Thanks, Obama

[RJKarl]

Why would someone want to live in low income housing in a high income neighborhood? So that there is no bus so they have to spend all of their money on gas and then they have to blow what's left of their paycheck at Whole Foods instead of getting better value at Walmart or Family Dollar? So that they can pay inflated prices for everything? Pro tip (that's what the kids say now, right?): that burger that costs $14 at Sourced Hipster Local Organic Gluten Free Craft Crafty Craft Tap Room Gastropub With a Side of More Handcrafted Craft (with weekend run club, of course) isn't any different than the burger that is 5.99 at Joe's Eats.

Low income housing is also relative. Here in Huntington Beach, they have to build X number of units for lower end end rent. We have Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, lots of fast food, reasonable groery stores as well as Whole Paycheck. There are multiple 99 Cent Stores and a couple of Dollar Trees in HB.

A friend and I are going to one of our favorite places for a bite later on. It's a store front Mexican place. They make homemade chips and great, huge steak burritos that cost $6.99.

By the way Eat at Joe's is around the corner. Their very average burgers are about $9-10. Yes, there are expensive places and tourist traps, but there are a ton of reasonably prices places.

Just a few blocks from where I live is a small neighborhood of lower rent units. A little way from there is another such neighborhood. There's virtually no crime crime in either location. The kids from the lower income housing do well in school.

It can be done.

 

[dartsndeacs]

You can't decouple schools from real estate taxes. You can add to lower income peoples' schools with state aid, but you won't get upper-middle class people class towns to send their money to lesser income areas.

Yes you can, but it requires a radical change.

I imagine schooling 20 years from now will look radically different than school today. More internet/technology will level the playing field.

 

[RJKarl]

Yes you can, but it requires a radical change.

I imagine schooling 20 years from now will look radically different than school today. More internet/technology will level the playing field.

If you do this, RW states will really screw things up. They would use the money for anything but education.

 

[dartsndeacs]

If you do this, RW states will really screw things up. They would use the money for anything but education.

Radical doesn't mean just giving states money.

 

[RJKarl]

Radical doesn't mean just giving states money.

The money for local education comes from local people. The feds pays for about 5% and most of that is for special needs and transportation.

 

[dartsndeacs]

The money for local education comes from local people. The feds pays for about 5% and most of that is for special needs and transportation.

I'm aware. Im saying that what we currently do isn't good. So to fix it means the money doesn't come from local people.

 

[RJKarl]

I'm aware. Im saying that what we currently do isn't good. So to fix it means the money doesn't come from local people.

There's no way the feds could afford to pay for it.

 

[ONW]

For a non-subsidized tenant in North Carolina, NCGS 42-59 through 76 lets a landlord evict a tenant involved in criminal activity or drug activity on an expedited basis and with a preponderance of the evidence standard. So if there is a fight on the property, the property manager sees it, and we have a police report, then we file for eviction at the next Magistrate session and evict the bastard generally within 15-45 days. We don't need to wait for a criminal conviction or anything else. Because it is ultimately our property, and those rights and the safety of the other law-abiding tenants trumps everything else. Take that same scenario with a subsidized tenant, and we have to jump through a completely different set of notice and conviction requirements. So we're talking 4 to 8 months, if we're lucky, while it is tied up in court waiting on the criminal proceedings, all the while they are still living there, causing havoc and not paying their portion of the rent because they know they are likely gone anyway. And in some scenarios, if they plea down to a lesser offense, we can't toss them at all.

To your second question it is both. Some gets passed on, but only to a point when it would exceed other comparable market rates. But the area market as a whole gradually catches up if the problem is widespread, so ultimately all the good tenants pay.

Why accept subsidized tenants at all then? A percent of occupancy requirement to do business?

 

[dartsndeacs]

There's no way the feds could afford to pay for it.

Why not? Just collect the same revenues the states and locals are getting.

 

[RJKarl]

Why not? Just collect the same revenues the states and locals are getting.

Yep, Republicans would let that happen. Plus, I wouldn't want this group setting standards. Science would be in big trouble and religious studies would be much more likely.

 

[dartsndeacs]

Yep, Republicans would let that happen. Plus, I wouldn't want this group setting standards. Science would be in big trouble and religious studies would be much more likely.

