Should people on housing assistance get luxury housing

We had a developer wanting to build an apartment building near where I live. When he went to the Planning Commission meeting there were a bunch of lawyers there representing different groups. One group wanted the building to built with union labor, another wanted solar panels and an environmental study done on the building. Another group wanted 75% of the apartments to be "affordable housing". Another group wanted to control the look of the building so that it "fit in with the area". The developer said "To hell with it." and withdrew his proposal.

We had a developer wanting to build an apartment building near where I live. When he went to the Planning Commission meeting there were a bunch of lawyers there representing different groups. One group wanted the building to built with union labor, another wanted solar panels and an environmental study done on the building. Another group wanted 75% of the apartments to be "affordable housing". Another group wanted to control the look of the building so that it "fit in with the area". The developer said "To hell with it." and withdrew his proposal.

People sure do worry about poor people a lot.

Who gives a hoot?

Worried about someone getting to live in a more nice of a home than you, all the while the we(US) spend $1.5 trillion on a fighter jet program, or bail out rich corporate interests such as insurance companies, banks, and automobile manufacturers with our tax money.

But hey, let's worry about the poor guy trying to make ends meet.

WOW

originally posted by: liejunkie01
People sure do worry about poor people a lot.

Who gives a hoot?

Worried about someone getting to live in a more nice of a home than you, all the while the we(US) spend $1.5 trillion on a fighter jet program, or bail out rich corporate interests such as insurance companies, banks, and automobile manufacturers with our tax money.

But hey, let's worry about the poor guy trying to make ends meet.

WOW

Don't think for one second that things like this doesn't affect everyone. It does.
Also if we really want to help the poor guy, this isn't it. If you want to help a poor person, you would help them
find ways to buy that kind of place on their own. That old fable still holds true, give a man a fish... etc..

It's also a lame to think a person can't be against corporations raking everyone over the coals, and forced income
integration.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Now I get what you are saying and I actually totally agree with you, people work all there lives to pay for such luxuries so that is going a bit too far.

In the UK we still have some public swimming pools and I have not been to one since I was a little kid but they are a useful public amenity - that come with there own danger's hundreds of strangers using those pool's which often have a bit too much chlorine in them which is a necessary downside as quite too often those that use the pool's are less than sanitary.

But a personal pool is most certainly a luxury and by no mean's a necessity of life and if you work hard enough or are simple a rich person then of course you can afford such a luxury, the better off you are the more luxurious it can be ranging from an open air pool to a fully heated indoor Olympic sized swimming pool.

Personally I would not have one, even a garden duck pond can be treacherous if you have toddlers and you know yourself you only have to turn your back for a second for tragedy to strike as happen's all to often somewhere in the world.

So no your tax dollars should not be paying for luxury accommodation, decent human livable and dignified accommodation yes but luxury multi star hotel quality mansions for those whom have not earned them definitely not.

You hit the nail on the head perfectly and we too are suffering that problem over here in the UK a severe shortage of affordable housing causing a crisis and creating homelessness.

Those housing projects around here for low income people are way nicer than most of the apartments around here. The government usually pays about seventy five percent of the cost of those, a twelve hundred dollar a month apartment goes for say three hundred bucks a month, even lower if they are really poor. Most people around here who are not getting the assistance find apartments in the five hundred to six hundred range, quite old and not nearly as nice as they are in the village. Now in the village, if you do go find a good job, then your rent goes up over a thousand, so people don't want to look for a better paying job, they loose too much.

We got problems in our society when someone who works at a part time job gets a nicer apartment than a person who works full time with a wife who also works part time.

originally posted by: dfnj2015


Sure, why not. The billionaires are raping everyone else why shouldn't someone else get a break for a change.

One could then suggest that 30% of the American population add very little to society and spend their whole lives taking from society, does that sound about right too?

The building is being built by the Housing Authority. As such it should include public housing. They are also selling units to the normal population so that the project pays for itself. I see nothing wrong with this at all.

Would you all prefer they didn't build it all, so you could complain instead about the homeless crapping in the streets?

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: JAGStorm

I work and play in America's largest Muslim community...many live in mansion type homes we could never afford...in the nicest sections of town.

"Refugees", immigrants, migrants, green card than back to home country....then back here again "resident's"...on and on.

If one can pass a credit check, get or "borrow" a home down payment....then you can't stop anyone, anywhere from living where the want.

Responding to Er's in these homes as a kid I wished I could have....non-English speaking, non-residents are living in them...and apparently nothing I've seen has kept them from their "non-residents" styles of living.

Caddies, Lexus, Mercedes, Range Rovers, Ferraris, Vets etc...and on assistance status....

One day soon when I retire? I'm gonna let loose the info....

1st Responder, EMT

My guess it is just your guess that they are on assistance. Lots of muslims have money.

Sure.

