- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mixed Income Housing
Posted on 7/6/14 at 8:02 am to Hog on the Hill
Posted on 7/6/14 at 8:02 am to Hog on the Hill
Do you not understand that rich people just don't want to live with poor people, and that they will not pay high prices to do so?
1
Posted on 7/6/14 at 8:05 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:They won't?
Do you not understand that rich people just don't want to live with poor people, and that they will not pay high prices to do so?
Posted on 7/6/14 at 8:09 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:It is, as long as it is thoughtfully implemented.
I think it's a massive improvement over the old method of building housing projects.
Given appropriate opportunity for contiguous community involvement, and appropriate respect and response to that involvement, it is better than a DesireProjects-type alternative.
quote:It is used in various forms nationwide.
edit: I'm not sure if a policy like this is appropriate outside of a few select cities. In NYC, I think it's a good idea.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 8:49 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
First of all, mixed income housing is not new in New York, and it's not originally a De Blasio policy. If anything, he's just continuing and modifying an existing program. The reason it's become a popular idea is because the old style of building housing projects all lumped up in one spot just concentrates poverty into one area, dumping a bunch of poor, desperate, unemployed people on top of each other. Since no one has money, businesses avoid the area, so those people have to travel longer distances to get jobs. It also promotes formation of gangs and black-market economies (primarily drug-related). By using mixed income housing developments, poorer people can be integrated into the actual community instead of being crammed into a few areas in the city. There's no 'ghetto' and the demographics are more uniform, and poor people have the same geographic access to transportation and businesses that wealthier people do. I think it's a massive improvement over the old method of building housing projects. The NYC projects are pretty soundly reviled as being failures. I mean, they do their job of housing poor people, but they do so in a way that just exacerbates poverty and crime. Mixed housing is way better. edit: I'm not sure if a policy like this is appropriate outside of a few select cities. In NYC, I think it's a good idea.
Naive. Spreading poverty all over town is a great way to ruin a city.
I've seen it happen with section 8 housing in EBR. Local residents fought the St. Jean apt complex tooth and nail in the early 90's. The project went ahead, and I have watched it lower the property values of everything within a couple mile radius. What used to be a kept-up Circle K is now a cracked out "Save More #3". The entire stretch of townhomes along O'Neal just south of Harrell's Ferry has gone from respectable to ghetto.
And this is happening all over the parish. It already happened along Coursey near Sherwood - "we accept ebt" reads the sign in front of the Chevron on Coursey. It happened to the Siegen corridor, a part of town that had immense potential. So what do young families and the affluent do? They leave the parish/state. People take their money and move to Ascension, Livingston, or even Houston.
See that's what happens with these feel-good well-intentioned progressive ideas. Some liberal in a coffee shop says "wouldn't it be nice if we could all live together regardless of income". And it sounds nice. But when put into practice the negative side effects overwhelm anything positive it was supposed to do.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 9:38 am to RidiculousHype
This is why I said it might not work outside of certain cities. I think it works for NYC, but I doubt it would work in, say, Little Rock.
In proper context, my views are not naive.
In proper context, my views are not naive.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 9:40 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
This is why I said it might not work outside of certain cities. I think it works for NYC, but I doubt it would work in, say, Little Rock.
In proper context, my views are not naive.
Why does it work in NYC and not Little Rock?
Serious question.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 9:46 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:Just a guess but I would say limited land space. In Baton Rouge you can move to a different Parish and still have a reasonable commute.
Why does it work in NYC and not Little Rock?
Posted on 7/6/14 at 9:52 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
Since no one has money, businesses avoid the area
I know a guy who was a regional manager of a grocery chain. He told me that they could make money in the poor neighborhoods except for one problem... theft. The markups to cover losses due to shoplifting would be ridiculous. So, they don't build there.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 9:58 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
That's exactly what they did with many of the projects in NOLA.
but yet when the locals want to stop it from happening, a federal judge says the fair housing act is violated and finds against them
the owners are getting federal tax breaks and subsidies to build these projects
Posted on 7/6/14 at 10:03 am to Zach
I have not seen it mentioned yet, but as a caveat to developers, affordable housing component is usually a bargaining chip for them to increase their density over and above zoning and/or land use regulations through a developer's agreement with government entity. Developers will take this anytime - $$$ in their pockets.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 10:05 am to Zach
The theory is flawed.
If you add a teaspoon of wine to a barrel of sewage, you have a barrel of sewage.
If you add a teaspoon of sewage to a barrel of wine, you have a barrel of sewage.
If you add a teaspoon of wine to a barrel of sewage, you have a barrel of sewage.
If you add a teaspoon of sewage to a barrel of wine, you have a barrel of sewage.
This post was edited on 7/6/14 at 10:32 am
Posted on 7/6/14 at 10:07 am to Zach
quote:
Mixed Income Housing
Atlanta already has this for residential towers going up in Downtown. They get tax breaks for this.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 10:15 am to Toddy
Toddy, I spent a lot of time at Emory U. Great school. Is Druid Hills still for the rich folks?
Posted on 7/6/14 at 10:20 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Why does it work in NYC and not Little Rock?
Serious question.
That's a really tough question to answer. Having lived in both cities, it's something I just have a 'sense' for and it's hard to put into words.
First of all, since NYC is so dense, most residential construction here is large scale, multi-family, and already in proximity to public transportation, schools, and a wide variety of businesses. In that sense, most of those construction projects are appropriate for mixed income housing, because lower income families will have good access to jobs and amenities--they will be well integrated into the community, so their benefit is obvious. In Little Rock, most construction is at the periphery of the city, and you need a car to get around and to access jobs and basic services.
NYC is also a place where almost everyone uses public transportation and is accustomed to sharing personal space with all kinds of other people, rich and poor. So in that sense, mixed income housing is not shocking to anyone.
A new subdivision in West Little Rock is not a place where the truly poor can succeed because there are a lot of barriers to access to jobs and services and there's no public transportation. In NYC, they can just walk or hop on the subway or bus.
I think it really comes down to how easily low income families can be integrated into the community with a mixed income housing project. In NYC, it's easy. In Little Rock, and most other cities in the US, it's very difficult, if not impossible.
I don't think I really covered the subject well, but I tried. There may be ways of making mixed income housing work in smaller and less dense cities, who knows. Like others have said, there are a lot of legitimate challenges.
But in NYC, I think it will work.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 10:22 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
The theory is flawed.
If you add a teaspoon of wine to a barrel of sewage, you have a barrel of sewage.
If you add a teaspoon of sewage to a barrel of win, you have a barrel of sewage.
because poors are toxic waste, amirite
Posted on 7/6/14 at 10:25 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:It works adequately in Charlotte.
but I doubt it would work in, say, Little Rock.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 10:28 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
because poors are toxic waste, amirite
Not the point. You cannot make poor people non-poor by putting them in the same proximity of middle class and rich people. It doesn't rub off.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 10:30 am to Hog on the Hill
quote:
because poors are toxic waste, amirite
Poverty is the cumulative result of bad decisions. A good decision is to try to get out of that environment - I don't understand the purpose of destroying people's property value to attempt some ill-conceived, liberal ideas from the "Good Idea Fairies (tm)".
Good intentions mean zilch if the result is a bad outcome.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 10:33 am to Zach
quote:That's not the goal of mixed income housing.
Not the point. You cannot make poor people non-poor by putting them in the same proximity of middle class and rich people. It doesn't rub off.
This post was edited on 7/6/14 at 10:33 am
Posted on 7/6/14 at 10:33 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:Because Little Rock doesn't have any upscale housing.....
Why does it work in NYC and not Little Rock?
Serious question.
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News