Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Then there are a lot of "practical" people in both parties who like the idea of governmental efficiency and effectiveness. This appeals to them because it promises progress on a number of fronts domestically.
|
Let's see if we can get to intelligent debate. I think I understand your proposal -- section 8 money should go towards putting poor people in neighborhoods throughout the country -- and have some real questions.
Do you really think that this was a viable alternative to bussing? By that, I mean do you think that courts should have ordered this as a remedy to the problem of de facto school segregation?
How do you deal with local zoning laws that do not allow apartments, and do not allow occupancy over very low density? Does the fed government revoke those? Does the fed government exercise its supremacy power and just build fed-owned apartments? Does the fed government do that in places like Palo Alto, where a lot for a small apartment building would cost several million dollars (just the lot, not the building)? You are correct that the fed buys lots of land, but it doesn't buy much in suburban or wealthy urban residential markets, I suspect.
Similarly, how do you deal with HOA strictures? Many of those strictures would impose huge costs on any poor people living in the area. Others would effectively preclude any level of density consistent with low-income housing. Again, do you propose to have the fed buy million dollar homes, in areas where all homes are that price, and give them to poor people? Or just have the fed revoke private HOA contracts (contracts that generally require owners to ensure that any buyer -- including, presumable, the fed govt -- be bound by the HOA agreement).
I doubt that many people would support the idea of government buying houses in Grosse Pointe or where-have-you for poor people. Not because of NIMBYism -- I don't think that's much of a factor if you're just talking about one or two families out of twenty in a neighborhood. But because of cost, and because the idea of putting people who don't work into living situations better than most people who do work can afford..... well, it makes the old "welfare queen" saw pale in comparison.
How do you deal with transportation? Transition to work and responsibility must be key to any welfare strategy -- the failure to make it so was the biggest problem of the Great Society. Most jobs are in cities. Most suburbs, and even many wealthy areas of cities, have lousy public transportation. (Note: While many jobs are in suburbs, that only magnifies the transportation problem, because suburban job centers are notorious for crappy transit and because the more diffuse the job market, geographically, the harder any transit problem is to resolve.) Do you engage in massive infrastructure spending? Or throw in a car with the Grosse Pointe house?
This just scratches the surface of questions. I'm actually interested in your answer and would like to see you answer them -- instead of saying that the reason I ask them is to preserve my fictional white-only suburban lifestyle.
