"In terms of doing its part to meet the need for affordable housing, the village is so far behind the rest of the county, it's ridiculous."
It's Shorewood Hills, Wisconsin, where, in the words of one Village Board member, "People who live here are in for the long haul... This project increases the voting rolls by 20 percent with people who have different values - I'm not saying bad values - but different values from what we have here...."
(Thanks to Irene for the link.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
71 comments:
Not a surprise. Liberals are all about somebody else paying the price for their foolish passions.
I want some of this affordable stuff...healthcare,housing, college tuitions, BMW's.
Affordable means what? Pay what you can or want? Nah,I think it means the guvmint decides who gets it.
A liberal will never define or say what "affordable" means. They do think, however, we need more of it.
Looks to me like commercial space. Why not tear it down and develop a revenue-producing Walmart?
For the People.
Thank you! I've been wrestling with this story for two days, and you pulled the very quote that rattled me.
"Affordable" is the progressive codeword for "subsidized".
Any validity to the argument that the long term effect of these kinds of ventures inevitably lead to depressed real state value, a rise in crime and ultimately white flight?
What's embarrassing is all these people talking around the subject and wrestling with their white liberal guilt in public. If you don't want the riff-raff moving into your nice neighborhood, just say so.
Sure, it's hypocritical when those with "liberal ideals" say something like:
"People who live here are in for the long haul," Tim Rikkers, a Village Board member, said at a public hearing this week. "This project increases the voting rolls by 20 percent with people who have different values - I'm not saying bad values - but different values from what we have here."
It doesn't make it wrong, only it reveals that those with "liberal ideals" tend to express it only when it hits home, their home.
The one fact the article leaves out is the magnitude of the direct public subsidy.
Andover Hill Investments of Warrenville, Ill., has requested rezoning for the rental project. It would be financed through the state-administered Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, under which tax credits are issued in return for creation of housing for people with lower incomes.
To entice a private developer to enter a losing proposition -- it'd have to be to justify the subsidy in the first place -- the subsidy must be rather substantial.
It really is staggering when you realize how much economic power the political class has been able to arrogate to themselves with the taxpayer's money and credit. The power over deciding who wins and who loses, from housing policy to the financial industry to health care.
Seemingly, the only response to the crisis is more of the same done at an accelerated rate.
Oh, please. Liberals are the biggest NIMBYs in the world. Bob Kennedy Jr is a raging environmental crusader, but when developers tried to install an enviro-friendly wind farm outside of the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port, he was indignant.
Cheers,
Victoria
But you have to realize that if they can't fill it with the intended crowd ... 10 years down the road, the mix and the kind of people who move in there would be very different."
I'm sorry, unless I'm not getting this paragraph -- but isn't this a barely concealed distaste about black people invading the neighbourhood?
Not today, maybe. But eventually.
"
I'm sorry, unless I'm not getting this paragraph -- but isn't this a barely concealed distaste about black people invading the neighbourhood?"
Liberals like the idea of black people. You know, black people as a concept, fighting the white hegemony and "keepin' it real" and all that authentic authenticity and stuff. As long as they come out and vote for democrats and then keep quiet and live in their own "ghettos" or "hoods" or whatever they call those places... yeah! Liberals love black people!
I live in a neighborhood with blacks, Chassidic Jews, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, neo-yuppies and hipsters and I don't like any of them. The best neighbors are no neighbors.
"I'm sorry, unless I'm not getting this paragraph -- but isn't this a barely concealed distaste about black people invading the neighbourhood?"
If you keep black people out of your neighborhood, will that keep them from talking at the movie in your neighborhood movie theater?
Lol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihF0qTwQlvs
Our city is going to build the same kind of apartment house because if they don't, not only do they have to return redevelopment money, they actually get fined by the feds.
The government knows best. All your cities are belong to us.
but isn't this a barely concealed distaste about black people invading the neighbourhood?
Not "black" per se, but African Americans.
While "affordable housing" barely conceals what was formerly known as Section-8. Which got a bad name because of the willing underclass, ie African Americans.
The difference now is that their enablers require them to take a 6-hour class on middle-class living - such as what a dumpster is for, and why it has a lid.
The "best" part about so-called affordable housing is that the new designation precludes full disclosure. Which means the lender is generally -and ideally- forbidden by law to reveal to any interested party the grants and subsidies given to the mortgagee/renter. This is particularly useful when dealing with non-governmental associations, such as homeowner groups, property managers, and/or condo associations.
In this national march to perdition, the key words/events are: The New Deal (FDR); War on Poverty (Lyndon Johnson); Fair Housing Act (Jimmy Carter); Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac (Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel); and finally, KELO v. New London (Supreme Court).
What? You mean the liberal/leftist hive, groupthink mind can't allow the poorer of their fellow citizens to live next to them? How shameful. How so very very predictable. That's RACIST!!!
