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

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: krunchykrome

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Well, government wouldn't build those kind of complexes in Beverly Hills, so I think they'll build it where they think fits. That means if they build something like that next door to you, chances are you shouldn't be worried too much, you belong.

thats a stupid comment

check out the last 3 years best places to live in America per money magazine

Columbia, MD was 3rd last year and this year we're 8th or 9th

but part of the blue print for this community was to have diversity. What that has meant for us is expensive houses and public housing literally minutes away.

Eh, no.

In SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (so that there would be no confusions), all of our cities have this "diversification" requirement too. But be as it may, you'll never see a project in the middle of ANY respectable residential areas.

 

[imported_Imp]

With the spoiled, rich retards we've had next door for most of my life, I wouldn't mind. Might kill the property value though. Hey, our house kills the property value of our neighbours, so what the hell.

 

[TwiceOver]

Well it's not a Large Hadron Collider so I really don't see the problem.

 

[Throckmorton]

The way I see it, the odds of a hot girl next door are going to go way up.

 

[Bryophyte]

We successfully stopped a 17-house 'luxury' subdivision from being built a couple miles away from our home.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
I'd come on the internet and bitch about it.

How's the audacity of poor people wanting shelter. What do they think this is, a first world country or something?

A first world country is not when where the government finds housing for people. It's where people wipe their own asses and find their own place.

Some people need it all spelled out. And yes, if I lived in a house and they were building that in my neighborhood, I would be pissed.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: Pocatello
The thought of so many Democrats moving into the neighborhood...it's time to move.

:laugh:

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
I'd come on the internet and bitch about it.

How's the audacity of poor people wanting shelter. What do they think this is, a first world country or something?

A first world country is not when where the government finds housing for people. It's where people wipe their own asses and find their own place.

Some people need it all spelled out. And yes, if I lived in a house and they were building that in my neighborhood, I would be pissed.

Err, housing is a right, not a privilege.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: paulxcook

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I have an amazing idea! Let's just bulldoze all government subsidized housing for the sake of our property value. Really...it's ok that these people live on the streets no matter how old they are or how many kids they have because the more of them that there are the more they can work together to improve our great community. It's not like homeless people ever commit crimes. Oh and everyone is completely cool with living in cities where the homeless population is off the charts. That sort of thing never reduces property value so we don't have to worry about that. In fact, I think it even attracts more people to move there! These new people who love living around the crime and drug free homeless people will bring tons of profitable business and tax dollars to our town. These dollars can be used for all sorts of great things! Just think about what it will do for our children and their schools which greatly depend on this money to function properly and ensure America's future. Heck, these homeless people will even offer little Jimmy good social experiences by providing him with someone to talk to as he waits for the school bus. This idea is pure win.

Nothing to see here folks....move along. :roll:

Bluster and hyperbolize all you want, you'd be upset if something like that set up close to you and suddenly your wife got mugged, your cars windows were smashed, or your kids were pressured to buy drugs while walking home. You know it's true. Admitting it doesn't make you a bad person. You're just under the mistaken impression that it is everyone else's responsibility to pick poor people up, dust them off, and give them a life they aren't willing to work for themselves.

Obviously I do not want crimes committed against me, my family, or anyone else. However, this kind of housing doesn't instantly turn an area into a ghetto either. Likewise, it doesn't help it much. So, don't exaggerate the reality.

In terms of responsibility, the point is that your streets are kept much safer when these people are not being forced into desperate situations such as not having money for food, shelter, or electricity. I am not saying they deserve it, but I do know that without it we would all see a hell of a lot more crime. People get desperate when they do not have what they need to live. Desperation leads to defiance. Defiance and desperation leads to desperate crimes. So, in a sense, paying for these people is basically choosing the lesser of two evils. Sure, you could try the opposite approach which is to just tell them to fuck off, but if you think for even an instant that such a thing is going to make your life better instead of worse then you got another dose of reality coming to you.

A lot of these people are single moms with full time jobs that do not come close to paying their expenses. Others are way too old or disabled to work. These people need homes to live in or else they will have to live on the street. Your streets. Living on the streets makes stealing and other crimes seem like a much more viable option to most people.

