What do y'all think about demolishing projects?

[Broke Wave]

My dude has 6 posts on 1 page, none of them about Public Housing

Is this cat for real? Putting him on ignore

 

[GoPro]

Are you native american or something? Hell no the government doesn't own it, the fact that you own it and not the government is the basis of the american economy, that's why I was saying projects are unamerican

lol, you try withholding property taxes on that property you "own" and see where that gets you.

Fact of the matter is, home ownership isn't for everyone. It's time- and resource-consuming. A case can be made that with the maintenance and utilities cost, insurance, and taxes, it's not even worth it. That money could be invested in savings. My mother is a perfect example: Immigrant to the country. Has lived in the same apt for over 30 years. 90k in savings with nothing to spend it on. Her pension pays the rent. SS everything else.

 

[Jello Biafra]

fukk yeah its a good thing. maybe right now it could be a lil rough for u sensitive suburban cats, but over time it will weaken gang culture and reduce crime. a lot of yall are thinking too much about the present. in 50 years we'll look back and laugh at the idea of project housing.

I know I am only speaking anecdotally but here we go anyway...in the city I work in (and incidently where I was raised) they did the Hope VI redeveloping of all the cities public housing projects (of which there were several) and during the rebuild they relocated the residents. The areas that had project relocatees saw a rise in crime while property values and quality of life went down in those neighborhoods.
When the project redevelopment was finished they used a random lottery to select who got to move back to the projecs and within a year the crime was back in those projects as well as being in other neighborhoods throughout the city.
So all that was accomlished was taking a city that used to have certain areas to avoid due to crime now becoming one big shythole.
Now this isn't an "us" or "them" situation. I was born and raised in the hood and there are just some trifling motherfukkers who you can't do shyt for aside from keeping them corralled in one location with other trifling motherfukkers who don't know how to act like decent human beings as a means of mitigating their impact on the rest of the population.

 

[theworldismine13]

lol, you try withholding property taxes on that property you "own" and see where that gets you.

Fact of the matter is, home ownership isn't for everyone. It's time- and resource-consuming. A case can be made that with the maintenance and utilities cost, insurance, and taxes, it's not even worth it. That money could be invested in savings. My mother is a perfect example: Immigrant to the country. Has lived in the same apt for over 30 years. 90k in savings with nothing to spend it on. Her pension pays the rent. SS everything else.

I dont see how anything you said is a counterpoint to what I'm saying

of course you have to pay taxes, I didn't say it's free, I said you own it

If you don't want to buy property then don't buy property, I'm just pointing out the negative side effects of the government owning your home

It's one thing if an individual decides not to own and just rent, it's a whole nother thing when you have hundreds of thousands of people, entire communities, whose whole existence is based around property they dont own, thats a recipe for economic decline and an inevitable supression of economic and individual freedom

And IMO the black leaders and white liberals/socialists who have convinced black people into moving into government housing have set back the economic development of the black community

 

[theworldismine13]

I know I am only speaking anecdotally but here we go anyway...in the city I work in (and incidently where I was raised) they did the Hope VI redeveloping of all the cities public housing projects (of which there were several) and during the rebuild they relocated the residents. The areas that had project relocatees saw a rise in crime while property values and quality of life went down in those neighborhoods.
When the project redevelopment was finished they used a random lottery to select who got to move back to the projecs and within a year the crime was back in those projects as well as being in other neighborhoods throughout the city.
So all that was accomlished was taking a city that used to have certain areas to avoid due to crime now becoming one big shythole.
Now this isn't an "us" or "them" situation. I was born and raised in the hood and there are just some trifling motherfukkers who you can't do shyt for aside from keeping them corralled in one location with other trifling motherfukkers who don't know how to act like decent human beings as a means of mitigating their impact on the rest of the population.

so in other words they never actually got rid of the projects

 

[The Real]

I think you are splitting hairs and bringing up caveats but in a broad sense it's appropriate to equate projects with socialism

No, Socialism in a broad sense is exactly what projects cannot be identified with, unless you ignored what I said completely. You have it exactly the wrong way around. You're painting with strokes that are so broad that they become inaccurate and vague.

And how is mentioning that the term you want to equate projects with is an umbrella that includes many ideologies that are opposed to projects, or mentioning that the government administration who created projects in this country rejected and destroyed the Socialists splitting hairs? They're useful and accurate distinctions to make when you're discussing these issues.

 

[theworldismine13]

No, Socialism in a broad sense is exactly what projects cannot be identified with, unless you ignored what I said completely. You have it exactly the wrong way around. You're painting with strokes that are so broad that they become inaccurate and vague.

And how is mentioning that the term you want to equate projects with is an umbrella that includes many ideologies that are opposed to projects, or mentioning that the government administration who created projects in this country rejected and destroyed the Socialists splitting hairs? They're useful and accurate distinctions to make when you're discussing these issues.

*Yawn* sure whatever

I believe you said projects are a liberal idea, so is it ok if i equate liberals with projects?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

No, Socialism in a broad sense is exactly what projects cannot be identified with, unless you ignored what I said completely. You have it exactly the wrong way around. You're painting with strokes that are so broad that they become inaccurate and vague.

And how is mentioning that the term you want to equate projects with is an umbrella that includes many ideologies that are opposed to projects, or mentioning that the government administration who created projects in this country rejected and destroyed the Socialists splitting hairs? They're useful and accurate distinctions to make when you're discussing these issues.

The bolded is accurate summary of his entire posting career.

 

[theworldismine13]

I know I am only speaking anecdotally but here we go anyway...in the city I work in (and incidently where I was raised) they did the Hope VI redeveloping of all the cities public housing projects (of which there were several) and during the rebuild they relocated the residents. The areas that had project relocatees saw a rise in crime while property values and quality of life went down in those neighborhoods.
When the project redevelopment was finished they used a random lottery to select who got to move back to the projecs and within a year the crime was back in those projects as well as being in other neighborhoods throughout the city.
So all that was accomlished was taking a city that used to have certain areas to avoid due to crime now becoming one big shythole.
Now this isn't an "us" or "them" situation. I was born and raised in the hood and there are just some trifling motherfukkers who you can't do shyt for aside from keeping them corralled in one location with other trifling motherfukkers who don't know how to act like decent human beings as a means of mitigating their impact on the rest of the population.

and another thing, who the fuk are you (not you personally, but as a government rep) to tell anybody where they should live?

its absurd and unamerican to have a system thats based on herding people, its not the governments business where an individual chooses to live

you are describing a herding system, the system which you are describing will never respect the individual and it will inevitability suppress economic freedom and individual rights

 

[Jello Biafra]

and another thing, who the fuk are you (not you personally, but as a government rep) to tell anybody where they should live?

its absurd and unamerican to have a system thats based on herding people, its not the governments business where an individual chooses to live

you are describing a herding system, the system which you are describing will never respect the individual and it will inevitability suppress economic freedom and individual rights

Deep in my bleeding heart sometimes lefty soul I agree with what you wrote but in the real world I tend to lean toward the idea of if you have the circumstance where a bad element has all grouped together then keeping them in one place is a hell of a lot better than relocating them so they can spread their special brand of misery to others. I'm not saying round folisup and herd them into projects but if they have already herded themselves there then let it be what it is.

 

[SEC Hater]

its hard to prove its a directly related but IMO the part of the drop in crime for the past decade has to do with getting rid of projects, its much better to disperse the crime in the big picture, crime might spread but there is less of it overall

So you would rather have crime everywhere, rather than confined to certain areas?

I can't buy into that one. You don't decrease crime by removing the projects...the projects were not the reason for the crime, the criminals living in the projects were responsible and spreading that element out to infect the entitrety of a city instead of keeping it housed in one area is a recipe for disaster.

Exactly. Do people really think that when those buildings fall that the project mentality dies with it? There are some good people in the projects, its the criminals and their mentality that makes them terrible places to live. Moving those criminals somewhere is not gonna make them change their ways.

The decline of crack explains the decline of crime in the 90s but it doesn't explain the decline in crime of the 2000s

In fact there is no clear theory for the decline of crime of the 2000, but crack and the economy are certainly not explanations, but the decline of crime in the 2000s is coincidental with eliminating projects which started in the late 90s

and I agree it does spread crime, but overall crime rates decline

So as projects come down, crime spreads. So people who were used to living without that criminal element, may now have to start living with because projects are being torn down to "better the community"?

I got you. I misread your first statement.

Here is a good article that points to how the crime rate dropped overall after the projects were demolished but in areas where project residents were relocated crime went up. That is the downside that tends to get lost when people look at the benefits of tearing down the project housing.

Public Housing Demolition Lowered Overall Crime, New Study Says

Thats a misleading article. Not all project tenants are moved to other parts of the city. A lot are moved to suburbs, smaller towns further from the city, or even out of state. You start getting some of the thugs out of the city, crime will drop. Looks good for the city, but whats it doing to the towns that these people move to? And the ones that do stay in the city just drive up the crime rate in the areas they move to. Murders may have cut in half in Chicago from where they were 20 years ago, but ask people in Chicago, and most will tell you the city is wilder and more dangerous than its ever been.

fukk yeah its a good thing. maybe right now it could be a lil rough for u sensitive suburban cats, but over time it will weaken gang culture and reduce crime. a lot of yall are thinking too much about the present. in 50 years we'll look back and laugh at the idea of project housing.

Weaken gang culture? If anything it will spread gang culture.

Are you native american or something? Hell no the government doesn't own it, the fact that you own it and not the government is the basis of the american economy, that's why I was saying projects are unamerican

So its unamerican to not own your own shyt? So what about people who rent/lease apartments/condos/mobile homes/houses for their whole lives?

 

[daze23]

bin laden didn't blow up the projects

 

[zerozero]

TWISM is great. Get 5 monolithic ideas in his head and he repeats them like a mantra for years

 

[theworldismine13]

bin laden didn't blow up the projects

the owners of the projects blew up the projects, which they had every right to do

 

[daze23]

the owners of the projects blew up the projects, which they had every right to do

actually they usually use implosion