If you learned this was being built next door would you protest.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Originally posted by: ICRS
If you learned a government financed "Multifamily housing complex for very low income, low income, and disabled" was being built next door to you.

Would you welcome it, or would you try to stop it from being built.

You must live in a poor area for land to be cheap enough to build income based housing.
This is bullshit.

I can take you to several places around here where they built projects less than a mile from very nice housing developments.

And thefts from those places started pretty soon after the projects were populated.

No, you aren't going to have some low-income housing built nearby if you live near a bunch of movie stars, but you can live in a VERY nice development and land nearby can most certainly be bought and turned into the projects.

yeap. Even the new projects "started" in chicago are a mix of very nice townhouse type places. just by lookign youwouldnt know what it is.

but the city has dragged its feet building it. though they were fast on destroying the place these peopel were living.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Err, housing is a right, not a privilege.


I disagree with that. It takes money to buy a house, and saying that possessing things of value are rights goes against all the values of capitalism.

You need an address to vote, and voting is a right.

You also have the right to bear arms, so I guess we should give out guns.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Err, housing is a right, not a privilege.


I disagree with that. It takes money to buy a house, and saying that possessing things of value are rights goes against all the values of capitalism.

You need an address to vote, and voting is a right.

yes voting is a right. but housing is nto. and no you do not need a house/apartment to vote.

not to mention its damn near impossible to put everyone in a house/apartment. i sure in the hell don't want my tax money so some free loading asswipe can live free.

 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Err, housing is a right, not a privilege.


I disagree with that. It takes money to buy a house, and saying that possessing things of value are rights goes against all the values of capitalism.

You need an address to vote, and voting is a right.

yes voting is a right. but housing is nto. and no you do not need a house/apartment to vote.

not to mention its damn near impossible to put everyone in a house/apartment. i sure in the hell don't want my tax money so some free loading asswipe can live free.


You dont have to give everyone a whole house or apartment. But every should be able to get a room somewhere and 3 sqaures.

Jeez, prisoners get that, but its too good for the homeless guy in the street living with dementia.

Sure, its a capitalistic society but we're supposed to be advanced. That means not having citizens go without nessesities like the do in 3rd world countries.

You dont "need" a gun to live so people dont have a right to get one free.

Same with having a tv, radio, phone or computer. If you dont have money you must go without these things.

But food, shelter and water are needed to live, so they should be a right of everyone.

And i'm not some crazy left wind nut, I believe in the idea of a free market.

I just think having a modern society should garentee a certain things for all citizens. If it doesnt then were no more advanced than we were 1000 years ago.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Err, housing is a right, not a privilege.


I disagree with that. It takes money to buy a house, and saying that possessing things of value are rights goes against all the values of capitalism.

You need an address to vote, and voting is a right.

yes voting is a right. but housing is nto. and no you do not need a house/apartment to vote.

not to mention its damn near impossible to put everyone in a house/apartment. i sure in the hell don't want my tax money so some free loading asswipe can live free.


You dont have to give everyone a whole house or apartment. But every should be able to get a room somewhere and 3 sqaures.

Jeez, prisoners get that, but its too good for the homeless guy in the street living with dementia.

Sure, its a capitalistic society but we're supposed to be advanced. That means not having citizens go without nessesities like the do in 3rd world countries.

You dont "need" a gun to live so people dont have a right to get one free.

Same with having a tv, radio, phone or computer. If you dont have money you must go without these things.

But food, shelter and water are needed to live, so they should be a right of everyone.

And i'm not some crazy left wind nut, I believe in the idea of a free market.

I just think having a modern society should garentee a certain things for all citizens. If it doesnt then were no more advanced than we were 1000 years ago.


and who is going to pay for it? i sure in the hell don't want my money going to a bum to survive. i already give enough to locel charities.

sure i don't "need" a gun. but i have worked my ass off to afford the things i have. such as a HOUSE, FOOD etc. if i want a GUN then i have the right to get it.

you do not have a RIGHT to my money.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
Originally posted by: ICRS
If you learned a government financed "Multifamily housing complex for very low income, low income, and disabled" was being built next door to you.