Mass had the same kind of situation a couple of years back. The community had a zoning law that you had to have a minimum of 2 acres for your home. Since this community had the highest prices in the state this precluded anyone who was not a millionaire or close to it from ever living there. The state legislature decided to pass a law which said every community in the state had to have plans for low income housing or lose the state subsidy for the town. You should have heard the squawks on that one. And this was a particularly liberal town, even for Mass. Shortly after that I left the area so I don't know what the final result was but they sure had a bunch of fighting going on over that one. (Bawney Fwank's district as well).
Next they should build a free clinic. And then a homeless shelter!
These sorts of projects are only supposed to be built in other people's neighborhoods with other people's money. Funny how quickly the liberal platitudes go out the door as soon as the poor folks start moving next door.
Leave Shorewood Hills alone. It's a nice community. No reason to add the same drug trafficking, bad behavior and violence that has infected other parts of Madison.
Anyone with half a brain who looked up the crime statistics for other "affordable housing" developments in Madison would understand.
It's not a liberal/conservative issue. It's an anti-crime issue.
"We need to have some diversity."
Ed Garvey
"...different values from what we have here."
Tim Rikkers
Because "diversity" is one of our "values" don't you know.
"Shorewood Hills is adjacent to the University of Wisconsin’s campus and home to many professors. Shorewood Hills gave 86.8% of it’s votes to President Obama…. giving Cambridge, Massachusetts a run for it’s money."
EDH said...It doesn't make it wrong, only it reveals that those with "liberal ideals" tend to express it only when it hits home, their home.
Wait till these folks think the concept through to the word "School". Then it will get even louder.
Palladian said... Liberals like the idea of black people.
a variant of an old saying.
White Southerners hate black people in general, but love the black people they know.
Northerners love black people in general, but hate the black people they know.
Why don't we just give the brotha a house...a car...free health care...Oh wait!
Great issue to discuss--it pits our desire for equality generally against our desire to live locally among those with whom we are financially equal. It pits the forces of social engineering against individual values and choice. And it pits the coercion by those with political power against the liberty of the free market.
It is always good when liberals are forced to apply their principles to themselves. It makes them more introspective about their principles.
This is a most excellent development. Need one of these in every "liberal enclave". Hard to find the right kinds of hair products in Whole Foods, however.
(1) Does the article, in fact, tell the story of liberals mugged by reality, as some commenters have suggested?
If so, then whatever became of all those conservatives looking for converts instead of heretics?
(2) Ditto what Michael Hasenstab said at 5:40.
Reality, apparently, is a dish best served Wisconsin-cold.
I'm sorry. Perhaps I missed it. Granted, I'm not from the Wisconsin area. But I don't figure most of the commenters here are.
Did it say anywhere that this Tim, Rikkers, Village Board Member, is a liberal?
I know the Madison area leans left, but how do you all know that Mr. Rikkers is not a Republican?
Others insist the village has an obligation to provide homes for the less fortunate.
Why? Why does "the village" have an obligation? If you are so concerned about what someone can afford, give him a check every month so help pay his rent. There. Problem solved. Don't force everyone else to be involved in your philanthropy.
I very much doubt that this is about race, and it does a disservice to reasonable people to claim that it does. I am sure that this affluent community in Madison is "integrated," as is my own affluent community in the Northeast. What this does have to do with is economic, cultural, and social differences, crime, style-of-life, etc. Most of all, it has to do with a merger of political domination by economic interests allied with progressives and naive social engineering.
@class
Why? Why does "the village" have an obligation?
This is the heart of the matter and all matters like it. At this level, it really is up to the township. States may differ, but doesn't it usually boil down to a set of guidelines held as the cart with a raft of state monies on the line as the carrot? You're not obligated to get said monies, but if you toe the line, you will.
Upper-crust neighborhoods, on the other hand, generate enough tax revenue to brush such things aside. If a village/township wants economic diversity (because that's what we're really talking about here...race is a red herring), they can vote it into their charter/bylaws.
There's no obligation at all unless the duly-elected members of the community make it so based on the bylaws/statutes of that community. To think otherwise is just more of "the world as we want it" rather than "the world as it is" nonsense.
The poor among us have been associated with a lawless and different culture. But Obama is working hard to fix that. Under state socialism the law abiding and northern european culture types will also become dirt poor. He is in favor of leveling everybody down. It's more equal that way.
I'm with lucid - this is sooo about money, not race. What's funny from the village's point of view, it that the parcel is very isolated in the village. There's commercial on 2 sides, a major thoroughfare on another and a golf course on the back side. Everyone needs to relax...
The condominium across the street -- I think Nina lives there -- is 1/3rd empty at least. Why not put the rentals there?
