Posted on 04/07/2016 2:35:42 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
Nice theory, but the fact of the matter is I sacrificed for more than 30 years to afford to live were I do. I don’t want my neighbor turning his house into a triplex with dozen or so occupants and thus destroying any value to my property.
I lived in a very charming Baltimore neighborhood 20+ years ago. The city was already cash strapped because the demand on services outran the tax base. People had moved out of the city proper in droves.
This would only make the problem much worse.
No, damages should come from the government. That is why they would be removed from the program.
Agree with your other premises. I’ve seen this in action. Used to live next in a pre-gentrified neighborhood. Next door was a home where 5 generations lived. All women and their kids. The one “man” was a teenager ~17 that lived with his girlfriend and baby(ies?). The only ones that may have had a chance was the babies. Alas, they probably are grandmothers by now as it has been about 25 years. Now its up to saving the next generation. They let the house fall apart around them and eventually had to move. someone came in and renovated it. It’s now worth close to $1.0M, but they sold it for ~39K and walked away homeless after the great-great grandmother died. You would not believe the condition of the house after they left. Camping in the backyard would have been preferable to inside. Never knew they had a dog in the 4 years I lived next to them as it never saw daylight. It did shit throughout the house though.
After one child subsequent children should not result in higher payments. If they cannot be taken care of they should be removed from the home and given a chance. This is a civil rights violation, but you will never hear Jackson, or Sharpton speak of it.
I live in an historic district. The general resurgence of the area is now producing high density, upscale office, apartment and condo development all around the periphery. If we dropped the historic district designation and permitted free development, residential Capitol Hill (a quiet, walkable and bikeable Victorian neighborhood) would be gone within ten years, replaced by steel and glass boxes. This would, of course, occur despite the vehement opposition of most residents to such a development; we might be opposed, but developers would dangle money, the weak links would sell out, blocks would be broken, and the character of the neighborhood would change to the point that the rest of us would give up. So: I agree that protecting the character of the neighborhood is a legitimate objective and that zoning is a necessary tool. But I also recognize that this stance is anti-free market, and that it imposes costs on others. When we impose costs on others, we incur a reciprocal responsibility.
If you want to keep multi-family housing out of your immediate neighborhood, fine. But don't pull up your own drawbridge and then say the poor should be quarantined in projects in the slums. You have some responsibility to support scattered site low and moderate income housing somewhere in your community. That involves tough choices. I'd much rather that each community make them on its own, rather than have a solution imposed by the feds. So what is your solution? So far, you have just made a straightforward NIMBY statement. That doesn't answer the question.
I used to do electrical work for a friend who bought and rehabbed Section 8 condos and resold them.
Everything I described as to damage and theft was very, very common among them. They (leeches) get really pissed when they tear out the sheetrock and find the plumbing isn’t copper pipe....most times the outside AC units and piping to the main unit were gone.
Spoken like a true liberal who says “we” must share some burden concocted out of language that does not exist in our Constitution. Create some ‘burden’ based on personal beliefs and then translate that as a requirement to every citizen.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to force that self-appointed opinion on others just because you ‘believe’ it should be.
What right do you have under the constitution to prohibit your neighbors from freely choosing the most profitable use of their property? What gives you the right to decide they can't turn their house into a rental, and let three Mexican families share it? It is not objectionable low income people who would be making these decisions. It is your own neighbors and/or local investors, who see a profit potential. It is first and foremost their property rights that you are infringing through exclusionary zoning.
And I'll take it a step further. When you systematically sabotage the options available to low income people for decent and affordable housing, you do incur a responsibility to mitigate the costs you are imposing.
The big urban housing projects have been a disaster. We are phasing these out, and it can't happen soon enough. I understand that many suburbanites don't want to think about where the displaced people should go. They think it's not their problem. Fair enough. I live in the city. I will readily pay for a bus ticket to deliver displaced poor people to your doorstep. Then I will go all NIMBY, insist that it's not my problem any more, and let you deal with it. Where will you send them then?
They have to go somewhere. We have to stop using the cities as dumping grounds. Where would you put them?
Zoning is NOT solely to keep ‘undesirables’ out of your area. That’s your assumption as the sole purpose, and you are wrong.
A neighbor’s ‘right’ to do as he damned well pleases, particularly when he’s interested in making a fast buck, DOES make a hell of an impact on MY rights and the freedom to enjoy my property and community. It affects local resources, taxes, substantive resident CONTRIBUTIONS to the general welfare and the overall picture of safety and security in our property and in ourselves.
I don’t ‘systematically sabotage’ available options. I rightly object to some others’ self-determinations about some obligations I ‘owe’ someone, some group, or entity.