Would you welcome it, or would you try to stop it from being built.

I lived in a community like that once, it was called Reston, and I would never live like that again. Fortunately we were just renting a townhouse and when the owner decided to sell we took the opportunity to get out while the lease could be broken with no penalty.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
I agree we need to house and feed those who are mentally or physically unable to take care of themselves and have nobody else to help them. But that assistance should be of a quality level that strongly encourages the discontinuance of it's use.
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Err, housing is a right, not a privilege.


I disagree with that. It takes money to buy a house, and saying that possessing things of value are rights goes against all the values of capitalism.

You need an address to vote, and voting is a right.

yes voting is a right. but housing is nto. and no you do not need a house/apartment to vote.

not to mention its damn near impossible to put everyone in a house/apartment. i sure in the hell don't want my tax money so some free loading asswipe can live free.


You dont have to give everyone a whole house or apartment. But every should be able to get a room somewhere and 3 sqaures.

Jeez, prisoners get that, but its too good for the homeless guy in the street living with dementia.

Sure, its a capitalistic society but we're supposed to be advanced. That means not having citizens go without nessesities like the do in 3rd world countries.

You dont "need" a gun to live so people dont have a right to get one free.

Same with having a tv, radio, phone or computer. If you dont have money you must go without these things.

But food, shelter and water are needed to live, so they should be a right of everyone.

And i'm not some crazy left wind nut, I believe in the idea of a free market.

I just think having a modern society should garentee a certain things for all citizens. If it doesnt then were no more advanced than we were 1000 years ago.


and who is going to pay for it? i sure in the hell don't want my money going to a bum to survive. i already give enough to locel charities.

sure i don't "need" a gun. but i have worked my ass off to afford the things i have. such as a HOUSE, FOOD etc. if i want a GUN then i have the right to get it.

you do not have a RIGHT to my money.

I didn't say you couldn't have a gun.

I said people don't have to right a FREE gun.

And yeah, I'd hate my taxes going to some lazy idiot who doesn't want to work, but most homeless arn't like that. Most of them have some sort of issue that prevents them from getting employment.

That doesn't mean they should be treated like animals.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I agree we need to house and feed those who are mentally or physically unable to take care of themselves and have nobody else to help them. But that assistance should be of a quality level that strongly encourages the discontinuance of it's use.

trouble is the potential for abuse. look at SSDI its abused really bad.

the hard part is giving those that really need it and for how long. I am all for helping those that really need it. i just don't want to help those that refuse to help themselves (and there are far more of those then people think)
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I agree we need to house and feed those who are mentally or physically unable to take care of themselves and have nobody else to help them. But that assistance should be of a quality level that strongly encourages the discontinuance of it's use.

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting anything fancy.

A single room somewhere. They probably dont even need a light or anything. Just somewhere to sleep.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Err, housing is a right, not a privilege.


I disagree with that. It takes money to buy a house, and saying that possessing things of value are rights goes against all the values of capitalism.

You need an address to vote, and voting is a right.

If you live in somebody else's house you can still vote. That doesn't entitle you to your own house.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet


Sure, its a capitalistic society but we're supposed to be advanced. That means not having citizens go without nessesities like the do in 3rd world countries.

You dont "need" a gun to live so people dont have a right to get one free.

Same with having a tv, radio, phone or computer. If you dont have money you must go without these things.

But food, shelter and water are needed to live, so they should be a right of everyone.

And i'm not some crazy left wind nut, I believe in the idea of a free market.

I just think having a modern society should garentee a certain things for all citizens. If it doesnt then were no more advanced than we were 1000 years ago.


