So I'm reading this piece about
"diversifying" wealthy neighborhoods where I found the following:
“We have a history of putting affordable housing in poor communities,” said Debby Goldberg, vice president at the National Fair Housing Alliance.
Maybe that's because that's where the people that can afford it live. Wealthy neighborhoods don't need "affordable housing" cause they can already afford the housing that is there.
The agency is also 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.”
There's that garbage concept again.
“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.” [my underlines]
You know what? I'd like to live in Alpine NJ. Maybe a house overlooking the Hudson. No. I want to have a house in the Hamptons. Oh wait. I don't have enough money. But I WANT to live there!!! Let me get the government to make them build a house I can afford in those places.
0.0
Look. News for the cry babies out there. You don't get to live where you WANT to live. You get to live where you can afford to live. That said, let me be clear that I am for rent stabilized places. I am for building places that are affordable for people who are not making 6 figure salaries.
“In our country, decades of public policies and institutional practices have built deeply segregated and unequal neighborhoods,” Turner said.
So long as there are people who make more than other people, there will be "unequal neighborhoods". That's a fact of "free enterprise". Secondly the vast majority of people want and like to live around people who are of the same racial and ethnic backgrounds as them. Why is this a problem? Those who WANT to live in highly mixed neighborhoods find and move into such neighborhoods.
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.
Well there are a few things here. First the "violence and crime". Who is committing all this "violence and crime"? Wouldn't that be the other people in those communities? It certainly isn't people coming in from the wealthy neighborhoods deciding to take a trip "slumming" and shooting and robbing the residents for fun. So why not point out that it is the very residents who are creating this violent and criminal environment? And furthermore why not realize and say that the reason that there isn't "affordable housing" in these wealthy areas is specifically to keep those persons prone to "violence and crime" OUT of their neighborhoods so that they do not become subject to "violence and crime".
“Segregation is clearly a problem that is blocking upward mobility for children growing up today,” she said.
Segregation has been legally dead for decades. Negroes who can afford it can live just about anywhere they want. Restrictive covenants are illegal. Why is this person talking about segregation like it's the 1950s?
