The number of neighborhoods with Neighborhood Associations are very few. The majority of middle and upper-class neighborhoods do not have these Associations because the riff-raff do not have the means or desire to work to get out of the government plantations. If they cannot even do that they certainly will not be capable of changing their work or moral ethics. It is the political mucky-wucks living in those Neighborhood Association neighborhoods and they will use that to keep the 'plantation dwellers' out. They always make laws in such a way as to protect themselves.
Voice of Reason wrote:
Sure, there's always gentrification happening somewhere and there's always putrefaction happening somewhere else. Most places are somewhere in between.
The way I see it, if you want to live in/near a city you have two choices: You can either live in a neighborhood controlled by a neighborhood association, or you can live with the lowlifes in a neighborhood without one. Personally I'll take the lowlifes. I can deal with them, not so much neighborhood associations. As a friend of mine says, the people who run the neighborhood associations are usually retired folks who have never in their lives been given a job with any authority or responsibility over others, for good reason. Kinda like most of the lefties on this site.
Sure, there's always gentrification happening some... (
show quote)
By definition exactly how do you deal with "lowlifes" which seems to be one of the major problems today? Are you suggesting neighborhood assoc. are as nasty as ghettos and drug addicts?
JMHO wrote:
ring grant money as incentive so that affordable housing can be built in wealthier neighborhoods is what a new Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rule, designed by the Obama administration, is trying to accomplish in the name of diversification.
A spokesman says: "HUD is working with communities across the country to fulfill the promise of equal opportunity for all. The proposed policy seeks to break down barriers to access to opportunity in communities supported by HUD funds.
HUD is citing the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited race and wealth discrimination in real estate transactions, as the basis for taking such an action. Those communities that survey their neighborhoods and pinpoint where segregation is present can qualify for extra funds if they develop a plan to diversify its residents.
House Republicans are currently blocking what has been dubbed the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule. Critics, according to The Hill, are accusing President Obama of focusing too much on race. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) recently said that the administration "shouldnt be holding hostage grant monies aimed at community improvement based on its unrealistic utopian ideas of what every community should resemble.
He continued:
Instead of living with neighbors you like and choose -- this breaks up the core fabric of how we start to look at communities. That just brings unease to everyone in that area. People have to feel comfortable where they live. If I dont feel comfortable in my own backyard, where do I feel comfortable?
This grab by the federal government could allow HUD to assert its own authority over city zoning laws, critics say, and even decide who lives where and what types of homes can be built; dramatically affecting property values and increasing taxes.
But for every critic, there is a proponent. Margery Turner of the Urban Institute praised the rule stating:
This rule is not about forcing anyone to live anywhere they dont want to. Its 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. Segregation is clearly a problem that is blocking upward mobility for children growing up today.
ring grant money as incentive so that affordable h... (
show quote)
They tried this in 1968-70 using the same reasoning and I didn't work then. History is just repeating I self. and will only make things worse. Some people never learn.
Feed and house someone for say six months. Enough time to get on their feet. They will praise you. After six months take away the freebies. They will curse you.
Voice of Reason wrote:
This is the typical cycle of entitlement. It's basic human nature. When somebody is given unearned wealth on a regular basis (government handouts) they go through 4 stages.
1. They are grateful for being given what they need.
2. They become convinced they deserve what they're given.
3. They become convinced that they deserve more than they're being given.
4. They become angry because they think they're being cheated (because they're convinced that they deserve more than they're being given).
The reason welfarers are becoming ugly has nothing to do with fairness, it has more to do with boredom. They have nothing to do and no imagination. If they had to work for a living they wouldn't have time to sit around complaining about how unfair it is that they're only being given the equivalent of $70,000/yr for free instead of a few million/yr.
You are correct about the recent rioters being treated 'even more unfairly', though. If they had been treated fairly they'd be pushing up daisies now.
