Section 8 housing coming to wealthy neighborhoods?

[unbillievable]

They tried a similar experiment here where the city demolished a large portion of abandoned buildings and built a gated community.

At first it worked. Then reality sunk in.

 

The residents started treating their gated community as a little island; they feared going outside of it. Property values dropped as the communities "integrated." Now, the area is considered a hell hole. The "gated" community is jokingly referred to as a "prison" keeping criminals in. Even cops don't go in there.

 

Either the rich will price the poor out or they move to a better neighborhood to avoid "integration." . It's that simple.

[Chef Jim]

Diversity + proximity = war

 

 

That's why I laugh at people that have diversity and coexist bumper stickers on their cars.

 

BTW has it been explained what they are attempting to accomplish with this?

Edited July 9, 2015 by Chef Jim

[B-Large]

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.

 

So you're saying breaking the cycle, culturally, of a fatherless household is too keep young boys/ men in situations where that is accepted, encouraged and the norm? That doesn't make much sense. School choice is a breakthrough to try and break the cycle, but yo still gave young men that go to a good school, but exist in a **** living situation....

 

I'm not saying I think poor people will even want to live in wealthy neighborhoods.... I sure as heck don't, and I'm far from poor by many measures... But I'm intrigued by the idea of trying to get a few kids in a position to succeed.

We're not going help solve the issue of fartherless families in the black community for example by bigger checks, or articles by wonks identifying the problem.... But we can try interventions to try and change the mindset and behavior. We B word about welfare costs, well let's try something and see if it works. Otherwise, let's budget the money, print the checks and admit we really don't care that much- at least we'd be honest about it.

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.

 

I assume subsistence living welfare checks don't get most poor folks into a high performing school district... Hence the revolving door of poverty...

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.

I don't know, I'm not a policy expert. Make it difficult to get into, you have to believe if it is limited spots and takes a ton of effort, only seriously applicants will apply and make it through. There are tons of working poor that have verified consistent employment even if it still leaves them technically poor by economic standards.

 

I tend to believe most children learn by modeling... If all your freind have dads and mons, you begin to believe that is normal... If everybody you know has no dad or a dad in jail, that is normal.... You can see where I am going with that point.

[OCinBuffalo]

I assume subsistence living welfare checks don't get most poor folks into a high performing school district... Hence the revolving door of poverty...

Then you assume wrong. Let's review: I specifically took the option you offered, "cut a BIGGER check".

 

That is not the same as "cut the same subsistence check that keeps the single mother and her boys in the liberal utopia housing project that was created in 1965...and is doing such a fine job of winning the war on poverty "

 

Observe: I'm about to offer what's known in the dictionary as a "progressive" solution. Not the bastardized meaning, the actual meaning.

 

You've missed the point. Another housing project is the opposite of right here. I would much rather fire everyone at HUD tomorrow, sell off its assets completely, and file eviction notices when the sales are complete. Take all the $ accrued/saved, and cut each and every now-evicted HUD beneficiary a one-time, $50k check(if we need to add extra cash to get to $50k, so be it, if it needs to be more than 50, or child dependent, whatever, so be it), and tell them: choose wisely, because we will be watching, and, that's all you are going to get.

 

If the heroine in your story is as concerned about her kids as you say? That's either a decent mortgage downpayment or rent for a very long time, either of which gets them out of the terrible neighborhood. EDIT: And I'll even be generous to the useless HUD people. They can compete for a few advisor jobs that help the heroine choose wisely, or they can go get a real job. We run the 50k through financial advisors who are certified, in a trust, and all 3 people, the gov. rep, the business rep and the beneficiary have to sign off for $ to move(or something).

 

OTOH, if heroin is the hero of this story...we take the kids and we move mom to the work farm...in Nowhere, Nebraska. She's not going to cost us another dime, because until she straightens out, she's going to work to feed herself. Some people just can't cut it as parents. So, their parenting needs to end. NOW! Why should we condemn those kids to the hell of the projects with awful parents? What the F do we think is going to happen?

 

Thus, we get rid of yet another failed, 1965, regressive program that is literally responsible for creating your revolving door. We break that door completely by creating a disruptive life event: $50k right now. This is the Land of Opportunity, and $50k is opportunity.

 

Psychology is a powerful thing, and if I make you live in "bad place" from childhood, there's a very good chance your life expectations are going to be set to "bad guy". Thus, the housing project itself is the problem. Over time it has become the cause, not the effect. Thus, the other disruptive event? Level every HUD project and start over.

 

You want to fight a REAL War on Poverty? What do we do in a war? We destroy the enemy's factories. HUD projects are poverty and crime factories. We must destroy each and every one of them. We must create real weatlh for your single mother by putting the $ directly in her hands, and, we must take away the wealth of the criminals: these crime factories are their base of operations. Knock them down and you knock the criminal down.

Edited July 10, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[boyst]

On a slightly related note - it is amazing seeing some I have met and continue to know have moved outside of the city boundaries to escape taxes and the poorer area issues

 

A $200k house in town is $100k outside of it.