In your order of the world, where are the mechanisms for natural selection? Shouldn't it still be survival of the fittest or are you set on pissing in the gene pool?
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet


Sure, its a capitalistic society but we're supposed to be advanced. That means not having citizens go without nessesities like the do in 3rd world countries.

You dont "need" a gun to live so people dont have a right to get one free.

Same with having a tv, radio, phone or computer. If you dont have money you must go without these things.

But food, shelter and water are needed to live, so they should be a right of everyone.

And i'm not some crazy left wind nut, I believe in the idea of a free market.

I just think having a modern society should garentee a certain things for all citizens. If it doesnt then were no more advanced than we were 1000 years ago.


In your order of the world, where are the mechanisms for natural selection? Shouldn't it still be survival of the fittest or are you set on pissing in the gene pool?

Natural Selection doesn't exist anymore.
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet


Sure, its a capitalistic society but we're supposed to be advanced. That means not having citizens go without nessesities like the do in 3rd world countries.

You dont "need" a gun to live so people dont have a right to get one free.

Same with having a tv, radio, phone or computer. If you dont have money you must go without these things.

But food, shelter and water are needed to live, so they should be a right of everyone.

And i'm not some crazy left wind nut, I believe in the idea of a free market.

I just think having a modern society should garentee a certain things for all citizens. If it doesnt then were no more advanced than we were 1000 years ago.


In your order of the world, where are the mechanisms for natural selection? Shouldn't it still be survival of the fittest or are you set on pissing in the gene pool?

Nothing stops poor people having children at the moment anyway?

And you can use that argument against anything.

Why do we have warning labels on anything? Shouldn't we just let the stupid people die?

Why do we vaccinate our children? Shouldn't we just let the weak ones that can't fight diseases naturally die?
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet


Nothing stops poor people having children at the moment anyway?

And you can use that argument against anything.

Why do we have warning labels on anything? Shouldn't we just let the stupid people die?

Why do we vaccinate our children? Shouldn't we just let the weak ones that can't fight diseases naturally die?


Sure, when our system forces others to pay for all the children they want to have why should they limit the number?

People should be given the chance to succeed. But by the same token they should be given the chance to fail. It's dangerous to think that there's nobody out there that is just plain unable to live in a civilized society. Do you want those people living next to you?
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet


Nothing stops poor people having children at the moment anyway?

And you can use that argument against anything.

Why do we have warning labels on anything? Shouldn't we just let the stupid people die?

Why do we vaccinate our children? Shouldn't we just let the weak ones that can't fight diseases naturally die?


Sure, when our system forces others to pay for all the children they want to have why should they limit the number?

People should be given the chance to succeed. But by the same token they should be given the chance to fail. It's dangerous to think that there's nobody out there that is just plain unable to live in a civilized society. Do you want those people living next to you?

Yeah. You can't stop people having children they can't afford and you can't let those children starve. It's a catch 22.

Controlling who could have children would dramatically fix things, but it's just not possible in a democracy. :(

And you think it's bad paying for other peoples children? Here the goverment gives women $5,000 when they have a baby! For every baby too.

So there are 16 years olds pumpin out units and getting 5k a pop. Then getting more $ in doll for each kid they have.

I'd I never want children so that tax I aint ever seeing again!

And then theres goddamn middle class welfare. Families on 60k+ getting child payments and day care allowances.
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Natural Selection doesn't exist anymore.


That's sad. The human race has stopped evolving then.

Actually, that's not true at all. Humans are evolving at about 100x the rate they were 100 years ago.

Don't know how. I would have thought we had stopped evolving but we havn't. Yay!
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet


Nothing stops poor people having children at the moment anyway?

And you can use that argument against anything.

Why do we have warning labels on anything? Shouldn't we just let the stupid people die?

Why do we vaccinate our children? Shouldn't we just let the weak ones that can't fight diseases naturally die?


Sure, when our system forces others to pay for all the children they want to have why should they limit the number?