 

[Darwin333]

I'd be selling my house as quickly as possible while it still has some value.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

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.

When i was at home the last time there was this girl that my daughter was a friend of and she was in that group, i have nothing but good things to day about her and her family.

They were the most polite and down to earth people i have ever met.

So no, i would not mind that at all.

Besides, it's always the VP living in his Chateu next door that will run over your daughter because "he drives just fine when drunk".

Money has nothing to do with character, you'll learn that as you grow up.

I will purchase you a home next to one of these fine housing developments in my city if you agree to live in it for a minimum of 1 year. Deal?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I have an amazing idea! Let's just bulldoze all government subsidized housing for the sake of our property value. Really...it's ok that these people live on the streets no matter how old they are or how many kids they have because the more of them that there are the more they can work together to improve our great community. It's not like homeless people ever commit crimes. Oh and everyone is completely cool with living in cities where the homeless population is off the charts. That sort of thing never reduces property value so we don't have to worry about that. In fact, I think it even attracts more people to move there! These new people who love living around the crime and drug free homeless people will bring tons of profitable business and tax dollars to our town. These dollars can be used for all sorts of great things! Just think about what it will do for our children and their schools which greatly depend on this money to function properly and ensure America's future. Heck, these homeless people will even offer little Jimmy good social experiences by providing him with someone to talk to as he waits for the school bus. This idea is pure win.

Nothing to see here folks....move along. :roll:

Or how about we come up with a better system that doesn't encourage crime, keep people in poverty, AND screw the neighborhood up. Naw.... couldn't do something like mixed income housing or anything that MIGHT actually work. Lets keep all those poor bastards in one place so the rest of us don't have to see or deal with them.

 

[0roo0roo]

seniors fine, poor no.

spreading out the poor to nicer areas=crime wave
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/memphis-crime

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: ivan2
sell the house immediately before this new complex hits the news. and NOT to create news with protest because likely are the government won't give a damn about your protest.

agreed, there like it or not, there is a certain clientele that inevitably goes along with low income housing that will probably make your home feel less safe.

That aside, there is a stigma that goes with complexes like this that will drive the property values down.

get out now while you can still get some value from the home.

 

[xeemzor]

To all the PC people out there, have you ever actually been to an area totally overwhelmed by section 8 housing? It's usually very slummy, with crappy and ill-maintained houses. The schools are usually terrible, and it creates a cyclical trap of poverty.

There is a reason that people are unable to afford their own homes and have to rely on HUD, and it's not because they are highly educated and work hard. Go ahead and attack me with specific counter examples, but the truth is that I'm right for the vast majority of cases.

 

[PokerGuy]

No matter how the PC crowd wants to spin it, here are the facts:

1) property value will go down
2) crime will rise
3) drug use will go up

Even if magically crime does not go up and every single one of the poeple moving into such a development are wonderful upstanding citizens, the reality is that once people find out that the development is coming, they will flee, so the home values go down regardless of what happens after the development.

Given those facts, the rational decision is to fight tooth and nail or immediately sell your home when you got wind of such a development.

 

[archiloco]

find a way to protest/stop it or the second option is to buy the land third option is to get the heck out

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I have an amazing idea! Let's just bulldoze all government subsidized housing for the sake of our property value. Really...it's ok that these people live on the streets no matter how old they are or how many kids they have because the more of them that there are the more they can work together to improve our great community. It's not like homeless people ever commit crimes. Oh and everyone is completely cool with living in cities where the homeless population is off the charts. That sort of thing never reduces property value so we don't have to worry about that. In fact, I think it even attracts more people to move there! These new people who love living around the crime and drug free homeless people will bring tons of profitable business and tax dollars to our town. These dollars can be used for all sorts of great things! Just think about what it will do for our children and their schools which greatly depend on this money to function properly and ensure America's future. Heck, these homeless people will even offer little Jimmy good social experiences by providing him with someone to talk to as he waits for the school bus. This idea is pure win.

Nothing to see here folks....move along. :roll:

Or how about we come up with a better system that doesn't encourage crime, keep people in poverty, AND screw the neighborhood up. Naw.... couldn't do something like mixed income housing or anything that MIGHT actually work. Lets keep all those poor bastards in one place so the rest of us don't have to see or deal with them.

