Large, Poor Families Are Left Out of New York’s Housing Plans, Officials Say
By tovarichpeter Follow Sat, 20 Oct 2012, 1:47pm 785 views 14 comments
In South San Francisco CA 94080
Watch (1) Share
Quote
Permalink Like (1) Dislike Viewing Comments 1-14 of 14 Last » See most liked comments
|
Premium member tovarichpeter is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (14)
764 threads
2,601 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
This will happen everywhere if the 1 percent continue to buy up all the real estate.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,266 comments
Premium
Somehow these particular examples don't sound like the fault of the 1%.
"Mahamadou Tounkara and his wife and six children squeeze into one room of a market-rate, three-bedroom apartment in the South Bronx that they share with two other families because they cannot afford the monthly $1,112 rent alone. Twenty more large families at their mosque are in a similar bind even as several new city-financed buildings have risen nearby...Tounkara...is a part-time auto mechanic."
It's possible to help people to some extent, but it isn't possible to save them from themselves.
NYC needs a lot more housing, but the current system of zoning & planning restrictions have created a shortage, and adding a layer of subsidy is like the old lady who swallowed a fly. The city should allow enough construction for supply to catch up with demand at a lower price point. The 1% would continue to buy the fanciest places, while everyone else would be able to afford something reasonable.
Follow
Befriend (6)
5 threads
2,359 comments
curious2 says
Yes it is. Because, they have the resources and the time resources to understand that economic circumstances that give rise to situations like that, no matter who's "fault" it is, will not come to any good for anyone.
Like 1%ers who might be jet setting on flights, or in their high rise office building in NYC.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,266 comments
Premium
B.A.C.A.H. says
The situation does not arise from the economic circumstances per se, but rather from the mosque. NYC will already pay to provide free public education to all six of the children, and AFDC will make sure they have enough to eat, and Medicaid providers will over-medicate them if the parents fall into that trap. But consider, Osama bin Laden had more than 60 children. NYC needs more housing, but no city can subsidize enough housing to keep up with a birthrate like that.
Follow
Befriend (14)
764 threads
2,601 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
curious2 says
Who do you think make the rules for housing? Surely not the 99 percent.
Follow
Befriend (14)
764 threads
2,601 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
curious2 says
But you need to realize that more people are going to multigenerational living for survival. With depressed global wages and the high cost of living, many two parent households struggle.
But in NYC, I guess most just aren't having kids and only 11 percent have more than 5 in a house. That will come back to bite the banksters in the a** in a few years anyway.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,266 comments
Premium
bgamall4 says
That's a good point, but I have often been surprised that people in both major parties tend to vote against their own interests, or to have idiosyncratic priorities. On the Republican side, it's obvious: they vote against their own economic interest because their preachers tell them they need to sacrifice "for God" by voting for "the party of God" and against the other party (which is "against God") etc. On the Democratic side, it's more subtle: even in cities like SF where people complain about the high cost of housing, they also don't want to allow enough construction. They prefer blame to solutions; it seems related to "the warrior gene," and perpetuates the cycle of divide and misrule.
At the present time, the problem of overpriced housing is driven primarily by the federal government (Fed ZIRP and "Operation Twist", Fannie & Freddie, the mortgage interest deduction, and the FHLB system), all of which are intended to inflate FIRE demand, and all of which are hurting the real economy. But also at the local level, and with genuine grassroots support, zoning & planning restrictions constrict supply. I dislike Bubbles Ben propping up his crony capitalists and lemon socialists, but I see their self-interested logic; what is more difficult to understand is the anti-gentrification protests that try to block construction in SF, perpetuating the housing shortage. I do try to understand the anti-construction arguments though, and sometimes they include rational arguments about liking their view and the light and not wanting obstructions and shadows, and concerns about earthquakes (though tall buildings tend to perform better than short ones), mostly they come down to different priorities rationalizing the status quo.
Follow
Befriend (7)
37 threads
1,541 comments
Mountain View, CA
bmwman91's website
Premium
There seem (to me) to be two problems here.
