal.
This is way my basic points remain completely unchallenged.
There is no rational or legal reason for our government to support segregated neighborhoods as official housing policy.
Oh yes, the "fair housing act". Wasn't this the time bomb developed by Carter that ended up being the recession we just experienced? Ya, what a great idea.
This is a lie, the vast majority of low income Americans are not criminals.
You don't need a majority of them to be criminals or even chaotic and unpleasant, just a few of them can wreak total havoc on a neighborhood. I already explained this.
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.