Look Out Outer Beltway Communities In MoCo and PGCo (Clinton: live, race)

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

The movement of subsidized housing out of concentrations and into the general community was implemented during the Clinton Administration. Henry Cisneros was Secretary of HUD at the time.

Yep. Now it is a movement of subsidized housing out of city limits and into the suburban community being implemented in the Trump Administration with Ben Carson, a former public housing recipient, at the helm of HUD.

New administration, new form.

[Baghead]

Cities getting in on the act. The new food tax pays for subsidized "affordable" housing for Alexandria. What the hell does "affordable" mean?

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

Yep. Now it is a movement of subsidized housing out of city limits and into the suburban community being implemented in the Trump Administration with Ben Carson, a former public housing recipient, at the helm of HUD.

New administration, new form.

Trump has nothing to do with it. That started in the 1990s, actually it didn't "start". It just became official policy. Subsidized housing in the suburbs has been there for decades.

In Prince George's it started in the late 1960s/early 1970s with the construction of all those apartment complexes inside the Beltway.

We had a discussion on here a few years ago about how, since vouchers are portable, housing authorities like that of Montgomery County were steering people out to Frederick and Hagerstown.

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

Trump has nothing to do with it. That started in the 1990s, actually it didn't "start". It just became official policy. Subsidized housing in the suburbs has been there for decades.

In Prince George's it started in the late 1960s/early 1970s with the construction of all those apartment complexes inside the Beltway.

We had a discussion on here a few years ago about how, since vouchers are portable, housing authorities like that of Montgomery County were steering people out to Frederick and Hagerstown.

This thread wasn't started to argue that it started with Trump. I just wanted to highlight a recent public policy plan that will increase/enhance/speed-up the already progressing relocation of low-income housing from the inner-city to the suburbs. I still believe DC will become like San Francisco in that even inner-Beltway suburbs will becoming increasingly expensive to live in. This all plays into that whole reverse migration discussion.

It just so happens that Trump's administration is the one trying to implement it and it has a real chance of being implemented based on the administration's views.

It is just another example of cities being revitalized for the wealthy while the suburbs are becoming havens for the low-income.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

This thread wasn't started to argue that it started with Trump......

Oh. Ok.

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

The big land grab is in play by Trump........

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

Oh. Ok.

Trump has nothing to do with it? lol He is the POTUS. He also appointed the HUD secretary, a freaking doctor by the way. If that's not a token, I don't know what is. Trump surrounded himself with conservatives who would rather put all low-income people on an island out of sight than provide them housing in their own neighborhoods.

In addition, Trump is a developer, something he knows more about than being POTUS OR a politician. And you don't think he had a hand in this plan? Uh huh. Okay.

Hmmmm. Let's see.

Trump’s hostility to welfare dates back at least as far as 1973, when he and his father, Fred Trump, were sued by the Department of Justice for violating the Fair Housing Act. Angrily denouncing the charges of racially discriminatory practices at Trump properties, the future president accused the government of trying to force him to accept “welfare recipients.” (Trump eventually signed a consent decree with DOJ to prohibit racial discrimination in his buildings.)

“What we didn’t do was rent to welfare cases, white or black,” Trump wrote a decade later.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/...al-aid/557747/

If the shoe fits.....

I think any president is responsible for what their appointees do. We don't see Trump speaking/tweeting out against the plan, do we?

Again, I didn't start this thread to argue that adverse housing policies started with Trump. We all know they didn't. But HUD's actions in large part depends on who is currently in office.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

Trump has nothing to do with it? lol He is the POTUS. He also appointed the HUD secretary, a freaking doctor by the way. If that's not a token, I don't know what is. Trump surrounded himself with conservatives who would rather put all low-income people on an island out of sight than provide them housing in their own neighborhoods.

In addition, Trump is a developer, something he knows more about than being POTUS OR a politician. And you don't think he had a hand in this plan? Uh huh. Okay.

Hmmmm. Let's see.




https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/...al-aid/557747/

If the shoe fits.....

I think any president is responsible for what their appointees do. We don't see Trump speaking/tweeting out against the plan, do we?

Again, I didn't start this thread to argue that adverse housing policies started with Trump. We all know they didn't. But HUD's actions in large part depends on who is currently in office.

Yet you said that the thread wasn't about Trump. So which is it?

Do you hold Clinton and Cisneros, who were in office when the offloading of public housing began, to the same standard? If so, ok, you're being intellectually honest. If not, then you're not.

I would include those officials in various jurisdictions who are steering voucher holders elsewhere in my question.

One thing that's missed a lot of the time is that government policies continue to a logical conclusion over time no matter who's in office.

That's true for defense, education, welfare, whatever. Sometimes because of inertia, sometimes because of the "well, we've started this and spent so much we can't quit now" factor.

As a note, increasing voucher holder percentages for rent has been kicked around for years.

Edit: This is what we're talking about here:

http://dhcd.maryland.gov/Residents/P...e/default.aspx

https://www.hud.gov/states/maryland/renting

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

Yet you said that the thread wasn't about Trump. So which is it?

It's not. It's about the HUD policy and reverse migration. I merely mentioned the plan's origin and chances of passing Congress in a Trump administration when someone mentioned that it wouldn't pass Congress. Kinda hard not to mention the administration the HUD secretary who dreamed up this plan is under. But, we can talk about Trump if you want.

Do you hold Clinton and Cisneros, who were in office when the offloading of public housing began, to the same standard? If so, ok, you're being intellectually honest. If not, then you're not.

We're not talking about Clinton and Cisneros in this thread, are we? Fact: Ben Carson is HUD secretary. FACT: Trump appointed Ben Carson as HUD secretary. Fact: Trump's views align with the plan "Ben Carson" is putting forward. That's all I was pointing out. I'm more interested in the impact of that plan. Not who it was implemented under. Or should I have just kept that part to myself?

One thing that's missed a lot of the time is that government policies continue to a logical conclusion over time no matter who's in office.

That's true for defense, education, welfare, whatever. Sometimes because of inertia, sometimes because of the "well, we've started this and spent so much we can't quit now" factor.

I would argue that some policies have been aimed to slow the progress to that conclusion and others speed it up. But yes, public housing hasn't improved all that much.

As a note, increasing voucher holder percentages for rent has been kicked around for years.

Edit: This is what we're talking about here:

Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP)

https://www.hud.gov/states/maryland/renting

That is true, but now I think people are concerned because, with the current Congress and administration, it has a real chance of succeeding. I'm sure political strategists set it up that way when they had Trump appoint Ben Carson and that is the factor in all of this.

I'm sure had this been another administration or another Congress, the can would have been kicked down the road. Especially after the recent recession. A lot of people never recovered and they need public assistance.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

It's not. It's about the HUD policy and reverse migration. I merely mentioned the plan's origin and chances of passing Congress in a Trump administration when someone mentioned that it wouldn't pass Congress. Kinda hard not to mention the administration the HUD secretary who dreamed up this plan is under. But, we can talk about Trump if you want.



We're not talking about Clinton and Cisneros in this thread, are we? Fact: Ben Carson is HUD secretary. FACT: Trump appointed Ben Carson as HUD secretary. Fact: Trump's views align with the plan "Ben Carson" is putting forward. That's all I was pointing out. I'm more interested in the impact of that plan. Not who it was implemented under. Or should I have just kept that part to myself?



I would argue that some policies have been aimed to slow the progress to that conclusion and others speed it up. But yes, public housing hasn't improved all that much.



That is true, but now I think people are concerned because, with the current Congress and administration, it has a real chance of succeeding. I'm sure political strategists set it up that way when they had Trump appoint Ben Carson and that is the factor in all of this.

I'm sure had this been another administration or another Congress, the can would have been kicked down the road. Especially after the recent recession. A lot of people never recovered and they need public assistance.

That's part of the problem, kicking the can down the road, and it doesn't matter what the program is.

The recession? Come on. We've been in a recovery for 5 or 6 years anyway (at least that's the story, or was)

Some research:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/o...ople-work.html

You can't discuss the outmigration without going back to its roots during the Clinton Administration. Well you can but it's intellectually dishonest.

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

T

You can't discuss the outmigration without going back to its roots during the Clinton Administration. Well you can but it's intellectually dishonest.

That's an interesting statement and I agree. I would even say that you'd have to go back further.

Why is it when current incidents of racial inequality and discrimination are mentioned, having their roots in Slavery, Jim Crow, and the Southern Strategy, we aren't being intellectually dishonest when we fail to acknowledge those roots?

The mere mention of those deep roots having an effect on current society is damn near taboo. Is personal responsibility now considered being intellectually honest when it comes to racial inequality and discrimination? Are we picking and choosing how far we can go back to the genesis of social issues in current society?

Is Slavery, Jim Crow, and the Southern Strategy too simple an answer for current inequality to those who want to be intellectual gymnasts?

Personally, I think we are a long way before the causes of racial inequality become less clear and more complex.

But I digress. Sure, we can go back to Clinton. But I included the policy from the current administration. That is allowed, isn't it?