Sure, but its what you need to do to fix housing discrimination. I mean I can learn more from google than I can from traditional education methods now.

Also fairly sure that learning French, physics, and most literature was a gigantic waste of time now that I look back on it. Personal Finance, economics, Microsoft office and more computer training would have been much more valuable to most of the workforce.

 

[RJKarl]

Sure, but its what you need to do to fix housing discrimination.

They don't even believe in voters' right and equality. The GOP certainly has no interest in equality of education or housing. Their mantra is, "if you can't afford something, fuck you."

 

[dartsndeacs]

They don't even believe in voters' right and equality. The GOP certainly has no interest in equality of education or housing. Their mantra is, "if you can't afford something, fuck you."

Statements like these are why rational people don't take your positions seriously. Too extreme.

 

[RJKarl]

Why is that extreme? The GOP health plan put 20-30M off of healthcare and makes plan unaffordable while saying it's the fault of the poor that they can't afford it.

Did the GOP not take suits to the SC to get rid of the the Voters Rights Act? Did the GOP in over two dozen states enact voter suppression laws?

For the past forty years hasn't the GOP opposed low income housing?

For the past thirty plus years hasn't the GOP tried to defund and end the Department of Education?

Hasn't the GOP tried to defund Pell Grants (ironically created by a Republican)?

Hasn't the GOP tried to put bankers and brokers in the student loan business to cost middle and lower class students more and enrich the already rich?

 

[dartsndeacs]

The GOP in theory thinks anything the government does is bad and inefficient and that the markets should be able to figure it out. Like with everything, they're probably right on some issues and wrong on others and the best approach is some sort of balance. The lack of compromises and sheer amount of votes that go completely down party lines is the main reason we aren't improving.

Does creating subsidized housing and Pell Grants inflate those costs for everyone else? It costs $200k to go to Wake now and I pay the same in rent for a 700sqft house that I did for a 4,000 sqft house 10 years ago. And while there aren't currently better options than public education there will likely be better private options going forward, and funding public education as we do currently stifles that innovation.

As 2 & 2 said, I'm in the housing industry. When anyone invests in real estate, they generally aim for a set return. When a city says "you need 25% of the units to be labeled affordable housing" to build stuff, the return the investors will seek will be the same. So in order to make that happen, my rent is $300 higher per month than it would be without the affordable units. It's great to help the poor, but can we do it better and without creating market inefficiencies. Probably.

 

[RJKarl]

Pell Grants have little to nothing to do with Wake costing $250K.

RE: Your rent - It's really apples and oranges to compare Vegas of ten years ago (basically in the middle of the crash) to being BH adjacent (if you still live where you told me a few years ago). There has been madness going on up your way for the past 2-3 years. Rents are totally insane, because there are a static number of them. Hell, they are even exploding here. I don't think your rents are going up 10% or more because of low income units.

Hell, my buddy has a place on Elm that he's paying $2000 and change for. When someone moved out of another unit in the building, the new people are paying $4500. It doesn't have anything to do with low income housing. The market is shrinking and there is massive demand.

The prices of houses near where are have gone through the roof as well and that isn't about low income housing.

As I've said since the beginning of the boards, we need a viable third party to keep the two we have in line. As it is, the GOP is beating the Dems like a red-headed stepchild in messaging and marketing. The GOP has been convincing millions of people to completely vote against their families' interests and the Dems have failed miserably at countering these actions.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Why accept subsidized tenants at all then? A percent of occupancy requirement to do business?

No, because in many situations it is considered discriminatory if we don't accept them. So we are forced by one set of regulations into the inefficiencies of another set of regulations.

 

[PhDeac]

So how would you do anti-discrimination regulations?

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

So how would you do anti-discrimination regulations?

Have the goal be that everyone is treated equally. I'm fine with a tenant paying via subsidies if they are subject to the same eviction rules as everybody else. They shouldn't get more protections than anyone else who is involved with the same crime or drug activity. There shouldn't be two sets of rules if the entire point of the anti-discrimination is that everyone has to play by the same rules.

 

[PhDeac]

So how do you make sure everyone is treated equally?