[OCinBuffalo]

On a slightly related note - it is amazing seeing some I have met and continue to know have moved outside of the city boundaries to escape taxes and the poorer area issues

 

A $200k house in town is $100k outside of it.

Which is why Obama is trying to get this centralization "rule" by everyone. The last thing they want is decentralization of anything. When your neighbors move to the suburbs/rural areas, they are no longer under the thumb of government, and aren't subject to city's taxes.

 

But, if Obama et al can up and decide to zone an entire suburb as commerical, then you can't reside there. You're forced back into the city, where you can be controlled, and forced to pay the taxes they want you to pay.

 

This is perhaps the dumbest thing Obama has done so far. And just consider that for a minute. He has declared open war on every state, city, small town, suburb and rural area in the country, with the primary goal of obliterating local government. Since we now have a record for number of state houses controlled by Rs, he wants to destroy their power, and give it to HUD.

 

This is an attack on fundamental liberty, and is wholly unconstitutional. But put aside the abstract: Obama just took on every elected D in Niagara Falls, and he's telling them he and his surrogates are going to be calling the shots in that town?

 

Not only that, but Steve and Bob who are R and D, but serve on the Smalls Town board together, and always have a beer after the meeting? You're now irrelevant.

 

This is like Cuomo's gun law: all you are going to see is open defiance of this. Cuomo is a laughing stock here in NY, and even his own party has turned on him, because nobody in upstate will obey his gun law, and no upstate police, not even the troopers, will enforce it. Cuomo has lost all his power because of the gun law defiance. Nobody fears or respects him. Therefore, Cuomo is being threatened by the far-left that he either does their bidding, or he gets primaried. They are after his nuts. That's a far cry from "possible presidential candidate" 12 months ago.

 

Obama's is going to go out as a laughing stock too, except he's going to do it nationally.

Edited July 10, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[Nanker]

 

That's why I laugh at people that have diversity and coexist bumper stickers on their cars.

 

BTW has it been explained what they are attempting to accomplish with this?

The fundamental transformation of America... into a third world country that, for the first time in his adult life, he can finally be proud of.

[B-Man]

HUD's Own Study Dashes Utopian Dream Of Cross-Neighborhood Prosperity

Social Engineering: President Obama's new suburban integration plan won't just harm the middle class by reducing safety and property values. It won't even provide the economic benefits it promises to relocated minorities.

We know this because HUD already tried a similar experiment under President Clinton of resettling urban poor in the suburbs. It failed, as a HUD study reveals.

 

From 1994 to 2008, HUD moved thousands of mostly African-American families from government projects to higher-quality homes in safer and less racially segregated neighborhoods. The 15-year experiment, dubbed "Moving to Opportunity Initiative," or MTO, was based on the well-intentioned notion that relocating inner-city minorities to better neighborhoods would boost their employment and education prospects.

 

But adults for the most part did not get better jobs or get off welfare. In fact, more went on food stamps. And their children did not do better in their new schools.

 

The 287-page study sponsored by HUD found that adults who relocated outside the inner city using Section 8 housing vouchers did not avail themselves of better job opportunities in their new neighborhoods, and saw a "sizable negative impact on annual earnings."

"Moving to lower-poverty neighborhoods does not appear to improve education outcomes, employment or earnings," the study concluded.

 

Even then-senior HUD official Raphael Bostic, a black Obama appointee, admitted in a foreword to the 2011 study that families enrolled in the program had "no better educational, employment and income outcomes."

Read More : http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/070915-761014-hud-study-reveals-blacks-dont-benefit-economically-from-neighborhood-relocation.htm#ixzz3fUzRA7pw

[unbillievable]

HUD's Own Study Dashes Utopian Dream Of Cross-Neighborhood Prosperity

 

Social Engineering: President Obama's new suburban integration plan won't just harm the middle class by reducing safety and property values. It won't even provide the economic benefits it promises to relocated minorities.

We know this because HUD already tried a similar experiment under President Clinton of resettling urban poor in the suburbs. It failed, as a HUD study reveals.

 

From 1994 to 2008, HUD moved thousands of mostly African-American families from government projects to higher-quality homes in safer and less racially segregated neighborhoods. The 15-year experiment, dubbed "Moving to Opportunity Initiative," or MTO, was based on the well-intentioned notion that relocating inner-city minorities to better neighborhoods would boost their employment and education prospects.

 

But adults for the most part did not get better jobs or get off welfare. In fact, more went on food stamps. And their children did not do better in their new schools.

 

The initiative was never intended to help poor people. They just want to drag down the rich and middle class.

It's not about moving Minorities out of the Ghetto, it's about moving White people into it.

 

That's how socialism works: Equality through shared misery.

[Dante]

So you're saying breaking the cycle, culturally, of a fatherless household is too keep young boys/ men in situations where that is accepted, encouraged and the norm? That doesn't make much sense. School choice is a breakthrough to try and break the cycle, but yo still gave young men that go to a good school, but exist in a **** living situation....