This is the typical cycle of entitlement. It's bas... (
show quote)
The only fair way to do this is for HUD to build these homes for VETS who have served honorably! These homes should be built to accommodate disabled Veterans who have lost limbs while serving this Country, which means all of us. Without these men and women, we would not have the U.S. or our freedom. Any Country that does not take care of those who have risked life and limb to serve us does not deserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without our Military that would be impossible. What is it going to take? WWIII in our own back yards before we get our priorities straight. There should NEVER be a homeless VET!
Conservative wrote:
The only fair way to do this is for HUD to build these homes for VETS who have served honorably! These homes should be built to accommodate disabled Veterans who have lost limbs while serving this Country, which means all of us. Without these men and women, we would not have the U.S. or our freedom. Any Country that does not take care of those who have risked life and limb to serve us does not deserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without our Military that would be impossible. What is it going to take? WWIII in our own back yards before we get our priorities straight. There should NEVER be a homeless VET!
The only fair way to do this is for HUD to build t... (
show quote)
If you use the "quote reply" button instead of "reply", everybody will know to whom you're responding.
JFlorio wrote:
Feed and house someone for say six months. Enough time to get on their feet. They will praise you. After six months take away the freebies. They will curse you.
Truer words were never spoken.
mouset783 wrote:
By definition exactly how do you deal with "lowlifes" which seems to be one of the major problems today? Are you suggesting neighborhood assoc. are as nasty as ghettos and drug addicts?
By definition? I didn't know there is such a thing as a definition for how to deal.
It's not hard. Treat them like anybody else. Be nice. A few years ago my next-door neighbor got married and moved in with his wife. He rented his house to Section 8 renters. For a while they were coming over and asking to borrow a hammer (?) several times a week. I kept lending it to them, but finally I bought one for them to keep. Do you think they'll allow any of their houseguests to mess with my property?
Ghettos, druggies and neighborhood associations can all be nasty, but in different ways. Neighborhood associations have too much authority and those who run them too little discretion and too high a sense of self-importance. They're mostly little Ceasar's with the authority to confiscate your home. At least if the gangbangers burn you out the insurance will pay.
But like I said, that's my preference. If other people want to endure neighborhood associations, I think they have a right to do that.
Voice of Reason wrote:
Insults? No. Just understanding, compassion and gentle advice.
A I said, you are limited by what you have and you are incredibly delusional about what you have.
Voice of Reason wrote:
By definition? I didn't know there is such a thing as a definition for how to deal.
It's not hard. Treat them like anybody else. Be nice. A few years ago my next-door neighbor got married and moved in with his wife. He rented his house to Section 8 renters. For a while they were coming over and asking to borrow a hammer (?) several times a week. I kept lending it to them, but finally I bought one for them to keep. Do you think they'll allow any of their houseguests to mess with my property?
Ghettos, druggies and neighborhood associations can all be nasty, but in different ways. Neighborhood associations have too much authority and those who run them too little discretion and too high a sense of self-importance. They're mostly little Ceasar's with the authority to confiscate your home. At least if the gangbangers burn you out the insurance will pay.
But like I said, that's my preference. If other people want to endure neighborhood associations, I think they have a right to do that.
By definition? I didn't know there is such a thing... (
show quote)
What I meant was the definition of low life's not how to deal with them. Trillions of dollars have been spent trying which has not worked so I wonder if there is a way.
SIMPLE
A POOR PERSON MUVED IN THE WHITE HOUSE
AND WHAT A MESS
AND HE BECOME THE 1%
THINC
THIS IS AS IT LOOKS TO ME
Pier wrote:
SIMPLE
A POOR PERSON MUVED IN THE WHITE HOUSE
AND WHAT A MESS
AND HE BECOME THE 1%
THINC
THIS IS AS IT LOOKS TO ME
I think you should take treatment of your concussion seriously.
JMHO wrote:
ring grant money as incentive so that affordable housing can be built in wealthier neighborhoods is what a new Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rule, designed by the Obama administration, is trying to accomplish in the name of diversification.
A spokesman says: "HUD is working with communities across the country to fulfill the promise of equal opportunity for all. The proposed policy seeks to break down barriers to access to opportunity in communities supported by HUD funds.
