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.
Well, like I mentioned before, we give a pass to other past experiences/facts/history, but seem to negate other facts from the past when it doesn’t fit our narrative or that some want to sweep under the rug. Again, the point is in terms of using new legislation to then use that revenue to repair communities that were hurt by the industry under different circumstances. This is especially the case when people that weren’t/aren’t a part of those communities appear to benefit from the new legislation, as is the case in other states. Totally different from the political talking points that usually get used when something like this gets brought up.
Don’t get me wrong that is good stuff mentioned above, but it still doesn’t address the reality of the differences mentioned. I say that given the drug abuse rates being about the same between groups, but the incarceration rates are totally different. Then, when certain communities get hit with other drugs, it isn’t lock them up, but it is an illness and let’s get them treatment. So, it goes beyond basics, because you can do all 3 of those things and still deal with these issues. Let alone the real history that still has some current impact or the fact that the rich get tax breaks all the time with minimal issues, even if they don’t produce what they say they are going to do.
I also think if the legislation was just decriminalization, it would be different due to not having the aspect of revenue involved. So, that may be something else to consider.
So, it is essentially looking into what Evanston IL did in terms of housing or a Universal Income plan. Meaning, that it isn’t necessarily about direct money payment, but could be tied to housing. With the latter, that is where Redlining and the GI Bill information may come into play due to both impacting residential/housing choice. Evanston’s plan offers up to a certain amount for a down payment for housing: https://www.npr.org/2021/03/23/98027...r-black-reside
Using the past for historical value is good. However, that is not what's going on here. When you use the past as a way to settle past grievances, it keeps the wound open. Not only that, but it also shows that it's only about the money, or whatever "currency" is involved. There were talks of reparations right after slavery was ended, but that stopped, and no one brought it up again for 100 years. It appears the pain of slavery was long gone, until the 60's, when it was reintroduced. Black people were quickly rising up the economic ladder until the 60's, when things plateaued, as government introduced the "Great Society" and welfare. The break down of the black family also started to happen then as well. Black 2 parent families were similar or better than whites at around 80%. Now, It's what, just the opposite? After the devastating effects of the past few decades, do you really think that throwing money "money" at the problem will help? Especially after 620,000 Americans paid with their life during the Civil War to free the slaves. I hear no calls to compensate those families.
"Let alone the real history that still has some current impact or the fact that the rich get tax breaks all the time with minimal issues, even if they don’t produce what they say they are going to do."
"Let alone the real history that still has some current impact or the fact that the rich get tax breaks all the time with minimal issues, even if they don’t produce what they say they are going to do."
Can you back this up please?
Which part? The redlining, in which I already posted an article, local economic data at different levels, the whole thread on redlining with maps for areas across the country including Rochester or the rich getting tax breaks, which even you have stated that you’re against, in terms of economic development? There is plenty of information that we’ve already discussed in this and the redlining thread. Just to add, this is also related to the local redlining topic: https://ncrc.org/covid-19-disparitie...san-b-anthony/
Basically, she is looking at doing what Evanston is doing, which also includes cannabis revenue. So, this isn’t even something that she originally came up with. Specific plan by Evanston with details: https://cityofevanston.civicweb.net/...2362AB80A50C46
To also be fair, other cities in the state and elsewhere may/could do something similar due to a similar history, which has also been discussed in other threads. https://www.landmarksociety.org/wp-c...gation_web.pdf
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 04-04-2021 at 04:04 PM..
Bla. bla, bla. At some point you accept personal responsibility and ignore all of this and you understand that you are an individual, not defined by your skin color. At that point you are in control of your own life, and not what others who want you to be angry and you live a great life
Bla. bla, bla. At some point you accept personal responsibility and ignore all of this and you understand that you are an individual, not defined by your skin color. At that point you are in control of your own life, and not what others who want you to be angry and you live a great life
This doesn’t have anything to do with me. I’m just giving the reason behind it and how it is still a thing. It is alright to not agree with it, but the revenue that comes from cannabis to help lower income, historically redlined city neighborhoods is something that is under consideration. That’s all...
What is odd is that if you aren’t contributing to buying cannabis, it is likely a non issue. So, it come down to choices all the way around.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 04-04-2021 at 07:51 PM..
This doesn’t have anything to do with me. I’m just giving the reason behind it and how it is still a thing. It is alright to not agree with it, but the revenue that comes from cannabis to help lower income, historically redlined city neighborhoods is something that is under consideration. That’s all...
What is odd is that if you aren’t contributing to buying cannabis, it is likely a non issue. So, it come from a choice all the way around.
As said before; If you want to keep it as a thing, then fine. Don't gripe about the results.
Past grievances are in the PAST. Tomorrow is a new, beautiful day. Cease the day.
I don't have to be a purchaser to have a say in the taxes generated
As said before; If you want to keep it as a thing, then fine. Don't gripe about the results.
Past grievances are in the PAST. Tomorrow is a new, beautiful day. Cease the day.
I don't have to be a purchaser to have a say in the taxes generated
The problem is that the past issue has current negative implications that I’m even familiar with. Aren’t you a Rochester native?
I’m not looking to purchase either or even necessarily agree with the idea as is, but I understand the logic behind it. I will say that the pushback is interesting as well, if purchasing isn’t on the radar.
"Let alone the real history that still has some current impact or the fact that the rich get tax breaks all the time with minimal issues, even if they don’t produce what they say they are going to do."
If Lovely's plan goes through, I will benefit greatly. I'm against it because it will hurt the recipients and benefit politicians.
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.