I do think that the scale of the building is a little large. It looked is plans as big as the Regent Apartment (I call that the U. S. S. Regent) on Regent Street. It would look odd there.
Meade: The new Target is going in across the street. Why add a Wal*Mart as well?
The strongest argument against such a development is that the city ought to be able to zone itself according to its own wishes. Developments and communities should stand on their own merits. But nobody seems to think that way these days.
@MadisonMan
Meade: The new Target is going in across the street. Why add a Wal*Mart as well?
Because consumers should have the choice between buying Chinese-made goods from either the Americans or the French.
That quote uses "rental housing" incorrectly. I doubt anyone has any objection to rental housing. Just like using "pro-immigration" when one means "pro-illegal immigration". There was a housing project (isn't that what is now called "affordable" or "subsidized" housing?) built bumping up against my old neighborhood, and it didn't take 2 years for a pleasant, solid, cop/plumber/soldier neighborhood to become uninhabitable by people who wanted to be safe. I've gotta agree that it's not about race, it's about trash. In this case, overwhelmingly white trash.
Leave Shorewood Hills alone. It's a nice community. No reason to add the same drug trafficking, bad behavior and violence that has infected other parts of Madison.
You're absolutely right, there are valid reasons for opposing projects like this. I have no problem with anyone who doesn't want a public housing project in their neighborhood.
But...if the state were trying to place a housing project in some middle class neighborhood, the wealthy liberal residents of Shorewood Hills would support, even demand, ramming it down the residents' throats in the name of diversity. Now that they might have to live with the consequences of their liberal ideals, doubts and second thoughts begin to appear. We love diversity, yes, but just not here.
I don't live in Madison but have seen this dynamic play out in other areas.
"I'm not comfortable with some folks values."
"All values are good values!"
"What about 3 AM boomboxes, gunshots and screams?"
"Racist!"
"If the attitude is that we don't want anybody in here who rents, it tells a lot," Garvey said
I wish Garvey could have a Section 8 installed next door to his house. I don't think he'd last 6 months.
There was a housing project (isn't that what is now called "affordable" or "subsidized" housing?) built bumping up against my old neighborhood, and it didn't take 2 years for a pleasant, solid, cop/plumber/soldier neighborhood to become uninhabitable by people who wanted to be safe.
Echo. Same thing happened to my neighborhood. We were stupid to not sell & flee once we saw families with young kids escaping.
I sometimes wonder if its not a scam by developers to lower property values.
Oops. I meant that housing projects are now called affordable or subsidized housing, not the other way around.
I think Ed Garvey's comment is telling. He thinks you need to build housing for poor folks in order to bring diversity to the neighborhood. Nice couple of assumptions working there: the new poor folks will of course be minorities and because all minorities are poor only cheap housing will bring them into the community. Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.
"Affordable" housing. One of the greatest non-words ever invented. All housing is affordable. Build a million-dollar house and someone will buy it - because they can afford it.
The demographics of Shorewood Hills.
Summary: Very rich; very white.
They are, of course, right it will destroy the culture of their neighborhood. It's a shame this obvious truth can't usually be spoken even though everyone knows it's true. I don't mind them saying so and not wanting that change, who would?. The problem is what they say about it when they are pushing it on other people. It just shows the lack of true concern for everyone else that IS the liberal mindset. They don't care about real poor people, middle class ones and even hate the rich. Kumbaya!
This reaction is classic NIMBY. The governmentin the name of helping poor minorities decides to Make a developer with the payola connections into DemonRathood very rich by giving him the Tax Credit that makes his development a guaranteed success. End of story. Helping poor people is not the reason for this, and arguing about poor minorities "rights" is irrelevant to everyone involved.
Come on, its a village of 1700 people on 520 acres +/-. If the village limits were square, you could walk the perimeter in an hour. Do we really expect to satisfy diversity quotas on a street by street basis?
The efforts here would be better directed by volunteering at a food bank, shelter or school in areas where life is tougher and with fewer prospects.
I will say that the two Shorewood Hills Families I know well are embarrassed by the reaction against this rental housing proposal. They see nothing wrong with the proposal.
These are not liberals. Commenters here are so quick to fit any story into the "look how silly and corrupt liberals are" meme.
You need to have some form of subsidized housing if you want to eliminate homelessness. And so you can create huge complexes in concentrated areas which have proven disastrous for the residents or you can spread the housing out in pockets of more affluent areas, which has proven more successful.
If you want tax breaks for your development, its perfectly reasonable to attach these kinds of strings. I feel the same way about churches. If you want to take government funds, then expect to follow the government's rules. If you want maximum freedom to do whatever you want, then use your own money, not ours.
@Joseph
Without first-hand knowledge or some reliable way to do the demographics, at this point saying they are or aren't liberals is pure conjecture on the part of everyone here.