HUD is citing the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited race and wealth discrimination in real estate transactions, as the basis for taking such an action. Those communities that survey their neighborhoods and pinpoint where segregation is present can qualify for extra funds if they develop a plan to diversify its residents.
House Republicans are currently blocking what has been dubbed the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule. Critics, according to The Hill, are accusing President Obama of focusing too much on race. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) recently said that the administration "shouldnt be holding hostage grant monies aimed at community improvement based on its unrealistic utopian ideas of what every community should resemble.
He continued:
Instead of living with neighbors you like and choose -- this breaks up the core fabric of how we start to look at communities. That just brings unease to everyone in that area. People have to feel comfortable where they live. If I dont feel comfortable in my own backyard, where do I feel comfortable?
This grab by the federal government could allow HUD to assert its own authority over city zoning laws, critics say, and even decide who lives where and what types of homes can be built; dramatically affecting property values and increasing taxes.
But for every critic, there is a proponent. Margery Turner of the Urban Institute praised the rule stating:
This rule is not about forcing anyone to live anywhere they dont want to. Its 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. Segregation is clearly a problem that is blocking upward mobility for children growing up today.
ring grant money as incentive so that affordable h... (
show quote)
It's the next liberal progressive, ACORN chapter of $0.00 down home financing, JMHO. Just as the poor, low-information minorities were tempted to jump into mortgage loans that were nearly forced on them, [just about a year before "Dubya" was to end his second term], and were actually told [candidly] to fabricate income and assets, another election is right around the corner. And who do you think is going to take the blame for this NEXT housing crisis??? Correctamundo!!! The Republicans. AGAIN.
Funny [peculiar, not ha, ha] how that works. In 2006, both Houses of Congress went "demonrat," and Dodd, Frank, ACORN, "Barry" and "Countrywide," concocted the beginning of America's "fundamental transformation," and got ALL of the liberal progressive partners, including the MSM, on-board. It was a win, win, win, win, win program for the "demonrats," that would "crash" our housing and financial markets, shift ALL the blame to "Dubya," slide "Barry" right into office [with NO questions], [taxpayer] repay all the defaulted mortgage loans to the banks with TARP, and quite possibly END the Republican Party forever. You know the "single payer" system.
Now the both Houses of Congress are Republican, but the "demonrat" Executive Branch is starting to concoct the next housing/financial collapse - only THIS time all the HEADLINES in ALL the syndicated liberal progressive MSM will point ALL their fingers, for months and months, at the Republican, "do-nothing" Congress; for what could be the final chapter of the progressive "fundamental transformation" of America. And unlike "Dubya," who took all the blame for the "demonrat" Congress, "Barry," will be totally unscathed by the "lap-dog" media, and somewhere off to the side pointing to the "do-nothing" Republicans also. Any bets???
mouset783 wrote:
What I meant was the definition of low life's not how to deal with them. Trillions of dollars have been spent trying which has not worked so I wonder if there is a way.
The one thing that stands out with Republicans and those who claim to be conservatives is they will go to any extremes to stamp out possible solutions to problems, particularly poverty, hunger shelter and health care for those Americans in need. They have an endless supply of why any suggested solution won't work and work (and talk) to make damn sure it doesn't. How hard have you tried to find a way or ways and how hard have you tried to defeat all attempts that have been proposed by them there libtards?
Glaucon wrote:
The one thing that stands out with Republicans and those who claim to be conservatives is they will go to any extremes to stamp out possible solutions to problems, particularly poverty, hunger shelter and health care for those Americans in need. They have an endless supply of why any suggested solution won't work and work (and talk) to make damn sure it doesn't. How hard have you tried to find a way or ways and how hard have you tried to defeat all attempts that have been proposed by them there libtards?
The one thing that stands out with Republicans and... (
show quote)
I never cease to be amazed, glucose, by the low-information reasoning-power of you "libtards." Astounding.
Absolutely astounding.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.