One is that the 1% does in fact write most of the rules for things that concern the 99% and do not necessarily have the best interests of the 99% in mind. Basically all of the policies we are seeing come from our government and finance sector resemble an all-out war on the middle class and below.
The second problem is in the title. LARGE poor families. People need to be smarter about that. If someone can't afford to house their family, what the hell business do they have making so many children? The entire welfare system needs to be redesigned to discourage additional reproduction, and I don't feel badly for the family in the article. They made their choices and they can live with them. It sucks, but hopefully their kids will take advantage of the education system, get smart and see that they shouldn't be like their parents when they grow up. Consequences are the only way anyone will learn. Sure, it is "cultural" to have lots of kids for people from most 3rd world countries, but that's no excuse to bring that bullshit here. I guess that compared to the life that they would have had over there with 5 kids (and they would have had 5 anyway), all the free shit they get here makes it seem like a killer deal. Yeah yeah the Catholics were doing it in the '50s and '60s, but that was also a time when a factory job could feed and house a family of 8. America needs FEWER poor people, either by getting the existing ones to be productive and self-sufficient, or by convincing them to stop making more. It's harsh, but that's reality.
Follow
Befriend (14)
764 threads
2,601 comments
63 male
Las Vegas, NV
bgamall4's website
Premium
bmwman91 says
Some of this is not about too many children. Some is that the banksters do not want too much multigenerational living because eventually that will hit housing starts. And housing is where banksters have the most power.
Follow
Befriend (6)
5 threads
2,359 comments
bmwman91 says
yep. Consequences like all those folks going to mosque in NYC. Like people who lived like that going to mosque in London.
Follow
Befriend (7)
37 threads
1,541 comments
Mountain View, CA
bmwman91's website
Premium
bgamall4 says
Sure, the crooked way that things are run for the gain of a few is a major issue. I was just less verbose about that one since it seems like sort of a "duh" statement. ;p
Follow
Befriend (7)
37 threads
1,541 comments
Mountain View, CA
bmwman91's website
Premium
B.A.C.A.H. says
Sorry, not quote following.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,266 comments
Premium
bmwman91 says
I think it was intended to imply that angry poor people going to mosques will then make bombs and blow up the subway, so they should be further subsidized to mollify them. Life doesn't work that way though. I've tried to be even-handed in my comments about organized religion, but the mosques really do tend to correlate with much more serious problems and besides those aren't limited to poor mosques; the 9/11 pilots had access to opportunities, including education, but chose disastrously. Subsidizing disastrous choices does not lead to fewer disasters, in fact subsidizing anything tends to produce more of it.
Follow
Befriend (25)
413 threads
6,983 comments
Saint George, UT
elliemae's website
As you can see, I live in Utah - home of the large families. The Mormon church encourages its members to replenish the earth, and many people take that edict seriously.
The Mormon church has a welfare system that helps these people by requiring that they work for the food - but they still give them a helluva lot more food than they work for, furniture, housing assistance and financial help. The church system isn't perfect - each Bishop is in charge of deciding how much help they provide to families. Remember that this assistance is provided in addition to food stamps, welfare, housing programs, etc.
Essentially, large families don't have to be responsible for themselves. They are able to use the system to their advantage in order to pop out them thar kids. Medicaid pays for the birth, their basic needs are assured by the Bishops and the welfare system.
Bishops are easily swayed - I had a friend who received over $3000/month, yet had plenty of food, a bedroom set, utilities and rent paid for close to a year. She lied to the Bishop about her circumstances - even though her ex husband also paid out over $70,000 to her in addition to her income. The Bishop believed her. Obviously I'm still pissed about this even though it's been several years. But I digress.
The majority of my property taxes go to the education system, even though I have no children at home. My beef is that, if these people choose to procreate freely and six children are a normal sized family, they should pay more than I do toward their children's education. They should pay "by the head." I feel that everyone should pay for a couple of children's education, those people who choose to pop out kids left & right should have to contribute more toward their kid's education. Considering that most of these lower-income large families rent, they don't even actually contribute toward their kids' education.
By the way, a "BMW" in Utah is different than a "BMW" that ya'll know. BMW's are SUV's such as Suburbans, Expeditions, etc. Stands for "Big Mormon Wagons."