But here's how we do it:

They get a crummy apartment first. Then after a little bit they get upgraded to a slightly better apartment after showing initiative and make strides towards bettering their life. After more time passes and more evidence of their commitment to their future, they get upgraded to a house. and so on and so forth until their life can warrant that luxury home.


Wait, that sounds exactly like the kind of opportunity everyone is afforded, provided they pursue a career and don't screw up their life too bad by living only in the moment/ not giving a f***.

Huh.

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

They come for the assistance....and although a lot of families are on assistance, with education, Housing, food, monthly checks... Many are dirt poor...and I see them too, Arab traditional dress pushing shopping carts, or spending all day walking around their neighborhoods because many dont drive, cant read english, some not even Arabic because they never went to school...Traffic laws? I am almost KILLED 3 times every single day in my rig because they dont move or stop for red flashing lights....even cutting us off in their Lexus or BMW.

But here, they have immigration lawyers, translators. doctors,attorneys, shopkeepers, business people who send them from airplane to Social Security to Access to Health and Human Services, to Food Programs, Focus Hope...you name it. They help their own, they hold huge multi-funds to help each other and they keep within their own stores, restaurants, businesses. But, they love Walmart....

Businesses? Homes? You can be a visitor and buy a home here. Come back everytime youre allowed to, and other incoming family members will alternate...and it doesnt stop...neither do they. Visit, buy, leave, replaced by additional family who follow the same thing....get assistance., buy a cheap for back taxes house (preferably a two-family)....and keep going.

I know 1 older Iraqi. He is now in his 5th or 6th house in 2 years....supported on full assistance, he buys them for back taxes, moves in....and returns home the required amount of time as others move into his homes and they begin buying up....then he comes back and starts over.

America has zero idea of whats going on really......

a lot of this argument - seems to devolve to :

"i am better than you , so my < > should be better than yours "

i view housing as a box to store my stuff - with somewhere to sleep and eat

a reply to: LABTECH767

One very important caveat to that which I missed, disabled people should have a right to all the amenity's they need as a level of human dignity and in order to promote inclusiveness and care for the disabled in society so in fact there accommodation often does cost a lot more and indeed more than most able bodies working people could afford, only state level aid can help out in such a situation and so they should not be penalized and sometimes, in some circumstances it is moral, right and correct thing for the state (nation) to pick up the cost of there care.

One problem with housing projects for the disadvantaged is also worth looking into more closely.

When a large community is purpose built for the deprived and there are insufficient jobs also created in the area then it is an automatic outcome that these poor neighborhood's end up becoming gang infested, crime riddled and even no go area's. and even when there is a good well funded public school to try to break the cycle it often fail's due to the social complications such ghetto's create.

This in turn makes it even harder for those that grow up or simply live in such areas to find gainful employment or simply to avoid crime which for many become's a way of life or to escape the vicious cycle of the big fish gang bangers in the little pond mentality that gives rise to many of the other incumbent social problem's of these places.

One solution is to make such social housing projects smaller but more numerous and closer to areas of higher employment to prevent this mixing of poverty with poverty and to encourage the poor to mix more with the lower middle class creating new aspirations and creating an environment were they may learn new contacts and make new friend's and to provide government level subsidies to employers that make a point of employing people in these area's, also a living wage in line with the cost of living is an essential to prevent western economy's from spiraling further into inequality and eventual decay.

But putting the poor into large ghetto's simply to keep them out of sight of the well of is never a solution rather it is a seed for yet more social deprivation.

Also remember economy's rise and fall, employers move away or close down and middle class neighborhood's can and do become poor neighborhood's overnight so there will always be predominantly poor area's created though the natural fluctuations of deregulated modern economic's so a welfare system is not a luxury but rather it is a fundamental necessity for any ethical society to have, it should though go to your own people whom are in need of such assistance first and foremost rather than being an impetus for migrant's whom really should not be automatically entitled to it unless they have worked for a decade or more in your economy but that is a very long and complicated debate and I now favor the idea of everyone receiving a basic allowance though in fact such an allowance in a deregulated economy while creating a consumer boom and driving the related job's and industry's actually drive up the price of good's as supply and demand kick in to affect once the initial boost to the economy settles down.

There are a number of reason's why I favor the basic allowance over other safety net's though it has to be driven by ethical taxation band's, the richer you are the higher your band the more of your over all allowance you should have to pay - this is a basic tenet of old democratic social governments in western Europe but has been reversed by right wing de-regulators whom are very definitely in the pocket's and on the payroll of the ultra elite.


What does a genuine deregulated barter society look like, we are not talking economist theory's here but the real thing, poor lying on the street's begging for help, food and a few rupee's like in the city's of India is exactly what it look's like - not so nice is it.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: JAGStorm

Sure, why not. The billionaires are raping everyone else why shouldn't someone else get a break for a change.

So because billionaires are "raping" everyone (think about the meaning of everyone, please), it's OK to force a "break" for "someone" (think about the meaning of someone, please) into an environment most everyone (again definitions) cannot afford, but in this case, we're only forcing that break for a certain class of someone's. Most every other someone, is too rich (not billionaire rich, but certainly far too rich) to ever have a chance at that break.

How is that fair? If the whole point of this is fair housing, then shouldn't these units simply be set aside and a lottery created for anyone who cannot afford the unit to enter regardless of their own personal means?

a reply to: JAGStorm


The real problem is supply and demand.

When people come to this country by the 100,000s a year, and others pop out kids like pez dispensers this is what you get.


The other problem are men/women who walk away from their responsibilities (children). There is a real crisis in child protective services currently. Workers are having to drive around all day and hang out at McDonalds with children because there is no where to place them (adoptive Homes).

Drugs
Overpopulation
Selfishness


I have seen first hand what people do when they can’t get a job, or have anywhere to live. Gangs, death, sheer hell on earth.

I am happy for anyone who has a roof over their head, I don’t give a rats @ss if it’s luxurious or not.


The system is currently geared to keep people dependent on it IMO. They make $20.00 over the guidelines, they lose health insurance, daycare costs are insane. Bad credit, no house. No credit, no house. Most people in housing have damaged credit.

There really should be incentives for moving up.

Also, the illegals are taking up a lot of housing, therefore driving apts costs up.

I actually know a woman who is getting divorced and rented a 2 bedroom for $3,500.00/month. I definitely won’t be retiring here and I was born in Boston. Milwaukee’s sounding pretty good.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: JAGStorm

Sure, why not. The billionaires are raping everyone else why shouldn't someone else get a break for a change.

Yup while billionaires hide their money from taxes and corporations hire teams of lawyers to pay ZERO in taxes we rather focus blame on the poor or tax some new millionaire over 50%.

I don't disgree with OP, but the .01% seem immune from any talk and it's okay for them to just create loopholes .

a reply to: KTemplar

Yeah, there is that problem too.

The system calling itself means tested simply means there is a gate, and if you are a little outside the hard cap, you lose it all whether or not you can make it without losing all the support or not, so without considering what suddenly yanking that amount of support will do to a family that is actually trying to get ahead and wean off, we drastically cut families off at the knees and discourage actual independence.

Example: If you are receiving childcare support for close 10K per year and the cap is 30K income and you suddenly bring in 31K or have the chance to, does that 31K cover the loss of 10K? How daunting a thought is it that your extra money and step toward independence now will lose you 10K that you have to try to budget around?

In the example above, a truly means tested system would gradually taper off assistance to encourage the family to take that leap to 31K instead of just yanking all 10K and making it appear impossible.

a reply to: blueman12

Who said loopholes are OK? What do you think fair or flat tax rate is about? Both systems eliminate loop holes are everyone. But any discussion of the issue has to understand that simply screaming tax the rich attached to a sky high percentage achieves nothing except more of the same.

Perhaps maybe those luxury apartments you mention were originally not so luxury and a hundred percent low I income till they were sold off to a company who wanted to improve the site with the finacial assistance of the city and allowing some units to be high rent as long as a certain percentage is reserved for low income was a compromise that was made?
In my city there has been a few old abandoned buildings that have been converted into apartments. Many that fell into the hands of the city through nonpayment of taxes or such.
I've discussed before about how the demise of the textile industry reduced the company I worked for down to a small company of about thirty employees. It once spanned three buildings. It no longer operates under the same name but many of the employees there were there back then. It holds many of the trademarks from that huge company.
Well one of its former buildings was across the street from where I worked. It say abandoned for decades and the neglect made it an eyesore really. Then it was sold probably for half its value and the workers came in. For weeks I held my breath while walking from my car to the shop because of the dustcloud they kicked up in it. Rumors from the old timers in the shop spoke of abestos and other nasty stuff. But eventually they had apartments for rent ranging from five to six hundred dollars a month to over two thousand. The cheaper ones by the way were in the basement in a small valley were the water would accumulate during a heavy rainfall. In a city plagued with flash floods during heavy rainfall. Which seems to describe many of the low income housing here. I'm not sure if those apartment are water tight or not but I wouldn't consider them luxury even if they were. Heck I wouldn't consider any of them luxury really. The Windows are massive in it. Curtains and blinds must cost a fortune not to mention heating and cooling.
But there is no doubt in my mind that the building was sold for far less its value or that the taxpayers footed a good part of the Bill to convert it into apartments like what seems to happen with most big building projects. If the developers don't like the strings that are attached to that taxpayer funding then as far as I am concerned they can fund their projects themselves.

a reply to: liejunkie01

I don't have a problem helping the poor but the lazy can take a flying leap.