Moderating:
That is a very offensive term to both Blacks and Whites. Please refrain from using it.
No warning.
not a slur per se, merely a slang for white men acting Black in dress, hair, etc , hence “white N—”
[Maybe this is a tangent, but maybe not considering the topic at hand.]
- “acting Black in dress, hair, etc.” Are you kidding me?
- If you don’t see “white nigger” as a slur, offensive to both blacks and whites, than I don’t think I can help you. But I’m speechless.
I think authorities there could find space if they wanted. Two new low income apartment buildings went up near me within recent years; one is on a site previously occupied by a gas station and the other was originally a grocery store before the county turned it into a rec center. The latter is now a brand new rec center with offices above and low income apartments behind.
Some new construction or infill developments for a multistory building with a mix of apartments and commercial will stipulate a portion of the units for subsidized housing requirements being met for families and/ or elder tenants. That’s a good mix and contributes to a diverse economic reality.
In the burbs a development only available to low income people can acheive neighborhood standards. Imo.
That don’t make NO sense!
/Pete
You say that like people are only against poor people in their neighborhoods. In my experience, they’re generally against any change/disruption that they could perceive as negative.
I mean, near my house there is a big Wal-Mart. Its primary clientele is the poor apartment people who already live nearby- many within walking distance. But the people in the neighborhoods (not apartment) fought it tooth and nail. No idea why either. And they fought a lingerie/sex toy store on the freeway access road next to a used car dealership and really low rent apartments. Again I don’t know why. It’s not actually IN our neighborhood.
And they fight the things you’d expect- ex-criminals being housed in our area, homeless people, homeless shelters, mentally ill, etc… With some justification as well; the city tried to pull a fast one on the area not long ago and build a homeless center on some city-owned land without even notifying the area’s city councilman, never mind the community at large. I can see why homeowners in the area would believe that the city/county/state put the needs of the homeless/mentally ill/ex criminals ahead of their own when they pull nonsense like that.
But a lot of it is knee-jerk reaction to change of any sort.
No, I agree. But at the same time, when what used to be woods that I played in as a child was chopped down to put up more $300k single family homes, there wasn’t any pushback on that.
You think that’s bad.
We had a group want to open a swingers parlor. That got some attention from the residents.
I think there was more pushback on that then the rehab center someone wanted to put in.
But that is because they do not think that any of them could ever be the homeless or the mentally ill.
I mentioned the rehab center. The area that it was in would provide more than enough patients for it. The people that would be going there would be locals primarily. They were still against it, even when it is specifically meeting the needs of the homeowners.
To be fair, there’s been a VERY large increase in the number of homeless in our area since the city basically demolished a couple of large homeless encampments in the central/southern part of town. The city didn’t explicitly drive them up here, but they certainly didn’t keep them away either.
And I imagine that it seems like the city’s trying to institutionalize that by putting the center up here. I can see why people would be upset- first the city does something that causes an issue for us, and then acts like they’re trying to make it permanent. The residents in large part are still trying to make the recent influx of homeless go away, not build shelters for them in our part of town.
No, they don’t.
I can say that in my department we know the addresses that people had at the time that they were involved enough in a police matter to be part of a police report. Other than that we can look people up on the internet. No secret lists or databases.
Or if you want to sell your house in order to buy another one - either because you need to relocate or want something different.
Or if you want to refinance to take out money for home improvements, ransom, or hookers and blow.
There are lots of reasons to be concerned about the value of your home(s). Mine are an important part of my portfolio and the value matters to me as much as the value if the stock and mutual funds in my portfolio.
Besides, I currently own two and only live in one - at some point in the future I’ll sell one of them to refresh my retirement fund. I care very much about the value of that property,
Was fairly certain this was the case. Should have included the 
There’s a neighborhood near me that doesn’t want anything, because somehow, they think that no one from their neighborhood ever needs drug treatment or affordable housing or has disabled relatives who need to live in a group home or ever ends up in a homeless shelter or …
Well , it’s not true. There are people from every neighborhood who need all those things and I find that frequently people who don’t want don’t want affordable housing* in their neighborhood are also complaining that their kids have to move away because they can’t afford rents in the city. They don’t want the homeless shelter because somehow, no one from their neighborhood ends up homeless ( even with those high rents). They are fighting the shelter that is currently in their neighborhood, saying they would prefer a shelter for women and children - except that when one of those was proposed five years before the current shelter was opened, they beat that down. Really what they want is to not have anything that they think will drive their property values down - and they ignore what happens in other neighborhoods. See, my neighborhood has had a drug treatment program and a group home and a homeless drop-in center. None of those institutions cause problems ( homeless people living on the street do, but they would be there whether these institutions are there or not.)
Having worked in low income parts of the city, the problems are not exactly because these institutions exist in the neighborhood- it’s the concentration of them in the neighborhood. If every other block has a drug program or homeless shelter or half-way house etc, sure , the neighborhood will be affected. But if they are more spread out, so that this neighborhood has a shelter and that one has a treatment program there might be little or no effect on the neighborhood. But certain neighborhoods can fight them off while others can’t.
- which is not necessarily low-income in this city. My son once got an interview for a studio in an affordable housing lottery - the rent was $1700 and the maximum income was $91K
If I wanted to live next to an apartment building with people of any color- white, black, or pink with polka dots, or renting for $1000 or $10,000 a month, I would have bought a house next to an apartment building or in a neighborhood zoned for one.
Right. Here’s the thing- high density housing is in urban areas as those areas can support it. The stores are within walking distance, there is rapid transit. The sewage and other utilities have been designed to take it. The roads are set up for higher traffic.
So let us say you built some on the empty hill near my house: high fire danger area, so who would build a apt building? The water, sewage etc couldnt handle it. There is one road in and out, there is no rapid transit. The closest store is a Walgreens, and that is a 2 mile walk up and down a rather steep hill.
That is just how urban planning works.
Urbs> Suburbs> Rural> wilderness.
The OP mentions placing low-income housing projects in the suburbs, which is why I thought it necessary to mention that the suburbs where I grew up are unsuitable for high-density housing and the lack of public transit makes them unsuitable for any who don’t own cars.
The OP didn’t mention high density, just low income.
In that case, if the low-income housing was a single-family house on an acre or more, it would be indistinguishable from any of my parents’ neighbors.
Ok, perhaps that particular suburb won’t not be suitable for low income housing. But I know a number of suburbs where 1) The lots are generally far less than one acre 2) The zoning ( at least in some areas ) allows multiple dwellings as there are rental apartment/condo buildings that already exist there.
Another thing that disturbs me about the fight for low income housing is that it’s always assumed it will be skanky apartment complexes AND that it will inevitably be rental property. Rentals are just another way to siphon money upwards–the poor renters only get a roof but the landlord gets rich. That’s not really helpful in the long run. Now if we were talking replacing existing SFR with duplexes, tri and fourplexes and subsidizing such that ownership becomes possible for a similar monthly outlay as the rent would be then I think we’d have a better outcome for everyone. Ownership tends to encourage stewardship and that makes the surrounding SFR residents happier–it’s not the density most people object to, it’s density that results in trashy surroundings that gets people’s backs up. Nobody kicks all that hard when a luxury condo complex goes in because that helps property values. The same density complex given over to low income rentals, on the other hand is pretty much guaranteed to result in some very heated city council hearings. So subsidize increased ownership along with increasing density, see if that doesn’t help things along some.