 

I'm not saying I think poor people will even want to live in wealthy neighborhoods.... I sure as heck don't, and I'm far from poor by many measures... But I'm intrigued by the idea of trying to get a few kids in a position to succeed.

We're not going help solve the issue of fartherless families in the black community for example by bigger checks, or articles by wonks identifying the problem.... But we can try interventions to try and change the mindset and behavior. We B word about welfare costs, well let's try something and see if it works. Otherwise, let's budget the money, print the checks and admit we really don't care that much- at least we'd be honest about it.

 

 

I assume subsistence living welfare checks don't get most poor folks into a high performing school district... Hence the revolving door of poverty...

 

I don't know, I'm not a policy expert. Make it difficult to get into, you have to believe if it is limited spots and takes a ton of effort, only seriously applicants will apply and make it through. There are tons of working poor that have verified consistent employment even if it still leaves them technically poor by economic standards.

 

I tend to believe most children learn by modeling... If all your freind have dads and mons, you begin to believe that is normal... If everybody you know has no dad or a dad in jail, that is normal.... You can see where I am going with that point.

I think I look at it like building a house. A solid family situation makes for kids with values and morals. A good foundation for positive possibilities in the future. As long as the government subsidizes broken families nothing will change culturally no matter what school they go to because there is no guidance to make them even care about it. But this is the master plan anyway. Bust down families of all races so the state is now the family.

[unbillievable]

I think I look at it like building a house. A solid family situation makes for kids with values and morals. A good foundation for positive possibilities in the future. As long as the government subsidizes broken families nothing will change culturally no matter what school they go to because there is no guidance to make them even care about it. But this is the master plan anyway. Bust down families of all races so the state is now the family.

Liberals have already stated that children belong to the community, and not their parents.

[IDBillzFan]

I wonder if forced integration is why our US Secretary of Education sends his kids to a private school?

 

But hey...rules for thee, but not for me, amirite?

Edited July 10, 2015 by LABillzFan

[KD in CA]

Coming soon to a 'leveled playing field' near you:

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/179228-what-a-way-to-pick-up-that-spare/?p=3597070

[Nanker]

Day-um! Can't wait to see them battle for the corners. Do hope they bring some good **** to their new hood. That's what's missin' there. Most def.

[B-Man]

Attention America’s Suburbs: You Have Just Been Annexed

by Stanley Kurtz

It’s difficult to say what’s more striking about President Obama’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation: its breathtaking radicalism, the refusal of the press to cover it, or its potential political ramifications. The danger AFFH poses to Democrats explains why the press barely mentions it. This lack of curiosity, in turn, explains why the revolutionary nature of the rule has not been properly understood. Ultimately, the regulation amounts to back-door annexation, a way of turning America’s suburbs into tributaries of nearby cities.

This has been Obama’s purpose from the start. Young Barack Obama turned against the suburbs and threw in his lot with a group of Alinsky-style community organizers who blamed suburban tax-flight for urban decay. Their bible was Cities Without Suburbs, by former Albuquerque mayor David Rusk. Rusk, who works closely with Obama’s Alinskyite mentors and now advises the Obama administration, initially called on cities to annex their surrounding suburbs. When it became clear that outright annexation was a political non-starter, Rusk and his followers settled on a series of measures designed to achieve de facto annexation over time.

The plan has three elements: 1) Inhibit suburban growth, and when possible encourage suburban re-migration to cities. This can be achieved, for example, through regional growth boundaries (as in Portland), or by relative neglect of highway-building and repair in favor of public transportation. 2) Force the urban poor into the suburbs through the imposition of low-income housing quotas. 3) Institute “regional tax-base sharing,” where a state forces upper-middle-class suburbs to transfer tax revenue to nearby cities and less-well-off inner-ring suburbs (as in Minneapolis/St. Paul).

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421389/attention-americas-suburbs-you-have-just-been-annexed-stanley-kurtz

Edited July 20, 2015 by B-Man

[unbillievable]

http://www.hbo.com/show-me-a-hero

 

 

 

PREMIERES SUNDAY, AUGUST 16 AT 8 PM Show Me A Hero

In an America generations removed from the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the young mayor (Oscar Isaac) of a mid-sized city is faced with a federal court order to build a small number of low-income housing units in the white neighborhoods of his town. His attempt to do so tears the entire city apart, paralyzes the municipal government and, ultimately, destroys the mayor and his political future.

 

New HBO series. The propaganda machine has begun.

[Rob's House]

http://www.hbo.com/show-me-a-hero

 

 

New HBO series. The propaganda machine has begun.

I cancelled HBO years ago because I didn't want to support their propaganda. I'd have thought more people would, but God forbid they miss Game of Thrones.

[Deranged Rhino]

I cancelled HBO years ago because I didn't want to support their propaganda. I'd have thought more people would, but God forbid they miss Game of Thrones.

 

I kind of like their propaganda: