Obama making bid to diversify wealthy neighborhoods

[AuH20]

So much for free association? Secondly, if you want to handle the issue of wealth concentration in certain counties, then jettison much of the property taxes. That's what is keeping people out. The government isn't needed to socially engineer locations to their liking.


http://thehill.com/regulation/244620-obamas-bid-to-diversify-wealthy-neighborhoods

Grant money is the poison pill as usual:


The regulations would use grant money as an incentive for communities to build affordable housing in more affluent areas while also taking steps to upgrade poorer areas with better schools, parks, libraries, grocery stores and transportation routes as part of a gentrification of those communities.
“HUD is working with communities across the country to fulfill the promise of equal opportunity for all,” a HUD spokeswoman said. “The proposed policy seeks to break down barriers to access to opportunity in communities supported by HUD funds.”



But HUD is looking to root out more subtle forms of discrimination that take shape in local government policies that unintentionally harm minority communities, known as “disparate impact.”

“This rule is not about forcing anyone to live anywhere they don’t want to,” said Margery Turner, senior vice president at the left-leaning Urban Institute. “It’s really about addressing long-standing practices that prevent people from living where they want to.”

“In our country, decades of public policies and institutional practices have built deeply segregated and unequal neighborhoods,” Turner said.

Children growing up in poor communities have less of a chance of succeeding in life, because they face greater exposure to violence and crime, and less access to quality education and health facilities, Turner suggested.

“Segregation is clearly a problem that is blocking upward mobility for children growing up today,” she said.

To qualify for certain funds under the regulations, cities would be required to examine patterns of segregation in neighborhoods and develop plans to address it. Those that don’t could see the funds they use to improve blighted neighborhoods disappear, critics of the rule say.

The regulations would apply to roughly 1,250 local governments.

Hans von Spakovsky, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, called the Obama administration “too race conscious.”

[Origanalist]

Rich liberal votes coming back to bite them.

[euphemia]

I would like to see neighbors be more diversified, but that would mean everyone would have to give a little bit. The wealthy would have to give up their control freak, cookie cutter, neighborhood associations, and the poor would have to learn to maintain property in a way that makes people want to live next door to them. Maybe not fancy landscaping, but not hoarding, either.

We live in a relatively low income area. We cut the grass and have some shrubs and trees, but nothing planned or too manicured. On the other hand, the house next door does not maintain their lawn or make it look neat. It will be a problem for us if we want to sell.

And this is part of the Obama hypocrisy. When he bought his fancy house in Chicago, there was some sort of phony land deal so he could buy the next lot over so as not to have people living right beside him. It was sold for way under market or something like that.

[specsaregood]

Rich liberal votes coming back to bite them.

Meh, rich people need servants' quarters.

[Anti Federalist]

Meh, rich people need servants' quarters.

That's why the barrier islands of southeast Florida worked out so well.

The wealthy had their beach homes, and shipped all the servant trash back across the bay each day.

Still that way to this day in many places, incredible beachfront wealth, cross one bridge and boom, Camden type poverty.

[Anti Federalist]

Children growing up in poor communities have less of a chance of succeeding in life, because they face greater exposure to violence and crime, and less access to quality education and health facilities, Turner suggested

And why is that?

[tod evans]

I absolutely don't want government messing around with planned communities.

I've seen their track record.

[alucard13mm]

Lol... white people will just move away.

[Ronin Truth]

Rich liberal votes coming back to bite them.

They just REALLY LOVE diversity, or will learn to very soon. LMAO!

Buy them country club memberships too.

[angelatc]

I would like to see neighbors be more diversified, but that would mean everyone would have to give a little bit. The wealthy would have to give up their control freak, cookie cutter, neighborhood associations, and the poor would have to learn to maintain property in a way that makes people want to live next door to them. Maybe not fancy landscaping, but not hoarding, either.


But that is precisely the reason that the government should not get involved. I hate those cookie-cutter lawn freak neighborhooods, but that certainly does not mean that someone else should not have the right to love that lifestyle.

Why on Earth should we all have to give up a little of what we want to please someone else?

