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.
That you are asking the bold question shows that you are ignorant of modern American history. Just an FYI, the following stopped black people who were able to move to a neighborhood they could afford (up to 1980 mind you, in some areas longer than that):
Redlining
Segregation
Housing Laws (enforced and/or endorsed by local, state, and federal organizations)
Inability for black people to even apply for a mortgage (it was illegal/not allowed in many areas, including in Chicago)
Lack of ability to use GI bills or FHA program by black veterans post WW2
Threat of violence by white mobs (whites frequently attacked or harassed black people who dared move to their neighborhoods)
You need to read up on the history of our country IMO.
Also, as stated earlier in the thread. The housing authority will not build "slums." They will be building high end communities with salt water pools like we did in Atlanta.
Not only poor people will live in those communities and you probably wouldn't even know that the community was funded by the government.
FWIW a large percentage of new multi-housing developments are government subsidized via tax credits. Usually those locations have a few "project based units" for low and very low income individuals and/or families.
I will grant you the terrible history. However, the remedies are merely policy solutions and ends seeking a cause. They do not remedy the past.
Irrespective of the appearance of the units, its not the building that will make these places a nice place to live. When people are given things for free, they do not value them. These will not be nice places to live over time.
When you say that it won't only be poor people in the units, this means that some people will pay market price for something most others get for far less. Is that equitable?
RE the fact that a large percentage of new multi-housing developments are government subsidized via tax credits, are you mentioning that fact to tell us that it is "free" money?
I have friends in Ellicot City who are very high income. OMG imagine the exodus and commensurate drop in home values if they build these glorious units for Baltimorian comrades.
Again....they will not build slum-type units (I really don't see how you people are so ignorant about housing trends today, most locations broadcast when they are developing new projects to show off the new drawings and plans).
Here are a couple apartment communities for low and very low income individuals
I will grant you the terrible history. However, the remedies are merely policy solutions and ends seeking a cause. They do not remedy the past.
Irrespective of the appearance of the units, its not the building that will make these places a nice place to live. When people are given things for free, they do not value them. These will not be nice places to live over time.
When you say that it won't only be poor people in the units, this means that some people will pay market price for something most others get for far less. Is that equitable?
RE the fact that a large percentage of new multi-housing developments are government subsidized via tax credits, are you mentioning that fact to tell us that it is "free" money?
I never said they remedy the past and I was not the one who brought up the past. The poster I was responding to did when he/she insinuated that government should never have allowed middle income black people to move out of ghettos in the 1970s.
As NOIGUY mentioned a large percentage of the persons who move into new units in wealthier neighborhoods are elderly people. Elderly residents of public housing are usually VERY good tenants. Most have worked their entire lives and they do value having a nice, inexpensive place to live. They do not bring down property values.
And I will point out that it is interesting that in one of the links posted ( not the OP) complaints of the "African American" residents in Baltimore was that the nice public housing units go to the elderly white people and that they won't let the blacks into the nicer areas in larger numbers. Across the country, there are already public housing units, that are not as nice as the ones I posted above that are filled with elderly and disabled people and I'm sure no one has noticed and they just think they are old folks apartments.
In regards to people paying less, the units that the low income tenants live in are usually not as nice as the market rate units. But IMO, I don't think it is a bad thing to allow them to live in the unit at a discounted rate. Moving people out of poverty stricken areas into wealthier areas has been proven to better the outcome of the children especially in those family units. It also decreases crime rates city-wide like it has done in Atlanta especially since the 1990s when this was first done. Studies show it is better to let the residents live in much wealthier areas, not just middle income as those areas are very stable and less likely to have any negative outcomes with poorer resident moving in in small numbers.
The market rate units are there to further ensure that the area does not turn into a slum. If you have more than 20% of an apartment community's residents living under the poverty level, especially family units, it is very likely that that location will have issues with crime and generational poverty later on, which was seen public housing locations across the country from the 1930s to the 2000s and even today in areas that still have large amount of traditional public housing units that have not been redeveloped.
They can be pretty as can be, it is the problems that the RESIDENTS of said units bring with them that concerns everyone.
The second picture I posted is filled with 80% elderly Korean residents who are very low income.
Does that change your opinion???
ETA: The first one is filled with 80% or more black residents with 20% low income residents. It is in a location that was a former public housing location that was notorious for crime. The area has had a 180 degree turnaround since the demolition of the public housing and the creation of the apartment community.
The second one is in a wealthy suburb which has had no ill effects as a result of the construction of those units. The area has actually had more commercial investment due to the increase in persons living in the area.
The second picture I posted is filled with 80% elderly Korean residents who are very low income.
Does that change your opinion???
ETA: The first one is filled with 80% or more black residents with 20% low income residents. It is in a location that was a former public housing location that was notorious for crime. The area has had a 180 degree turnaround since the demolition of the public housing and the creation of the apartment community.
The second one is in a wealthy suburb which has had no ill effects as a result of the construction of those units. The area has actually had more commercial investment due to the increase in persons living in the area.
No it does not. Why do we need to pay for elderly Korean people's retirement homes or anyone's for that matter? Why am I busy saving away for my future? This entire thing is upside down. You socialists will create a nation of sloths.
No it does not. Why do we need to pay for elderly Korean people's retirement homes or anyone's for that matter? Why am I busy saving away for my future? This entire thing is upside down. You socialists will create a nation of sloths.
LOL, so because I know about housing programs I'm a socialist.
It's Beltway, not Beltline. In any case, this is a canard about people screaming. The so-called rich whites (presumably in NW DC and parts of VA (e.g. Great Falls) and MD have no control over what PG county does. Perhaps PG County welcomed the Section 8 types with open arms. And in any case, I happen to know there are tons of "section 8 types" in places like NW DC, Arlington VA, etc. etc.
Anyway, do you know that PG welcomed Section 8 with open arms?
My point was this. How many people were screaming about PG being a hotspot for Section 8 vs wealthy White areas? I look at the title and can tell this is being made about race. No one seems to care if upper class Black areas go into decline. In fact, in my experiences on CD, the only time I hear such decline mentioned is to say "see what happens when Blacks move in".
Anyway, do you know that PG welcomed Section 8 with open arms?
My point was this. How many people were screaming about PG being a hotspot for Section 8 vs wealthy White areas? I look at the title and can tell this is being made about race. No one seems to care if upper class Black areas go into decline. In fact, in my experiences on CD, the only time I hear such decline mentioned is to say "see what happens when Blacks move in".
I don't know what PG did, do you? Were any PG County residents doing anything to stop the expansion of section 8 in their communities?
You are the one who mentioned race! I was responding since I happen to know the area well.
Why do you think no one cares or that I do not care? I call BS! I have friends in PG County and they are not happy.
LOL, so because I know about housing programs I'm a socialist.
LOL. That is a good one to end the evening on!
If you are not in support of this housing, I am sorry. However, I got the impression that you are. Are you?
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.
