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.
Second, AMERICANS (no matter what their RACE, RELIGION, ETC.) should be FIRST to get AFFORDABLE HOUSING in a country their tax dollars are helping to subsidize.
The "foreign" couple should be LAST. Plain and simple.
First off, I am an American, as state in my first post my husband is a foreign service officer for the Department of State, we happen to be living in Ethiopia for his job currently.
Second, too bad you weren't in congress in the 60s so that when the Fair housing laws came about, towards nation of origin you could have tried to add the amendment that says but please house all Americans first before you consider legal immigrants who qualify (no illegal immigrant qualifies for affordable housing btw).
No matter if they are American or legal immigrant (most who are trying to become an American might I add) they all have to go through an extensive income, credit, and background check. Many American's I have seen not qualify it is because they make too much money. Also many Americans refuse to live in affordable housing standards and will find a friend or family member to co-sign to get them into a $1700 a month apartment. So when it comes down to it, not too many Americans are lining up for Affordable housing (in my experience).
I hope you aren't a land lord Marilyn, because if you were, you would end up having one major lawsuit on your hands one day I am sure.
I personally believe that the diversity of San Fran is one the biggest reasons that San Fran is such a wonderful city.
First off, I am an American, as state in my first post my husband is a foreign service officer for the Department of State, we happen to be living in Ethiopia for his job currently.
Second, too bad you weren't in congress in the 60s so that when the Fair housing laws came about, towards nation of origin you could have tried to add the amendment that says but please house all Americans first before you consider legal immigrants who qualify (no illegal immigrant qualifies for affordable housing btw).
No matter if they are American or legal immigrant (most who are trying to become an American might I add) they all have to go through an extensive income, credit, and background check. Many American's I have seen not qualify it is because they make too much money. Also many Americans refuse to live in affordable housing standards and will find a friend or family member to co-sign to get them into a $1700 a month apartment. So when it comes down to it, not too many Americans are lining up for Affordable housing (in my experience).
This isn't true.
Quote:
I hope you aren't a land lord Marilyn, because if you were, you would end up having one major lawsuit on your hands one day I am sure.
No, I'm not and don't want to be. EVER.
Quote:
I personally believe that the diversity of San Fran is one the biggest reasons that San Fran is such a wonderful city.
Diversity IS beautiful EVERYWHERE. We are in agreement with this.
But what does this have to do with AMERICANS having first dibs on affordable housing?
Like you said, you're AMERICAN married to a foreigner. You have a right to affordable housing despite who you're married to.
In terms of the NYC and SF comparisons, NYC is lightyears more gentrified than SF. That is a fact. NYC consistently ranks as the safest big city in America. NYC definitely deserves this title. NYC feels much safer than Baltimore and DC; the cities in my neck of the woods. NYC also feels much safer than SF, as a whole.
NYC, as a whole, has not been as grimey as SF since the 90's. SF is still one of the biggest drug culture cities in America. In fact, San Francisco has been rated as high (pun intended) as the number one drug use city in America:
Even areas that aren't in the ghetto in SF completely revolve around drugs. Haight Street in SF is a prime example. There is open drug dealing, mentally-ill people, homeless people and junkies everywhere in the Haight and Golden Gate Park. Sure, a lot of what is circulating in the Haight is just weed which is harmless, but even NYC has cracked down massively on marijuana use and weed dealers. NYC got rid of loitering shady people and vagrants en masse years ago. The streets of NYC in most places are dead. The cops run NYC. The same cannot be said of SF. In many parts of SF, most notably the Mission, Nortenos and Surenos can and will kill you in broad daylight and maybe get away with it.
Also, people making comparisons between hoods in different cities are stupid. If you are Latino or even as much as look Latino, the Mission is hella dangerous. If you are Latino in the Mission, it is not even safe to a wear a 49ers Jersey or red or blue for god's sake. Just looking like a young Latino male, you will probably be approached and asked "what set you rep?"; which usually leads to getting beat up, stabbed or shot. If you are a White yuppie, even the cuttiest corner of East Baltimore isn't dangerous because Baltimore only has a murder rate of 9 out of 100K for Whites. Must be nice.
Last edited by goldenchild08; 03-08-2012 at 08:52 AM..
In terms of the NYC and SF comparisons, NYC is lightyears more gentrified than SF. That is a fact. NYC consistently ranks as the safest big city in America. NYC definitely deserves this title. NYC feels much safer than Baltimore and DC; the cities in my neck of the woods. NYC also feels much safer than SF, as a whole.
Bloomberg: NYC Is Safest Big City In U.S. (http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/bloomberg-nyc-is-safest-big-city-in-united-states-20111229 - broken link)
NYC, as a whole, has not been as grimey as SF since the 90's. SF is still one of the biggest drug culture cities in America. In fact, San Francisco has been rated as high (pun intended) as the number one drug use city in America:
Even areas that aren't in the ghetto in SF completely revolve around drugs. Haight Street in SF is a prime example. There is open drug dealing, mentally-ill people, homeless people and junkies everywhere in the Haight and Golden Gate Park. Sure, a lot of what is circulating in the Haight is just weed which is harmless, but even NYC has cracked down massively on marijuana use and weed dealers. NYC got rid of loitering shady people and vagrants en masse years ago. The streets of NYC in most places are dead. The cops run NYC. The same cannot be said of SF. In many parts of SF, most notably the Mission, Nortenos and Surenos can and will kill you in broad daylight and maybe get away with it.
Considering medical marijuana is legal in California, that number doesn't surprise me.
