keepthefaith Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/11/obama-set-force-affordable-housing-affluent-commun/ More social engineering from the commander in chief Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Pfffff. They've been doing that (or at least trying to) up here in SF for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 It has been happening here as well. So people work their asses off so their kids can go to a good school in a good neighborhood. Drop 10 or 15k in property taxes for what? To go to school with kids that are out of control and the parents don't give a shite. We've lived it. We actually moved from one town(Walnut Creek) to Danville just for this reason. The school he was going to had kids fighting all the time and we couldn't figure out how come our guy all of a sudden was pulling down A's in every class. He wasn't a bad student before but he was basically a solid B guy. We went for open house and it became clear. The teachers were pretty disengaged. After that we made the decision to move to Danville. After that his marks dropped back to the normal. Obviously we loved the A's he was getting but he was being passed through with no challenge. It was the most important move we ever did getting him out of the old school into the new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I think the idea sounds wonderful in theory, but poor people don't typically want to live by rich people and gated communities- the stores they use are often not close, the publicn transportation is often bad, etc. If anything he should be pushing increased transportation support to get poor kids to better schools, because at the end of the day poor parents want a better life for their kids.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 It has been happening here as well. So people work their asses off so their kids can go to a good school in a good neighborhood. Drop 10 or 15k in property taxes for what? To go to school with kids that are out of control and the parents don't give a shite. We've lived it. We actually moved from one town(Walnut Creek) to Danville just for this reason. The school he was going to had kids fighting all the time and we couldn't figure out how come our guy all of a sudden was pulling down A's in every class. He wasn't a bad student before but he was basically a solid B guy. We went for open house and it became clear. The teachers were pretty disengaged. After that we made the decision to move to Danville. After that his marks dropped back to the normal. Obviously we loved the A's he was getting but he was being passed through with no challenge. It was the most important move we ever did getting him out of the old school into the new. Whoa Walnut Creek is like that? We moved our office to WC from San Mateo and WC doesn't strike me as that at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I don't want subsidized housing, with the accompanying increased crime rates bringing down my property value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I think the idea sounds wonderful in theory, but poor people don't typically want to live by rich people and gated communities- the stores they use are often not close, the publicn transportation is often bad, etc. If anything he should be pushing increased transportation support to get poor kids to better schools, because at the end of the day poor parents want a better life for their kids.... And rich people typically don't want poor people living by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I think the idea sounds wonderful in theory, but poor people don't typically want to live by rich people and gated communities- the stores they use are often not close, the publicn transportation is often bad, etc. If anything he should be pushing increased transportation support to get poor kids to better schools, because at the end of the day poor parents want a better life for their kids.... The schools are what they are primarily because of the kids that go there and their parents. Sending them to another neighborhood to mooch off their schools just brings those schools down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 The schools are what they are primarily because of the kids that go there and their parents. Sending them to another neighborhood to mooch off their schools just brings those schools down. I don't see that as the case. Parents who are low income but want their kid to have a good education tend to support that child, so I don't see that kid bringing down the better school. That the premise behind school choice, giving parents who care an option for their child who may not be in th best district, or worse, a terrible district. And rich people typically don't want poor people living by them. I'd agree, what interesting is I see a lot of older, white, well to do people leaving their walled in communities and moving back into the city and surrounding areas, at least in Denver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I think Obama should lead the way on this. There is a lot next to his Chicago home that could be built on if only he gave back the 10' strip that he bought when he purchased his house. Does anyone else think it is rather odd that he paid much less than the house was appraised at while Tony Rezko's wife paid much more than it was worth for the lot next door? Then astrange thing happened. She sells Obama a 10' strip for $104,000 (1/6 of the lot price) effectively rendering her lot useless since zoning laws require 60' of frontage to build on the lot. So Obama saved over half a million dollars on the deal by accepting a gift/bribe from a convicted criminal. I think it is only right to make this land available to build Section 8 housing on it. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/rezko-connection-obamas-achilles-heel/story?id=4111483 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I don't see that as the case. Parents who are low income but want their kid to have a good education tend to support that child, so I don't see that kid bringing down the better school. That the premise behind school choice, giving parents who care an option for their child who may not be in th best district, or worse, a terrible district. I'd agree, what interesting is I see a lot of older, white, well to do people leaving their walled in communities and moving back into the city and surrounding areas, at least in Denver. This the deal: schools are what parents demand them to be. If the majority of the parents in a district demand good schools then there will be good schools. If they don't give a schit then the kids will be going to a bad school with the added burden of having a bad parent involved (or not involved) in the other parts of their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Whoa Walnut Creek is like that? We moved our office to WC from San Mateo and WC doesn't strike me as that at all. Walnut Creek is a nice town. The school wasn't great. I think the idea sounds wonderful in theory, but poor people don't typically want to live by rich people and gated communities- the stores they use are often not close, the publicn transportation is often bad, etc. If anything he should be pushing increased transportation support to get poor kids to better schools, because at the end of the day poor parents want a better life for their kids.... And I want season tix for the Sharks and be able to fly in for every Bills home game. For that to happen I have to make it happen. If you want a good life for your kids they have to possess the basic values, ethics to make it happen. Parents don't instill them and this is what you have. Now, because of ****ty values of a dependent class the people that work for a better life have to drag these bad behavior people behind like oxen dragging a plow. Now Barry wants to bring that misery to suburbia. I guess the next move is to enjoy the country life and move 100 miles out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I don't see that as the case. Parents who are low income but want their kid to have a good education tend to support that child, so I don't see that kid bringing down the better school. That the premise behind school choice, giving parents who care an option for their child who may not be in th best district, or worse, a terrible district. Boston called for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) It's happening in the city I live in as well, as mandated by the state. Interestingly, much of the opposition is less about having poor people moving in as much as where they are building the housing. In one case they took over an area very popular because of the horse and hiking trails, and the other site is going behind an area where traffic in and out to the stores is already bad. Having more traffic come out of that area will absolutely wreck the businesses that are in there because people are vocal about staying clear to avoid the congestion. The businesses in there are nothing unique, so it's not like people will tolerate it to get to their favorite restaurant or grocer. It's pretty easy to predict what is coming, and it's unfortunate. Edited June 12, 2015 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Zoning laws have always been driven by local conditions and the peculiar geographic oddities and customs of an area. The federal government cannot know what these are and no cookie cutter mandated solutions can work. I have read through (pertinent parts) and interpreted somewhere north of 200 different zoning books. While some conditions are fairly standard from community to community in many cases there are community specific zones and conditions. Besides the unworkability of federal involvement in local zoning, I don't think our Constitution gives the federal government any power over local zoning unless of course, Obama has created Article XXVII by executive order. On a side note, in order to get a better feel for a community I would check out the adult entertainment restrictions. (My business had nothing to do with adult entertainment) The City of Buffalo, as I recall really didn't want strip clubs. They were only allowed to be in an "Industrial" zoned area and the building setbacks were 400' for front, side and rear,meaning that one would need a perfectly shaped 15 acre site with plenty of exposure and zoned Industrial. Good luck finding that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 There is no such thing as a mixed poor/rich neighborhood. Downtown used to be reserved for the rich until they fled to satellite villages as hordes of poor people moved in. When the poor decided to move to the 'burbs to escape their urban ghetto, guess where the rich moved? Not many residents will follow Clint Eastwood's example of staying in the same neighborhood as it goes down the crapper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I don't see that as the case. Parents who are low income but want their kid to have a good education tend to support that child, so I don't see that kid bringing down the better school. That the premise behind school choice, giving parents who care an option for their child who may not be in th best district, or worse, a terrible district. Most people living in subsidized housing are irresponsible and don't prioritize their children's education. Obviously there are exceptions to that rule, but that's the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/11/obama-set-force-affordable-housing-affluent-commun/ More social engineering from the commander in chief Google Mt. Laurel Decisions and get back to me on your breaking news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts