Opinion Opposing section 8 housing is racist?

[Corn Pop Hombre]

Shook beyond shook. So shook your ability to write has been wiped from your tiny brain

 

[BIKES!]

Because California is full. You could move to somewhere that is not California and you would be fine. There is a ton of affordable housing in this country. You do not need someone else to pay for part of your housing. I am sure the weather in California is lovely and you feel entitled to live there, but you could always just live somewhere else.

Spot on

All it took was one sentence to expose you know nothing about Cali.

You are perhaps the dumbest person on Sherdog. Time and again you spout nonsense to the point that none of us doubt for a second you are an uneducated, basement dwelling sloth.

Unsurprisingly, the states with the most severe housing shortage are the states that have recently attempted to loosen zoning policy regulations. States like California, Oregon, and others have undertaken policy action to address this issue. California, for example, has been working on

Since about 1970, California has been experiencing an extended and increasing housing shortage, such that by 2018, California ranked 49th among the United States in housing units per resident. This shortage has been estimated to be 3-4 million housing units (20-30% of California's housing stock, 14 million as of 2017

http://www.freddiemac.com/research/insight/20200227-the-housing-supply-shortage.page

 

[blaseblah]

Spot on



You are perhaps the dumbest person on Sherdog. Time and again you spout nonsense to the point that none of us doubt for a second you are an uneducated, basement dwelling sloth.




http://www.freddiemac.com/research/insight/20200227-the-housing-supply-shortage.page

This is precisely my point you imbecile. California needs more houses. I have never seen you make a valid point and you don't seem to understand the sources you link to.

 

[panamaican]

I'd be interested.

I know in the Seattle area a lot of government housing is in the areas where Seattle municipal codes forced Asian immigrants to live and thus those areas never got a great chance to prosper until now so they look somewhat dumpy.

I'll go short form because I don't feel like getting dragged into a hundred different people's arguments. But your understanding of the Seattle situation and the Asian situation are pretty much on point.

The original housing acts specifically called for low income housing to be broadly distributed throughout municipalities. The reason was that if you create large pockets of poverty, they become self-fulfilling problems. Essentially, if everyone in the radius is poor then there will no new jobs created, there won't be enough funding for local schools, large pockets of poverty increase the prevalence of crime, etc. Everyone knew this and legislated to prevent it.

However, when the legislation got down to the state and local government level, there was concern about low income minorities moving into white neighborhoods and so local rules were massaged to allow the creation of the very pockets of poverty that the federal government had wanted to avoid. As you note with the Asian immigrants, this had long term negative consequences on those poverty communities that were created and the people who ended up living in them.

People at the local level have been fighting to the have law implemented as intended for decades but, in the early years, the race segregationists held more power than the integrationists so their version was the starting point. Those people didn't oppose the housing issue because they didn't want to live among poor people, they opposed it because they didn't want to live among minorities (and not just black minorities, any minorities). Regardless of why people today oppose it, the original opposition was explicitly racist.

Fast forward 60 years and most people don't know the history. They think that some random liberal politician is trying to force poor minorities into their well-to-do communities without realizing that the policy fight has been going on for longer than most of them have been alive.

 

[Gregolian]

I'll go short form because I don't feel like getting dragged into a hundred different people's arguments. But your understanding of the Seattle situation and the Asian situation are pretty much on point.

The original housing acts specifically called for low income housing to be broadly distributed throughout municipalities. The reason was that if you create large pockets of poverty, they become self-fulfilling problems. Essentially, if everyone in the radius is poor then there will no new jobs created, there won't be enough funding for local schools, large pockets of poverty increase the prevalence of crime, etc. Everyone knew this and legislated to prevent it.

However, when the legislation got down to the state and local government level, there was concern about low income minorities moving into white neighborhoods and so local rules were massaged to allow the creation of the very pockets of poverty that the federal government had wanted to avoid. As you note with the Asian immigrants, this had long term negative consequences on those poverty communities that were created and the people who ended up living in them.

People at the local level have been fighting to the have law implemented as intended for decades but, in the early years, the race segregationists held more power than the integrationists so their version was the starting point. Those people didn't oppose the housing issue because they didn't want to live among poor people, they opposed it because they didn't want to live among minorities (and not just black minorities, any minorities). Regardless of why people today oppose it, the original opposition was explicitly racist.

Fast forward 60 years and most people don't know the history. They think that some random liberal politician is trying to force poor minorities into their well-to-do communities without realizing that the policy fight has been going on for longer than most of them have been alive.

My Sugarhouse example from earlier is similar even though it's not housing explicitly. "We need another homeless shelter that's bigger... but don't build it out here where the city already owns like 4-5 lots"

 

[panamaican]

My Sugarhouse example from earlier is similar even though it's not housing explicitly. "We need another homeless shelter that's bigger... but don't build it out here where the city already owns like 4-5 lots"

I find America's early 20th century history one of the most interesting things to learn about. Because segregation was legal, we had tons of rules and laws that were done explicitly for race related reasons. Now, most of those people are dead but we're still dealing with the outcomes of their choices. It becomes intriguing when the people of today wrestle with the laws of the past from their modern framework and not from the understanding of why the laws were actually implemented.

 

[Gregolian]

I find America's early 20th century history one of the most interesting things to learn about. Because segregation was legal, we had tons of rules and laws that were done explicitly for race related reasons. Now, most of those people are dead but we're still dealing with the outcomes of their choices. It becomes intriguing when the people of today wrestle with the laws of the past from their modern framework and not from the understanding of why the laws were actually implemented.

As a person that is half Japanese the International District of Seattle and how the white yuppies/hipsters of WA treated it always bothers me.

They view it as this "omg, isn't this so cool we have something like Chinatown here with all these little mom/pop ethnic bakeries and hole in the wall restaurants and a convenience store that has a ton of Japanese and Korean appliances in it!"

Meanwhile, me off to the side mentally:
"You fuck heads realize this was because Seattle whites didn't want Asians living next door well into the 70s right? Fucking dipshits"

 

[Ayin]

Yea, it is pretty fucked up. In reality, these people living in shit conditions and/or on the street leads to billions in healthcare costs each year.

With so many people working at home these days (even before COVID), it would make sense to refurbish some of these office buildings and retail space into housing for the poor. Heck, a lot of empty retail space/office buildings are already in urban areas, so it wouldn't be shifting the dregs of society to the suburbs to cause affluent people to panic.

Considering the potential future of work, I would not be shocked if more and more office space in downtown cores became living space, but even assuming such buildings could be remodelled to apartments, they’re amongst the most expensive, so the city would need significant revenue to purchase them, and then would also be giving up on the property taxes those buildings used to bring in (or at least some significant portion of them, here property tax is higher for commercial than residential).

Higher density population combined with lower government funds is never a good plan, but everything comes with it’s own issues I suppose.


I’m also always bothered by the notion that government funded housing’s main goal is to be temporary and to encourage people to leave.

It should be temporary for some, who are capable of getting their feet under them and getting back out in the world, but the reality that there are a great many people who are simply not able to survive out in the world, those who in even recent times would have been institutionalized, for example, should be understood. When you are building housing for them, you are building them a place to be for the rest of their lives, unless you either want to re-institutionalize that part of the population or increase your number of homeless people.

Lastly, the absurd run-around of trying to actually deal with truly negative influences in community housing, violent or gang related peoples, for example, is ridiculous.

You absolutely will need somewhere that’s people getting out of jail and trying to get their life back on track can live, and you also absolutely need to be able to kick people out of community funded housing if they are a danger or are harming the community. You need to be able to house former criminals and expel current ones.

But at least here, our system is very set against either expelling current criminals and threats or enrolling previous criminals.

 

[Sketch]

Shook beyond shook. So shook your ability to write has been wiped from your tiny brain

 

[Corn Pop Hombre]

Keep spamming pictures. It might mean something someday

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Considering the potential future of work, I would not be shocked if more and more office space in downtown cores became living space, but even assuming such buildings could be remodelled to apartments, they’re amongst the most expensive, so the city would need significant revenue to purchase them, and then would also be giving up on the property taxes those buildings used to bring in (or at least some significant portion of them, here property tax is higher for commercial than residential).

Higher density population combined with lower government funds is never a good plan, but everything comes with it’s own issues I suppose.


I’m also always bothered by the notion that government funded housing’s main goal is to be temporary and to encourage people to leave.

It should be temporary for some, who are capable of getting their feet under them and getting back out in the world, but the reality that there are a great many people who are simply not able to survive out in the world, those who in even recent times would have been institutionalized, for example, should be understood. When you are building housing for them, you are building them a place to be for the rest of their lives, unless you either want to re-institutionalize that part of the population or increase your number of homeless people.

Lastly, the absurd run-around of trying to actually deal with truly negative influences in community housing, violent or gang related peoples, for example, is ridiculous.

You absolutely will need somewhere that’s people getting out of jail and trying to get their life back on track can live, and you also absolutely need to be able to kick people out of community funded housing if they are a danger or are harming the community. You need to be able to house former criminals and expel current ones.

But at least here, our system is very set against either expelling current criminals and threats or enrolling previous criminals.

good points, I agree there are a lot of conflicting issues and factors. I also agree that some people simply cannot get out of these types of programs. I work with CMS (Medicare & Medicaid) through an insurance company, and there is an endless supply of disabled and/or mental health populations. There are definitely people scamming the system, but the majority really are in a hopeless situation and need proper assistance. Unfortunately those resources are limited, and as mentioned, there are long waitlists. Some of these programs can also be very confusing. It is a mess really.

 

[Texan6533]

It’s not racist at all. Now that doesn’t mean there isnt a problem that doesn’t need a good solution. It just means the current solution of section 8 doesn’t work.

 

[BassAckwards]

this isnt a race issue since almost half of section 8 recipients are white. there are some affluent areas in atlanta that are predominantly black and i guarantee they dont want section 8 around their neighborhoods.

 

[Staph infection]

So old ladies and people too disabled to work should have to live next to garbage dumps?

Republicans, man.

Do you have a break down on how many section 8 users are old ladies of disabled? The section 8 people I have seen are generally woman with a bunch of kids working the system because they can’t keep their legs closed.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

I care more about people than property values. Black people were made poor in America and you’re talking about being fair?

People vs property value is a false dichotomy.

 

[Sketch]

Keep spamming pictures. It might mean something someday

I already said what I had to say. It got a ton of likes. You have zero likes in this entire thread. You are riding my coat tails. You are dismissed, run along.

 

[Pullmyfinger]

I care more about people than property values. Black people were made poor in America and you’re talking about being fair?

But they have always had the Democrat party looking out for them.

 

[Pullmyfinger]

I'd be interested.

I know in the Seattle area a lot of government housing is in the areas where Seattle municipal codes forced Asian immigrants to live and thus those areas never got a great chance to prosper until now so they look somewhat dumpy.

Is the Asian population still largely concentrated in these areas?

Has the demographic makeup of these areas changed much, or has it remained stagnant?

 

[Gregolian]

Is the Asian population still largely concentrated in these areas?

Not as much but there's a huge amount of them still in and around the International District. A lot are in the Bellevue area too but that's mostly because of all the tech companies have their campus's on that side of the lake and people like the houses in Bellevue and commute to like Renton and shit.

 

[BIKES!]

Black people were made poor in America and you’re talking about being fair?

?????????

It never ceases to amaze me how the children of Gen Y and Z say shit like this. I can't tell if it is the indoctrination in school and/or the nationwide efforts of the left to rewrite history.

Yes, at one time Black's like nearly every other group of people on planet fucking earth have been oppressed. Today for every poor black person in America there are 10 poorer white children in middle america. There are also a ton of rich Blacks in America and black children who are in the 1% of the 1% by being born lucky.

Empty excuses is why things never change.