Obama destroys another neighborhood.
 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_256021.html


Subisidized housing destroys neighborhoods. When I am named Commissioner of the universe I am going to do away with HUD. Why spend billions on housing for people that already destroyed their own neighborhoods?
As soon as the hoodrats move into the neighborhood they destroy the schools and crime always goes up. Then the good people that originally lived in the neighborhood leave. The result is a ghetto.

Obama is of peace....always.

So it's really a legal imperative to build "affordable housing" in "affluent areas" now? That seems like the most un-American thing possible, doesn't it? Property values (and, thus, apartment rent etc.) should be a market function, and one of the last pure ones left.

Integration is a good thing, clearly, but this doesn't change the underlying problems at all - in fact, it might exacerbate them. Instead of changing the area code distribution, let's work on changing the number of minorities who find themselves in the upper reaches of the wealth curve. I suppose there will be ancillary benefit (presumably better education for those who move into the new housing), but that seems like a LOT of work for very marginal gain. Is this even a "baby step" so to speak? Shouldn't we focus on larger issues?

Besides this - is there any evidence that forced integration like this actually works to positive effect?

Subsidized housing has ruined many areas where I live. Crime has gone up tremendously and the schools have gone to hell. It hasn't helped anyone in the longterm, IMO.

I don't think so. And what's going to stop current residents from leaving and forming new communities? That'll make this entire initiative moot.

I don't like the look of this.

Are you going to dispute my post?


PS. Get a job and take care of your kids.

Of course they will leave. Who would want to stay after the schools are destroyed, crime increases and the neighborhood is covered with litter and grafitti?

Even George Jefferson moved to the big apartment in the sky as soon as he got some money.

I sure would hate to see a city destroyed by grafitti. Thank God for school systems like the one you went through.

That is the problem. Some of the city schools that used to be good schools, now have 15 full time cops because of all the crime. I can't think of one neighborhood that has been improved and I can name dozens of neighborhoods that have been destroyed by the same people that destroyed their last neighborhoods. To top it off we are spending BILLIONS on these projects.

You probably like grafitti, crime, and lousy schools.

People like you don't care about grafitti because you have no pride.

If I knew what grafitti was, I might be able to dispute your claim.

I'm not a fan of graffiti, though. Spelling was one of the cornerstones of my "lousy" education.

Dude.........get a life.

Is that all you have, a spelling error?

If I spelled it correct would that change the facts of the arguement?

Now that you can spell how about taking care of your kids and getting a job?

Do you have a problem with the truth?


What is a bigger issue, a group of people destroying schools and neighborhoods or me pointing out that they destroyed the schools?

Do you like living in a ghetto?

Is that all you have? Taking care of kids and George Jefferson moving on up?

Now that we've discussed this, how about picking up a dictionary? Covered in grafitti, of course.

No, we have grammar errors as well. The word is correctly.

And sorry, but I don't consider posting a story, from the Huffington Post no less, and then thumping your chest and saying "yeah" to be an "arguement," much less an argument. :rolleyes:

No, what I have a problem with is people who get banned from forums and feel the need to come back under new usernames simply for the purpose of trying to start some sort of political debate. Like I said before, get a life.

I live in a really great neighborhood, by the way. I'm willing to bet it's a lot nicer than yours.

/hijack
k_s, love your siggy.

Wait, you mean they aren't grammer errors?

Damn these kids and unemployment :(

Maybe if you had spelled it correctly, it wouldn't have been such a problem.

Go away madmax, before someone finds hazing porn written by you.

If you live in a great neighborhood then it probably is not subsidized. Like I said, subsidized housing destroys neighborhoods.

:D

Please give specific examples of schools with 15 full time police officers and name the dozens of neighborhoods. It would help with your argument to give specific facts. Otherwise, it's just your opinion.

I actually live in a great neighborhood with subsidized housing. So your argument falls kind of flat.

http://www.sadtrombone.com/

(I'm really sad I didn't find this sooner... could have come in handy so many times...)

There was a successfully integrated housing complex in either Chicago or St. Louis years ago. It worked because residents could not tell (so they claimed) whether their neighbor was middle class or poor.

It proved what many of us already know, which is that poor neighborhoods are run down and criminogenic, not because of the failed efforts of the majority of the residents. Given better living and crime fighting resources, poorer neighborhoods do not differ that much from high income neighborhoods. Law abiding and tax paying citizens generally want the same things regardless of whether they can afford it.

Things like this work in small doses. Despite the shock value of it all, it will most likely be implemented in small doses and to very little fanfair.

This society is class and race segregated by chance (city planning, districting, schooling/zoning, etc.) and by choice. It is impossible to impact the chance without interfering with the choice.

Do you live in subsidized housing?

^^ Please don't forget my request for specific examples.

Have you learned how to spell yet?

You mean he has to back up his claims? Egads.

Don't get sensitive. As a generalization, his argument is accurate. The majority of neighborhoods with subsidized housing are undesirable and the people who live there do not do so by choice.

This is because of the correlates of poverty such as unemployment that are pervasive in these neighborhoods. Subsidized areas with more working poor than unemployed poor suffer from other correlates of poverty such as poor schooling and crime.

This thread is an example of how messages are better received from different messengers. I hear what you're saying kish2.

His message was well-received until he decided to show his ass (again).

The attempts to discuss the topic at hand were thrown to the wayside after we were reminded that "George Jefferson moved on up" and were told to take care of our children.

uh huh and you all chose to respond to his thread. no surprises here, people.

Sure, that is easy. Lincoln HS in Phila has 14 full time cops and that is not even a big school. Name me one public school in Phila that does not have full time cops. Be specific!

All the integrated neighborhoods in the city have been destroyed.

N. Philly
S. Phila,
SW Phila,
NE Phila

I could pretty much name a dozen neighborhoods in EACH of those areas. Why do you think most people moved out of the city? The city population went from 2.1 mil down to 1.5 while the suburbs went from almost nothing to 3.5 million. The city has 400 murders per year while the burbs with double the population has very few murders. N. Philly is pretty much a warzone. The cops call it the badlands. The state actually leads the nation in black homicides thanks to a couple sq miles in N. Philly and you wonder why we won't let you in the pool.



The ONLY neighborhoods that have not been destroyed are the ones with minimal integration.

The initial responses weren't necessarily addressed to him. They discussed the topic at hand.

Whether or not we agree with him is irrelevant once he starts spouting BS.

The title of this thread calls to mind a godzilla-style Obama who hulk smashes all the houses.

Case in point...

I don't think it's irrelevant.

Try explaining WHY you think that post is BS.

"The ONLY neighborhoods that have not been destroyed are the ones with minimal integration."

Obviously, his intent is to stir up drama, NOT to have intelligent discussion. Bringing up "black homicide" and "not letting us in the pool" have nothing to do with the negative effects of integration. I agree with you (and him, I guess) that a lot of low-income areas are plagued with crime and less-than-stellar school districts, and forcing integration will do little to change that.

But if the only way he can get his point across is by telling "my people" to get jobs and take care of our kids (ie. his bullshit), then I can't quite take him seriously.

Again, there was a start to a good discussion until he showed his ass.