[euphemia]

One thing that has happened in my neighborhood is that we are naturally integrated. That is a good thing to help assimilate recent immigrants to our community, and it makes the local government less likely to mess with the school and voting district.

[tod evans]

“It’s really about addressing long-standing practices that prevent people from living where they want to.”

http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.6555494.1386354407!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/display_600/image.jpg



Money is what prevents people from living where they want to you idiot!

[Slave Mentality]

The "affluent" have always fled the plebes. Some of the upper level plebes can wedge in when the property value starts to dip a little, usually when the neighborhood is getting a little older. Next thing you know...a few more high-end plebes move in...slowly at first. Then, the rich start to notice the 3 year old cars, among other poor people stuff, get skurred, and move out. This starts to decrease the property values even more when the rich figure out that the plebes can actually afford their beloved McEstates. Next thing you know there is an '83 Cutlass Cierra on blocks right next to the above ground pool in the front yard.

That's how all the downtown revitalizations are going on. The poor followed the rich to the burbs. Now the rich can move back into the expensive downtown property. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[Occam's Banana]

I absolutely don't want government messing around with planned communities.

I've seen their track record.

https://furtherglory.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/arbeit_macht_frei.jpg

[navy-vet]

Well, if this gets through, (which, by the way, isn't likely to happen), the property values in those affluent neighborhoods, will likely plummet, likely before the first HUD property is secured, and there will be an exodus to rival the great western expansion.
So, where I wonder, will Galts Gulch be? Texas?

[dillo]

It would be funny if they did this and crashed the housing market, rich people tend to have access to smart financial people. If section 8 moves next to some huge mortage they could go under

[nobody's_hero]

There's a city north of where I live that went and put nice sidewalks, park benches, and bicycle lanes in the poorest area of town. Now it just looks really nice when someone tries to carjack you.

[navy-vet]

There's a city north of where I live that went and put nice sidewalks, park benches, and bicycle lanes in the poorest area of town. Now it just looks really nice when someone tries to carjack you.
Hah! Yeah, it helps to attract the "marks" I bet...:cool:

[nobody's_hero]

Hah! Yeah, it helps to attract the "marks" I bet...:cool:

Well, I mean, I grew up in those neighborhoods in that city. Appearance-wise, they did an excellent job. I can't even recognize some areas. But then I pick up the local paper and find a story about someone who was shot at a convenience store hold-up and it's suddenly hard to get excited about a sidewalk.

[navy-vet]

Well, I mean, I grew up in those neighborhoods in that city. Appearance-wise, they did an excellent job. I can't even recognize some areas. But then I pick up the local paper and find a story about someone who was shot at a convenience store hold-up and it's suddenly hard to get excited about a sidewalk.
I can understand that. Hopefully it's not a place that prohibits self defense?
Of course, the folks who live in areas like that are frequently the ones who need the ability to defend themselves the most, and are denied it because they have a non-violent felony on them.

I remember years ago when I heard them talking about banning the sale of cheap guns, which they called "Saturday Night Specials", of thinking, yes, that sounds reasonable, as those guns are hazardous and unreliable at best and do more harm than good. That wasn't their rationale though, they simply wanted to take the guns away. Later, when I read a response from the opponents to the ban, that the banning these guns would hurt the poorest people who actually needed one for protection the most, I changed my mind.

[libertariantexas]

All this will do is drive down the value of the "rich" people's houses. Which will cause the rich people to leave.

Then more poor people will pour in.

10 years later, the formerly "rich" area will be a blighted mess.

And the rich people will still be living in (another) nice area.

BTW, many rich people do not choose to live in high cost areas (Millionaire Next Door Types), so there is already plenty of mixing of rich and middle class/poor.

[otherone]

And why is that?

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.nfD%2b3YBlxh8LZkvWOf%2f5mQ&pid=15.1&P=0

[milgram]

I think this happened in Ferguson. Section 8 made people with money leave. To make up for the loss in taxes, local cops and courts started shaking down poor people with excessive fines.
Resentment built until one incident made the city explode. A terrible situation... which of course can only be solved with bold new federal interventions (we promise it'll work this time).