Azalin Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I can just imagine the reaction of people here in Lakeway when they learn about a new high rise section 8 apartment building going up by the golf course. http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/244699-hud-chief-grilled-over-housing-discrimination-rule "It’s not just about affordable housing, it’s about good transit; it’s about access to good schools; it’s about all that," Castro told the lawmakers." http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/11/obama-moving-to-force-diversity-on-rich-neighborhoods-with-increased-affordable-housing-plan/ "However, the plan will certainly have several problematic outcomes, critics note. For one, families employing federal subsides in section 8 housing won’t be paying the property taxes that others in such communities pay meaning that they will be sending their kids to schools they didn’t help pay for. This will increase the burden on local schools and on those actual taxpayers footing the bill." "Gosar warns that the main result will be that property values will naturally fall and that means property assessments will fall with them and that taxes will have to be raised to continue paying for local schools quite despite falling housing values." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I don't know who i feel more pity for...the wealthy people being invaded or the poor people needing to put up with insufferable country clubbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) It's all part of the plan........................... Massive Government Overreach: Obama’s AFFH Rule Is Out by Stanley Kurtz Today, HUD Secretary Julian Castro announced the finalization of the Obama administration’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule. A front-page article preemptively defending the move appears in today’s Washington Post. The final rule is 377 pages, vastly longer than the preliminary version of the rule promulgated in 2013. AFFH is easily one of President Obama’s most radical initiatives, on a par with Obamacare in its transformative potential. In effect, AFFH gives the federal government a lever to re-engineer nearly every American neighborhood — imposing a preferred racial and ethnic composition, densifying housing, transportation, and business development in suburb and city alike, and weakening or casting aside the authority of local governments over core responsibilities, from zoning to transportation to education. Not only the policy but the political implications are immense — at the presidential, congressional, state, and local levels. It is a scandal that the mainstream press has largely refused to report on AFFH until the day of its final release. The rule has been out in preliminary form for two years, and well before that the Obama administration’s transformative aims in urban/suburban policy were evident.Read MUCH more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner . Edited July 8, 2015 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 This subject already had its own thread started a month ago which I just bumped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 For one, families employing federal subsides in section 8 housing won’t be paying the property taxes that others in such communities pay meaning that they will be sending their kids to schools they didn’t help pay for. This will increase the burden on local schools and on those actual taxpayers footing the bill." In other words, yet other massive welfare program for minorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 In other words, yet other massive welfare program for minorities. Don't look at it as another massive welfare program for minorities. Look at it as an opportunity for the inner-city gang bangers to finally find out what it's like to live amongst people who aren't afraid to shoot back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Don't look at it as another massive welfare program for minorities. Look at it as an opportunity for the inner-city gang bangers to finally find out what it's like to live amongst people who aren't afraid to shoot back. I'm looking at it as an opportunity to eliminate Republican voting districts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 They've jacked up the cities so bad now the left have to bring their wisdom to the burbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Don't look at it as another massive welfare program for minorities. Look at it as an opportunity for the inner-city gang bangers to finally find out what it's like to live amongst people who aren't afraid to shoot back. The left is way ahead of you on taking those guns away. #blacklivesmatter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 If a working poor mother of two young boys has the chance to get them out of a violent neighborhood, get them in a good school, and they end up going to college and becoming productive citizens.... Isn't that consistent with creating opportunity we are always talking about? I mean, we either cut a bigger check to mom, or help her with opportunities for her family.... I'd prefer the second path to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 If a working poor mother of two young boys has the chance to get them out of a violent neighborhood, get them in a good school, and they end up going to college and becoming productive citizens.... Isn't that consistent with creating opportunity we are always talking about? I mean, we either cut a bigger check to mom, or help her with opportunities for her family.... I'd prefer the second path to be honest. Do you really believe high-income people won't move away? They will, then the schools will go to ****, and all the "opportunity" will disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 When we first moved to the Bay Area we looked at a brand new housing tract on the water in Alameda. I think they were in the $700-800k range. Not bad looking places. A bit to close together and out of our price range. We were floored when the sales person proudly exclaimed that a certain percentage of them had been set aside for low income families. That was about six years ago. We were down there recently and the place is trashed already. Poor people are poor for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) If a working poor mother of two young boys has the chance to get them out of a violent neighborhood, get them in a