It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Seattle wants to eliminate single family zonings to increase diversity

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: caladonea
a reply to: JadeStar

Thank you for your explanation...and I agree that is what is happening in Seattle. I live in downtown Seattle...I have been at my place for 19 years...it is home!


I love it. I can't imagine living anywhere else!




posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: ketsuko

The Feds were offering up funding for cities that would do this.




Can there be any doubt that the Imperial Federal Government HATES achievers?


"The rising tide lifts all boats."

Isn't it better that people become better educated and thus productive taxpayers?

One thing to note for people not familiar with my city. It doesn't really have like "ghettos". Its lower income areas are fairly mixed and people tend to get along here a bit more than in certain cities to the East or South.

I grew up in a middle class neighborhood but I went to school with kids who were middle class, lower class and even some whose parents were big wigs at Micro$oft.

Just sayin' the original post was kinda alarmist and no one who lives here really would see these things as the the original poster does.
edit on 10-7-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
This is about money. For example, if there is a neighborhood where the average house cost $500.000 and a lot becomes available, a developer can buy the lot, put a high rise condo with 10 units in it, and sell them for say $250,000 each. He gets the money five-times more if he had built another $500,000 home. People will buy them because they want to be in *that* neighborhood, which before was out of their reach.

No body is going to put a section VII or low-rent housing in that neighborhood. It's the usual American Way. Greed.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
*slowly raises middle finger to Gov't over this manufactured 'issue'*



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Bottom line is, our "leaders" never have to live with any of the bull# they pass. They live in gated communities, with armed guards at the gate. They always have armed security that double as their drivers, and some of them even carry guns themselves. When they talk about all this # like gun control, diversity or whatnot, it never involves them. Their neighborhoods are about as undiverse as it gets, you have to have millions just to afford the property taxes, let alone buy a place. There are even whole communities these days, behind the gates. Stores and everything.

The ones that don't live in gated communities, well, it's because they can afford their own "compounds". Peons have their compounds burned to the ground, them, they have no problem.
edit on Fri, 10 Jul 2015 22:07:41 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maverick1
Diversity and multiculturalism might work on paper, but the real life societal effects are doomed from the start. Multiculturalism and forced diversity aren't saving diversity---they are destroying it.

Ironically, the only thing that will keep diversity alive is division.


War is Peace? Freedom is Slavery? Ignorance is Strength?

1984?
edit on 10-7-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: TKDRL
Bottom line is, our "leaders" never have to live with any of the bull# they pass. They live in gated communities, with armed guards at the gate. They always have armed security that double as their drivers, and some of them even carry guns themselves. When they talk about all this # like gun control, diversity or whatnot, it never involves them. Their neighborhoods are about as undiverse as it gets, you have to have millions just to afford the property taxes, let alone buy a place. There are even whole communities these days, behind the gates. Stores and everything.

The ones that don't live in gated communities, well, it's because they can afford their own "compounds". Peons have their compounds burned to the ground, them, they have no problem.


I don't know about that. I grew up in the neighborhood of the person who was mayor when I was in high school. They didn't live that far away from my family and it wasn't a gated community or compound either.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar
Sounds a lot like a "statesmen" to me. Mayor is more local.

I have done work for more affluent government, and more affluent businessmen. There are people out there in areas like greenwich CT that you never heard of, but have armed help all over their houses. Their drivers, their butlers, their maids are all armed and seem as ready to die and kill for their masters as any secret service agent is.

edit on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 00:33:21 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

All the cool kids move to Portlandia... Just sayin'


Actually we live across the river in WA and go there to shop and eat...



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Seamrog

I pay plenty of attention to them.

The places you have mentioned are suffering the sort of problems that come from the effects of a lack of government action to ensure even mixing of ethnicities and cultures within communities there, more than they suffer from anything else.

A lack of policy on these matters is what causes this near ghettoisation we see in places like those you describe. The fact is, that done right, multiculturalism works brilliantly when properly managed, but if local councils and the nations government alike will insist on unofficially approving a circumstance in which entire areas are populated by a massive ratio of one ethnicity, and a tiny proportion of other groups, then of course things are going to have a different feel.

Again, the problem in most of the places that the papers like to moan about, is a lack of policy to ensure a proper and healthy mix of different people in those locations. Where I am, the council have done a good job of ensuring that everyone is everywhere, if you catch my drift, and that is why it works. None are over represented, none are so minimal in number that they have no voice. As a result, the situation is positive and healthy for everyone concerned.

Also, it has to be said that if our local council can achieve a sensible approach to integrationist policy making, one which seems to be very effective mind you, then I can see no reason why any other council could not do the same. I say that because our council, in nearly every other capacity, has to be one of the most utterly incompetent, useless collectives of bastards ever elected to office outside of Westminster.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I see - more government is the answer.

Policies that force integration are good. Policies that force integration are good. Policies that force integration are good. Policies that force integration are good. Policies that force integration are good. Policies that force integration are good.
Policies that force integration are good. Policies that force integration are good. Policies that force integration are good. Policies that force integration are good. Policies that force integration are good. Policies that force integration are good.
Policies that force integration are good. Policies that force integration are good. Policies that force integration are good. Policies that force integration are good. Policies that force integration are good. Policies that force integration are good.

Keep telling yourself that, my friend.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Seamrog

I do not need to tell myself that, because I worked that one out for myself long ago. Ghettoisation is wrong, and the only solution is to ensure that in as many situations as possible, there is an even mix of folk over a given square mile of town.

Everyone being neighbours to everyone else, allows for a number of positive effects to come about. First it promotes unity amongst all members of a community, not just unity amongst members of like ethnic groups. Second, it means that linguistic barriers will come down faster, since residents from abroad will always be able to hear the English language, no matter where they go, or what they do. Third, it will mean that things affecting the community will affect all of its members, and when they come together to act for their betterment as a whole, this also promotes integration, combats a lack of engagement, and promotes mutual respect as well.

Now, I know these concepts might be a little bit high minded and may also probe at some tender spots with some people, but with the greatest respect in the world, people need to live, and society needs them to live in peace. The best way for that to happen is by exposure, by constant immersion in a multicultural environment, rather than what happens in some places where ghettoisation means that miniature versions of other nations get built right on our doorstep.

I will garun-damn-tee that the results of a properly managed housing policy will be better than the results of totally unchecked ghettoisation of inner city areas.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
This cities been heading into the gutter for a while.

This will quicken the pace and turn it into a # hole like Chicago, parts of Baltimore, St Louis, etc.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Seamrog

I do not need to tell myself that, because I worked that one out for myself long ago. Ghettoisation is wrong, and the only solution is to ensure that in as many situations as possible, there is an even mix of folk over a given square mile of town.

Everyone being neighbours to everyone else, allows for a number of positive effects to come about. First it promotes unity amongst all members of a community, not just unity amongst members of like ethnic groups. Second, it means that linguistic barriers will come down faster, since residents from abroad will always be able to hear the English language, no matter where they go, or what they do. Third, it will mean that things affecting the community will affect all of its members, and when they come together to act for their betterment as a whole, this also promotes integration, combats a lack of engagement, and promotes mutual respect as well.

Now, I know these concepts might be a little bit high minded and may also probe at some tender spots with some people, but with the greatest respect in the world, people need to live, and society needs them to live in peace. The best way for that to happen is by exposure, by constant immersion in a multicultural environment, rather than what happens in some places where ghettoisation means that miniature versions of other nations get built right on our doorstep.

I will garun-damn-tee that the results of a properly managed housing policy will be better than the results of totally unchecked ghettoisation of inner city areas.


Wow. Star for you!

It amazes me how people both can support ghettoization while also criticizing and condemning those who live in ghettos. Illogical.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: JadeStar

All the cool kids move to Portlandia... Just sayin'


Actually we live across the river in WA and go there to shop and eat...


Oh yeah, Vancouver! (The original one, not the Canadian one.) :p



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


The social engineers are ones that MADE the modern ghetto.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Thanks to all who provided source documents and context!!! I am an info junkie~


The process unfolding in Seattle seems to be quite a bit more thoughtful and transparent to the citizens than similar projects that have essentially amounted to Corporate Welfare schemes and political pork projects in other cities. So kudos to Seattle and her citizenry for that!!

I think duplexes and triplexes and small-ish townhome developments are not a bad housing option, if the ownership is local and responsive to the tenants and citizens of the neighborhood. And the rents stay more or less in the immediate area to be put to use in the local economy. Not everyone wants to be an owner anymore. This is the age of "monthly everything"... music streaming, ebook and online news subscriptions, Community Supported Agriculture coops, leasing instead of buying your transportation... housing is just the next logical leap.

Even better if the residents can buy a deeded share in the place, rather than having to buy a whole parcel with one dwelling on it. Would be preferable if the mortgage money stays in the area also... wondering if there are any stipulations to that effect?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join