People should be given the chance to succeed. But by the same token they should be given the chance to fail. It's dangerous to think that there's nobody out there that is just plain unable to live in a civilized society. Do you want those people living next to you?

Yeah. You can't stop people having children they can't afford and you can't let those children starve. It's a catch 22.

Controlling who could have children who dramatically fix things, but it's just not possible in a democracy. :(

And you think it's bad paying for other peoples children? Here the goverment gives women $5,000 when they have a baby! For every baby too.

So there are 16 years olds pumpin out units and getting 5k a pop. Then getting more $ in doll for each kid they have.

I'd I never want children so that tax I aint ever seeing again!


WTF where you at $5k a kid!? wow. child payments and day care?



And then theres goddamn middle class welfare. Families on 60k+ getting child payments and day care allowances.

 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet


Nothing stops poor people having children at the moment anyway?

And you can use that argument against anything.

Why do we have warning labels on anything? Shouldn't we just let the stupid people die?

Why do we vaccinate our children? Shouldn't we just let the weak ones that can't fight diseases naturally die?


Sure, when our system forces others to pay for all the children they want to have why should they limit the number?

People should be given the chance to succeed. But by the same token they should be given the chance to fail. It's dangerous to think that there's nobody out there that is just plain unable to live in a civilized society. Do you want those people living next to you?

Yeah. You can't stop people having children they can't afford and you can't let those children starve. It's a catch 22.

Controlling who could have children who dramatically fix things, but it's just not possible in a democracy. :(

And you think it's bad paying for other peoples children? Here the goverment gives women $5,000 when they have a baby! For every baby too.

So there are 16 years olds pumpin out units and getting 5k a pop. Then getting more $ in doll for each kid they have.

I'd I never want children so that tax I aint ever seeing again!


WTF where you at $5k a kid!? wow. child payments and day care?



And then theres goddamn middle class welfare. Families on 60k+ getting child payments and day care allowances.

Australia bro.

I love this country, and think it's the best in the word, but sometimes we do some retarded shit.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet


Nothing stops poor people having children at the moment anyway?

And you can use that argument against anything.

Why do we have warning labels on anything? Shouldn't we just let the stupid people die?

Why do we vaccinate our children? Shouldn't we just let the weak ones that can't fight diseases naturally die?


Sure, when our system forces others to pay for all the children they want to have why should they limit the number?

People should be given the chance to succeed. But by the same token they should be given the chance to fail. It's dangerous to think that there's nobody out there that is just plain unable to live in a civilized society. Do you want those people living next to you?

Yeah. You can't stop people having children they can't afford and you can't let those children starve. It's a catch 22.

Controlling who could have children who dramatically fix things, but it's just not possible in a democracy. :(

And you think it's bad paying for other peoples children? Here the goverment gives women $5,000 when they have a baby! For every baby too.

So there are 16 years olds pumpin out units and getting 5k a pop. Then getting more $ in doll for each kid they have.

I'd I never want children so that tax I aint ever seeing again!


WTF where you at $5k a kid!? wow. child payments and day care?



And then theres goddamn middle class welfare. Families on 60k+ getting child payments and day care allowances.

Australia bro.

I love this country, and think it's the best in the word, but sometimes we do some retarded shit.

heh i was figuring France actually. i seem to recall hearing they get paid for kids also.

lol that reminds me. about 7-8 years ago i baught a bunch of books from a lady in Australia (can't remember the name now. they were young girls books written there) but she sent them delivered GROUND! i told my wifes sister (got them for her) that they we would have to put them in the dryer first LOL
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
Mixed-income housing is the way to go.

I have subsidized housing developments a couple blocks away. I also have million dollars homes a couple of blocks away. In my townhouse complex, 2 of the 20 units are subsidized. It's all good.

Heck, a detached townhouse a block-away sold for $100k over asking recently. The projects haven't reduced property values here.