Posted on 03/03/2011 11:42:36 AM PST by Never on my watch
A controversy between Macon City Council and the city administration over houses built by the city with federal funds has been simmering for the past couple of years. Now the issue has come to full boil.
During a City Council Public Properties Committee meeting last week, several council members blasted Mayor Robert Reichert and Wanzina Jackson, the city’s director of the Economic and Community Development Department, about repeat issues pointed out in city audits that are related to that department.
The main question from the council: Has the city spent money from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development correctly? And if Macon has spent federal money on expenses for which the funds aren’t authorized, for how much is the city on the hook?
(Excerpt) Read more at macon.com ...
Here’s all we need to know about this problem: “Wanzina”
I here tell, the road to hell, is paved...
Sounds like a type of venereal disease outbreak.
Liberals are always victims, even if they fail to recognize that they are 'victims' of Liberal policies.
Check out the Norman Rockwell-type family portrait of the needy family at the link. (It’s a little difficult for me to post the picture from this computer).
That would be “Schwanzina”.
Macon. barf. I wouldn’t live there if you paid me. Of course many people are essentially being paid to live there. The Tawanda’s and Ladarrious’ of the world.
Tawanda Sears, left, with her nephew LaDarrious King, right, has been trying for a year to rent one of the homes on Hanson Street in Macon like the one pictured, which is King’s home and was renovated by the city of Macon through a federal Housing and Urban Development program.
Do you think that photo has been "shopped"?
Thanks!
And thanks for that gentle reminder of the love and gratitude shown by those who are the most ‘needy’.
“the city’s director of the Economic and Community Development Department”
I remember how wildly I laughed at an editorial by Paul Krugman where he complained (and I can only paraphrase his idea not his exacts words) how in the past (some bygone era) taxpayers were not so stingy at funding the “basic services” of state and local government.
As the title above shows: If ONLY they were simply providing the “basic services” they were intended to provide (and, I might add, not paying lavish benefits to provide them).
I don’t even drive though that town unless there is no other option. It is turning into the Detroit or Camden NJ of the south.
My point was about “basic services” of government, as such “basic services” were once understood and practiced - public safety (police and fire), local courts, local roads (and in some cases trash pick-up services), sewer and water systems, local public schools, building permits - FIN.
I’m with you. But you and I do pay for those services. We don’t have an entitlement mentality about them. The ‘community development’ lady goes about giving things away to people who won’t pay for them.
That was my main point.
The nut Paul Krugman was complaining about the taxpayers being stingy about “basic services”, today compared to yesteryear, when in fact the issue is that the taxpayers are paying for a zillion things in addition to “basic services” as they were traditionally understood; and the title of the idiot bureaucrat in the article was a perfect example of the modern over-reach beyond traditional basic services.
Now, often, these excess departments at the local level have in fact been created, and the office holders paid for, locally, as a bureaucratic “necessity” for “managing” (politically directing) federal funds that come as either a mandate, an unfunded mandate, a grant, a permanent “federal” program, a permanent program partially funded by the federal government and given federal funds only if state and/or local funds are committed.
In other words, “federal” legislation has induced, in one way or another, not just the zillions of “local” programs beyond traditional basic services, but even with federal funding the programs have required expansion of the need for local funding to support and carryout the local “management” of the programs.
The process has subverted the federal and republican nature of our system of government, with the “national” purse strings tying every level of government into de-facto sub-units of the “central” government in Washington, D.C.; inch by inch, law by law, on EVERYTHING the local government is doing.
Well said.
Problem is, even with all the "packages," not enough people can qualify for the financing and the city is too stupid to know how to rent them.
City Housing Authorities generally know how to do "Stupid" very well and are usually manned (and womanned)top to very large bottom by amazingly stout Affirmative Action Ani who are licensed to steal.
So why are factory workers in Minnesota required to pay federal taxes to build homes for someone in this community?
Did I miss something; is this in the Constitution?
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.