good school, and they end up going to college and becoming productive citizens.... Isn't that consistent with creating opportunity we are always talking about? I mean, we either cut a bigger check to mom, or help her with opportunities for her family.... I'd prefer the second path to be honest. I'd rather cut a bigger check. Harvard did a study a few years back in Africa. Rather than giving money to the US non-profit, who buys food, and ships it over there, and sets up, and hands it out...which means about $.35 of the dollar actually being direct aid? They sent one guy who wrote checks for $500. $500 goes a very long way in Africa, and rather than blowing it, all sorts of businesses were started, homes built, etc. If you want to play the single mother with 2 young boys emoting game? IF she's the same person as in your example, what's to say she doesn't use the bigger check herself to get her and her boys the hell out of that neighborhood? Meanwhile, we take away the make work jobs of "overseeing" the ongoing transfer of funds for the housing project, the local pols/buddies who get paid off, and whatever other considerations for useless government employees/pols. Instead, we give her the cash directly and tell her to make a good choice, because this is a one-time deal. You don't need anybody else. But, of course, that would kill the left's "jobs" program. Edited July 9, 2015 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 If a working poor mother of two young boys has the chance to get them out of a violent neighborhood, get them in a good school, and they end up going to college and becoming productive citizens.... Isn't that consistent with creating opportunity we are always talking about? I mean, we either cut a bigger check to mom, or help her with opportunities for her family.... I'd prefer the second path to be honest. That sounds great in theory, but do we limit it to working mothers of two young boys, or do we expand it to non-working mothers of 7 children from three different men? What will be the requirements? Do you think relocating poverty-stricken families with kids being raised by local gangs because their parents are unwilling or unable to raise them will somehow change their lot in life? The problem goes deeper than just where they live. We all know that the inner-cities are filled with predominantly black Americans. We also know that an astonishingly incredible 72% of black children are brought into this world by a single mother. Moving them to a better zip code is not going to change that behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Diversity + proximity = war Diversity + proximity = "white flight"They won't ever learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Individuals who reside in middle to upper-middle class suburbs do so because they live a lifestyle that their set of personal morals and values have made possible. These communities are naturally insular because typically only those individuals sharing those value sets can afford to reside there. Importing individuals who do not share those morals and values will not magically bestow a new value set upon them. If those individuals valued those things, they would already be making their way out of their economic conditions, and wouldn't need to rely on the government to provide them with Section 8 housing. All this will serve to do is bring down property values, makes schools worse, and increase the crime rate in these suburbs. These things will lead to the current residents leaving the area, as it becomes a less desirable location. As the tax base leaves, property taxes will rise to fill the gap, and what you'll be left with is exactly what the Section 8 residents came from. If this happened in my town, I'd put my house on the market immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 If a working poor mother of two young boys has the chance to get them out of a violent neighborhood, get them in a good school, and they end up going to college and becoming productive citizens.... Isn't that consistent with creating opportunity we are always talking about? I mean, we either cut a bigger check to mom, or help her with opportunities for her family.... I'd prefer the second path to be honest. If I get a sore stomach 7 days in a row taking Pepto to treat the symptom is not a long term answer. I want to cure whatever is causing the pain. Throwing money at the end result of a bigger issue is no answer. How about addressing the cause? Fatherless households. No motivation because of generational dependency. White feel goodery liberals don't want this because they want instant gratification of handing over cash. Politicians don't want to risk losing their dependent constituency to real freedom. There is nothing complicated about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 If a working poor mother of two young boys has the chance to get them out of a violent neighborhood, get them in a good school, and they end up going to college and becoming productive citizens.... Isn't that consistent with creating opportunity we are always talking about? I mean, we either cut a bigger check to mom, or help her with opportunities for her family.... I'd prefer the second path to be honest. It's been proven that many top down programs do not work because they remove the individual incentives to improve the lives. But if you're referring to school choice programs where the parents who take a proactive role in getting their kids to a better school and by extension, will be active in making sure the kids complete the education and move on, then that has shown success. That's different than throwing a dartboard at the map and putting in Section 8 housing in that spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 In a city that I used to live in there is a public housing project that was built a few years after a subdivision was built in a neighboring township. This township is generally considered more desirable than the city, and of course home prices are quite a bit more than in the city. This particular subdivision's home prices do not compare favorably or equally to other subdivisions in the township though. It sits directly in the path between the public housing project and the back way to a rather large mall. Anyone guess why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Liberal response: "Property values? RACIST!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts