Posted on 08/14/2015 9:44:47 AM PDT by Army Air Corps
I hope not.
Had drug problems in a neighborhood I had some investment property in and invited the police to use my building. they ferretted out nests of druggies and it helped move that neighborhood into a positive location. Perhaps the developer can do that with the showcase house.
IOW, poor whites are smart enough to not live in poverty locked neighborhoods to provide a better environment for their kids.
we've designed communities to pen poverty in, restricting many poor African Americans in particular to a limited number of neighborhoods.
Hogwash. No one is keeping blacks there but themselves.
No disagreement here! I just wanted to encourage my Freeper friend. Besides, I think Jesus was actually talking MORE about “Poor in Spirit”, rather than “poor monetarily”.
The entire neighborhood around me is slowly being redeveloped, one house at a time. As old folks die off and their houses come on the market, built circa 1960, they are being torn down and new modern homes built in their place. As the properties are being developed, the taxes of surrounding homes go up as well, so most of the rentals, which have a higher tax value, will be sold to the developers. You can tell who rents and who owns just by looking at the yards.............................
It’s only true.
A rule of thumb I heard while working in Colorado, many moons ago: "Those who work in Aspen don't live there."
People with humble jobs did once live close to their work. It was called, depending on setting, 'the servants' quarters' (urban), the 'bunkhouse', (farm/ranch) etc.
In the event people have to travel long distances to work some place, that should be factored into their compensation. It was the compensation factor (mileage, expenses), among other considerations which led to oil companies making provisions for living quarters for necessary third party service providers on drill sites onshore (offshore living quarters were a given because of access).
More rules (planning and zoning) will only complicate what should be a market driven factor.
That poor rural white man brings to the table what he shoots. The poor urban black man leaves what he shoots in the streets.
In college, I worked summers and one semester off at nearby mountain resorts. Everything was expensive, you could spend $10 on a hamburger there in the mid-80’s. They had employee housing, tucked away out of sight of the resort guests. Trailers. Nothing glamorous about them, but they were affordable, well-maintained and cheap. It was the only way the resort could find and keep quite a few decent employees. The other option was a thirty or more mile commute up and down very steep, curvy roads, for jobs that didn’t necessarily pay all much. I lived in their employee housing for that one semester. Winter winds made the metal roof flutter and crinkle, and they did rock a bit in very high winds. That was disconcerting, never having lived in a trailer before. But, it kept me warm and dry, was very affordable and was nearby.
We just did with raising the min wage for no skilled jobs. All that did was make everyone poorer due to the price of everything having to be raised to accommodate employee's wages. Stupid is as stupid does.
That didn't work in Dallas, TX in the early 70s. They decided to bus the black kids to white schools and white kids to black schools. The white families left their nice quiet neighbors. The blacks moved into those nice quiet neighborhoods and turned them into just what they left behind.
That's an extreme but it illustrates the problem. If we spatially segregate the poor, at some point it takes heroic effort to break free. It is much easier to settle back into a ghettoized neighborhood and live on welfare like all the neighbors. That's a breeding ground for problems deeper than mere unemployment.
As I said in my earlier post, in a real free market in housing, we would abolish rules that restrict group houses, rooming houses, and multiple families doubling and tripling up in suburban neighborhoods. Some of this already happens, of course, if local officials are lax about enforcing the rules. You end up with the six Mexican laborers sharing the house across the street, and as long as they don't jack all their cars up in the yard at the same time, or party too often and too loudly at 3:00 a.m., they may get away with it.
I agree that markets would solve the problem if we let them. But when we systematically prohibit, or severely limit, market responses like the above, it seems reasonable to make other arrangements, lest we trap the poor in dead-end dumping grounds. Maybe the thing to do is simply blow up all the housing projects, and give poor people refundable vouchers.
I love it when leftists try to lecture us whitey’s on how life would be more fair if only we give just a little bit more and we’re just a little more accommodating to the underclass blacks and browns of society.
These clowns are sick!
The trillions of dollars we’ve thrown away towards entitlement programs for them proves nothing will ever help them until they finally decide to help themselves.
Yep! Socialist insanity...
Do you refer to yourself as a hyphenated American like blacks do? Or call Ireland your motherland?
Here in the South, many, if not most of the poor blacks are rural.
Come on down to Alabama, and I’ll show you mile after mile of poor rural blacks.
"Ceterum censeo 0bama esse delendam."
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
I believe I answered that in post #18.
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.