As to your point about spreading out, this would, prima-facie seem to be the answer to things like East St Louis and Caprini Green in Chicago. However, it's not that simple. I will have to find the source, but a stridently liberal weekly newspaper here in St Louis did a story that, to their credit, was very honest about the results of spreading things out.
They tracked both violent and non-violent crimes against a program the state had recently (within 5 years) enacted to do exactly what you suggest. They were heart-broken to find out that the data showed unimpeachable increases in crime in "islands" around those subsidized housing locations.
I don't know what the answer is, honestly, but "spreading things out" doesn't appear to be any better.
There have been several studies on the relation of crime and public housing. Public housing or HUD recipients are associated with increased crime. The case of Katrina victims relocating to Houston and the increase in Houston's crime rate is not unusual.
http://www.cartographica.com/article.php?story=20090810115320231
But racism is always a good way to deny reality and get what you want politically!
Section 8 housing.
Always a good idea in someone else's neighborhood.
They were heart-broken to find out that the data showed unimpeachable increases in crime in "islands" around those subsidized housing locations.
I saw something similar about Memphis. The fact is, when crime moves in, everyone who can get out, gets out.
I don't know what the answer is, honestly, but "spreading things out" doesn't appear to be any better.
No, it doesn’t. Does it suck that some neighborhoods are full of violence and theft? Absolutely. But the only thing I can think of that would actually result in less crime would be putting the criminals in jail and leaving them there. That, or somehow convincing them not to be criminals. Moving them around, not surprisingly, doesn’t help. (caveat that of course, all poor are not criminals (and also, all poor are not taking housing subsidies either), but there does seem to be a link between these housing subsidies and crime.)
"You need to have some form of subsidized housing if you want to eliminate homelessness."
Bullshit.
Poverty is not merely or even primarily about the lack of money.
It is a problem of beliefs and behaviors that subsidization only exacerbates, and condones.
cryptical,
"'Affordable' is the progressive codeword for 'subsidized'"
Yep. So can we start talking about "affordable ammo" then? We all know much much prices have gone up in recent years!
ChuckR,
Of course not, "street-by-street" is much too broad!. You know that spare room you've got? Well, I'm from the government, and I'm here to tell you who you can rent it to.
Hanna Rosin wrote about the Memphis example last summer.
This is the same community that won't let Medflight helicopters fly over, or let ambulances use their sirens.
"You need to have some form of subsidized housing if you want to eliminate homelessness."
How's that working?
Well, no one is really addressing the real issue here and that is, government trying to install it's programs into incompatible neighborhoods for the sake of integration as a function of tying federal/state monies/subsidies to that integration. Now, some may argue, well, it's a free country and people should be able to live wherever they want. That's true and I agree with that, but trying to inject the unwashed masses with the unwashed masses mentality into areas they could never afford to get into to begin with is stupid.
They do this nonsense all over. Right now I'm living in the east bay of San Fransisco and there is a very upscale apartment complex around here that has mixed income residencies and they have a list of the breakdown for the rent based on your income and I look around that place because it's fairly new and I wonder how long it will take for the miasma of underclass mentalities to start spreading through the place and turn it into a wreck.
At least they are being honest and not going the anti-growth, anti-sprawl route. That's the same thing, just less honest.
I think I am with Joseph here. Homelessness is very expensive, not just in terms of wharehousing folks in motels, but also in the medical costs of people who are living on the streets. People who track the Homeless in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts seems to have figured this out, but the Bureaucracy is slow to act on the new information.
Scattered site housing is, IMHO, the best shot for fixing all this.
Besides, once we decide Climate Change is both real and bad, aren't we going to have to plow under all those McMansions? I am counting on my home being safe since it is on the historic roster.
Regards — Cliff
@Cliff
Before I respond to your comments, I'd like you to clarify which are sarcastic or ironic, and which are made in earnest.
Say no to Section 8 housing.... It most certainly will bring down property values and crime will go up. Also, it is a scam to benefit the developers/contractors not to help those in need.
You need to have some form of subsidized housing if you want to eliminate homelessness.
You certainly don't need government subsidy to solve this problem. When people get in this situation, they should call on the following groups, in this order:
1) Family
2) Friends
3) Church (or other social organization, for those not church-inclined)
4) Other private charities
Then, and only then, should the government become involved, and said involvement should consist solely of actions designed to make the person in question self-sufficient, rather than cultivating generations of people who have become dependent on the government--in other words, they should be given a hand, not a handout. (And honestly, if someone has reached the point where they have alienated their friends, families and church out of their lives, then perhaps that person is beyond help.)
"You need to have some form of subsidized housing if you want to eliminate homelessness."
Not bullshit. Utter bullshit. If you like that crap so much, how about you subsidize it out of your own pocket, in your neighborhood? Don't try to make yourself feel good by screwing up other people's lives.
Post a Comment