I do not disagree with coming up with trying to come up with better system. I am always for trying to increase efficiency.

That post was in response to everyone here that was basically just taking a, "Screw these people! Let them rot!" attitude. They do not realize that such an attitude will only make it so these people end up negatively effecting their lives even more. Less of these people on the streets is a good thing. Making them less desperate and thus less motivated to commit crimes is a good thing.

Also, one of the major purposes of spending money on these people is in hopes that they and/or their kids have a better shot at climbing out of the hole they are currently in and it does work to some extent. It doesn't work as well as I would like it to work, but that doesn't mean I am not going to give credit where credit is due either. By gathering all of this low income housing and mashing it all into one area will decrease the chances of success when it comes to these people fixing their problems and that especially goes for their kids. I am not saying that we should spread this stuff out everywhere equally, but we need to draw the line with how much we condense it too or else we are just shooting ourselves in the foot and wasting more money than what is already being wasted.

In the end, I do not disagree with the points people have made about not liking the fact that this stuff is being built next door to their communities. I wouldn't like it either, but the fact is that they most likely are not going to be able to stop it from happening. Their best shot of avoiding the problem if they feel it is worth avoiding is to move and to move to some place where the land value is much higher in the surrounding area because there is not enough money in most budgets to build and maintain this kind of housing on land which is expensive. So, for the most part the system works as it should. You got the lower class living on land which is cheapest. You got the lower-middle class living between them and the middle class. You got the middle class living between the lower and upper middle class and so on. Obviously there isn't one section of town dedicated to each class. There are clusters everywhere and this system is not consistent everywhere, but generally it is what happens.

Therefore, if you want to reduce the odds of this issue happening to you then you got to pay for it just like everyone else. You got to pay to live in an area where the standard of living and land values are higher. As much as I wish it were possible, such a luxury will never be handed to anyone for free. If you want it, then you have to pay for it.

 

[ICRS]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: krunchykrome

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Well, government wouldn't build those kind of complexes in Beverly Hills, so I think they'll build it where they think fits. That means if they build something like that next door to you, chances are you shouldn't be worried too much, you belong.

thats a stupid comment

check out the last 3 years best places to live in America per money magazine

Columbia, MD was 3rd last year and this year we're 8th or 9th

but part of the blue print for this community was to have diversity. What that has meant for us is expensive houses and public housing literally minutes away.

Eh, no.

In SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (so that there would be no confusions), all of our cities have this "diversification" requirement too. But be as it may, you'll never see a project in the middle of ANY respectable residential areas.

We do have section 8 multifamily complex in respectable areas in so cal.

 

[andy04]

I would sell my house and run like hell... I cant be lucky with dodging the bullet every day

 

[LeadMagnet]

Originally posted by: Bignate603
They've got to build it somewhere.

Next thing you know you'll be surrounded by Goodwill and Salvation army stores.

more like liquor, pawn, check cashing, and tattoo shops.



They built something like that near my old house. In Massachusetts for every 6 houses a developer builds in a neighborhood, one must be for low income. So when you drive thru this new sub division today every 6th house has grass 2 feet tall and POS car broken down in the driveway.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet

Originally posted by: Bignate603
They've got to build it somewhere.

Next thing you know you'll be surrounded by Goodwill and Salvation army stores.

more like liquor, pawn, check cashing, and tattoo shops.



They built something like that near my old house. In Massachusetts for every 6 houses a developer builds in a neighborhood, one must be for low income. So when you drive thru this new sub division today every 6th house has grass 2 feet tall and POS car broken down in the driveway.

That's what the people there get for voting in commies like the Kennedys all these years.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
I'd come on the internet and bitch about it.

How's the audacity of poor people wanting shelter. What do they think this is, a first world country or something?

A first world country is not when where the government finds housing for people. It's where people wipe their own asses and find their own place.

Some people need it all spelled out. And yes, if I lived in a house and they were building that in my neighborhood, I would be pissed.

Err, housing is a right, not a privilege.

Since when?

There seem to be a lot of homeless folks here in Denver, having their "rights" violated then.