However, the NYPD does not run the city, although they can be and usually are the biggest *******s known to man. Rather, crime isn't considered acceptable by the vast majority of people as part of giving a neighborhood "character." Active community policing from locals as well as the understanding that crime is prosecuted deters criminal activity in NYC. I'd wager also that the fact that Manhattan and many gentrified Brooklyn neighborhoods are so safe nowadays is the fact that there's far more foot traffic. It makes it far more difficult to successfully commit a crime with people constantly around. I can't tell you how many times I've felt quite alone/deserted in San Francisco. Even in nice areas like Duboce Triangle, it bothers me (and the streets aren't well lit to boot). Why do you think there's been no reported crime on the High Line in its over two years of operation? Someone else is always there.
Considering medical marijuana is legal in California, that number doesn't surprise me.
However, the NYPD does not run the city, although they can be and usually are the biggest *******s known to man. Rather, crime isn't considered acceptable by the vast majority of people as part of giving a neighborhood "character." Active community policing from locals as well as the understanding that crime is prosecuted deters criminal activity in NYC. I'd wager also that the fact that Manhattan and many gentrified Brooklyn neighborhoods are so safe nowadays is the fact that there's far more foot traffic. It makes it far more difficult to successfully commit a crime with people constantly around. I can't tell you how many times I've felt quite alone/deserted in San Francisco. Even in nice areas like Duboce Triangle, it bothers me (and the streets aren't well lit to boot). Why do you think there's been no reported crime on the High Line in its over two years of operation? Someone else is always there.
Just wanted to say that NYC has always been a FOOT TRAFFIC CITY. Doesn't matter what time of the day or night, there is ALWAYS someone outside SOMEWHERE. This was happening way before "gentrification" (aka "boring midwestern transplants") arrived on the scene.
But...I do agree that California is quite different, at least the southern part. Depending on where you live, you can literally be pulled off the streets without a witness or anyone hearing anything. It's quite scary.
Don't we have mexican and chinese AMERICANS living here too?
Please don't do that or "assume" anything with me.
Born and bred AMERICAN CITIZENS should get first dibs on low income housing if it's available, not someone who just arrived here.
What sense does that make?
What about immigrants who are legally here for several years as green card-carrying permanent residents? Or immigrants who have obtained US citizenship? I can see the notion of new immigrants not coming in and immediately signing up for a lot of freebies, but at some point the distinction probably needs to be de-emphasized.
Just wanted to say that NYC has always been a FOOT TRAFFIC CITY. Doesn't matter what time of the day or night, there is ALWAYS someone outside SOMEWHERE. This was happening way before "gentrification" (aka "boring midwestern transplants") arrived on the scene.
But...I do agree that California is quite different, at least the southern part. Depending on where you live, you can literally be pulled off the streets without a witness or anyone hearing anything. It's quite scary.
I guess that's most of America though.
You'd be surprised. Even until the end of the 90s much of NYC was a ghost town after work hours, particularly Midtown and Lower Manhattan. Only the residential sections, which at the time mainly consisted of the West Village, Greenwich Village, parts of SoHo, the Lower East Side, and the Upper East and West Sides, had any sort of activity. The Meatpacking District, Chelsea, much of Tribeca, DUMBO, Williamsburg, and basically the rest of gentrified Brooklyn weren't really on anyone's radar or were only beginning to show signs of gentrification and development. The NYC we see now, which is basically the entire island of Manhattan and much of Brooklyn, characterized by swarms of people, was a pretty confined place until the late 90s and early 2000s.
What about immigrants who are legally here for several years as green card-carrying permanent residents?
They don't come before AMERICAN CITIZENS.
Quote:
Or immigrants who have obtained US citizenship?
They are AMERICAN CITIZENS now aren't they? So YES.
Quote:
I can see the notion of new immigrants not coming in and immediately signing up for a lot of freebies, but at some point the distinction probably needs to be de-emphasized.
I think the previous thread I quoted was referring to "illegals" getting certain freebies not people with green cards or who passed their citizenship test.
You'd be surprised. Even until the end of the 90s much of NYC was a ghost town after work hours, particularly Midtown and Lower Manhattan. Only the residential sections, which at the time mainly consisted of the West Village, Greenwich Village, parts of SoHo, the Lower East Side, and the Upper East and West Sides, had any sort of activity. The Meatpacking District, Chelsea, much of Tribeca, DUMBO, Williamsburg, and basically the rest of gentrified Brooklyn weren't really on anyone's radar or were only beginning to show signs of gentrification and development. The NYC we see now, which is basically the entire island of Manhattan and much of Brooklyn, characterized by swarms of people, was a pretty confined place until the late 90s and early 2000s.
Are you a former NYer? As in "Born and Bred"?
You sound like it, but then again you could have gotten all this info from a history book too.
You sound like it, but then again you could have gotten all this info from a history book too.
I split my time between NYC and DC, but am from NYC originally. However, I have family out in the Bay Area (SF, Oakland, Sonoma County) so I'm out there a lot.
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.
If you are Latino or even as much as look Latino, the Mission is hella dangerous. If you are Latino in the Mission, it is not even safe to a wear a 49ers Jersey or red or blue for god's sake. Just looking like a young Latino male, you will probably be approached and asked "what set you rep?"; which usually leads to getting beat up, stabbed or shot. If you are a White yuppie, even the cuttiest corner of East Baltimore isn't dangerous because Baltimore only has a murder rate of 9 out of 100K for Whites. Must be nice.