I learned a lot about this when my daughter begged me to help her raise some cute little rabbits. WE learned they shit in their cage, so we had to have a mesh wire bottom so the pellets drop out. WE learned that you can’t build a nest haven in which they can birth and care for their young (because they will pee and shit in that, too), and we learned that we had to feed, water and house them, clean up their crap - for mostly no enjoyment. Experiment done and over, never again.
Where to put them? I’d say let’s put them next door to you, then. Your urban concern means nothing to me.
Might be a great opportunity to convert some Libertards to normal Americans.
You obviously bought your residence after a period of urban decay. I’m sure you did your research and determined that the area was “up and coming”. You worked and saved and bought what you could afford. Now your property is worth double or triple what it was when you purchased it. I worked and saved. We both did the right thing and it wasn’t rocket science.
Moving the deck chairs around doesn’t solve anything. Moving criminals and people who either ignore or support thier activities reduces property values and chases the affluent out. You then have no tax base to support the community infrastrcture.(see Detroit) It’s like cutting out skin cancer and grafting it into your lung.
The only way to fix this is to clean up the areas that are diseased. It can be done, but no one has the courage. It won’t be politically correct. It may include profiling.
Problem is politicians survive on cash donations from the very criminals who they claim to despise. Shutting it down turns off the faucet. Moving crime into affluent neighborhoods expands thier enterprisemail and this, my friend, is the reason they are doing it.
move people....move now....your home values will sink like a rock....
your children will be harassed and attacked...
just move...
>In a free market,....
You’re talking Balitmore here, D.C.’s ‘little brother’...not some pie-in-the-sky ‘right-wing’ utopia where Freedom and Liberty exist /s
can we demand that poor people, recipients of much tax money, also be responsible?....as in, they must pay their bills, must send their kids to school, must not allow any drug activity in their nearly free homes or apts, and must generally fit into the culture of their new good neighborhood?...
can we demand that their young men wear their pants above their privates?
Of course zoning has multiple purposes. Keeping undesirables out of the neighborhood, however, is a common one; to see this, all you have to do is follow the arguments over siting any kind of assisted housing facility anywhere outside of a ghetto neighborhood. But there are other reasons. I live in an historic district. Most residents want to preserve the character of the neighborhood. We would be overrun by commercial development very quickly if we relaxed controls. I think we make a good case for strict zoning.
But that said, there is a serious shortage of affordable housing in the area, and preclusive zoning limits capacity and drives up costs. (NYC and San Francisco are the extreme examples.) If we are, as a matter of policy, going to drive up costs to levels poor people cannot afford, do we not have some obligation, as a matter of policy, to make some reasonable accommodation to offset the damage?
You are quick to asset that you have a right to object, and through regulation to stop, your neighbors' uses of their property that you find offensive. When you do this, of course, you are preempting part of their rights as owners. I do not understand why you do not understand that you are thereby imposing a cost. Some of this cost is borne directly by your neighbors, who you are preventing from pursuing profit-making opportunities. And some of it is passed on indirectly in the form of higher costs for people your neighbors might have served. This is not an arcane argument; it is why, for example, rationing produces shortages and in the long run drives up costs.
I asked where you think poor people should live. Your response is that we should put them next to me, because my urban concerns do not matter to you. You will discover that this is not a persuasive argument to anyone who does not live on your particular cul de sac. Poor people, frankly, can no longer afford my neighborhood. We are gentrifying rapidly and pricing them out. The city is also in the process of trying to close a notoriously bad, and very large, homeless shelter at the former site of DC General Hospital. The idea is to build smaller shelters distributed across the city to spread the burden. This is of course the right approach, but of course no neighborhood wants to host the new shelters. You aren't the only one doing the NIMBY dance. But they have to go somewhere. Where?
I would prefer to take that decision out of the hands of government as much as possible. Let's turn housing assistance into vouchers and tell people to find their own apartments. If some move into your neighborhood, that's their decision, and the luck of the draw. Can you think of a better way to do it?
I grant that Baltimore is a special case. Nuke it from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
yep
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
>I grant that Baltimore is a special case. Nuke it from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
Think of the BLUE CRABS *drool*. At least McCormick, further North, should be clear of the blast zone.
Just make sure to *leak* an ‘early release of the new Air Jordan’s’...held in the drop-zone. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT, use a ‘job fair’ /s
Baltimore City has been quietly renting out housing in other Maryland counties for section 8 families. One of the issues has been, that the families thrown into middle class neighborhoods are not happy there. They miss the city, and feel uncomfortable around middle class people. Some stay and adapt, others abandon the program and move back to the ghettos. This is exactly what happens all over the world... and what Europe is facing. People falsely assume this has to do with race... it’s a culture of victimhood and lower SES. These people have to be culturally integrated... both white and black families that have been moved find it very difficult to assimilate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.