#1 Police Called When Crowd Signing Up For Housing List Gets 'Out Of Control'12-10-2012, 10:49 AM
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Columbus Police sprayed Mace on several people in a crowd that had gathered to sign up for a list to get subsidized housing at a northwest Columbus apartment complex.
Police said the crowd started to gather Friday night for the Saturday morning event at The Heritage apartment complex on Gatewood Road near Sunbury Road in northeast Columbus.
Authorities said that its highest number, the crowd reached 2,000 people.
Residents in the area called police overnight and complained about the noise and number of cars in the neighborhood.
According to police, a melee broke out when the manager of the complex started to set up for the event just before 7 a.m. Saturday morning.
Several individuals were sprayed with Mace by police and treated at the scene by emergency crews.
Police did not report making any arrests.
Watch 10TV and refresh 10TV.com for the latest information.
Hot Burka woman gone wild video>http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/...s-control.html
"Tin soldiers and Obama's coming,
We're finally on our own.
This winter I hear the drumming,
Four seasoned in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it
cops are spraying us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her peppered on the ground
How can you run when you know?
ALa la la la la la la la
La la la la la la la
La la la la la la la la
La la la la la la la."
Abdul YoungHow is obama working out for you?
12-10-2012, 11:06 AM
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
So we have a public housing complex called "The Heritage".
New law: all public housing projects must be renamed geographically only like this:
West Cleveland Temporary Housing For the Poor
North Toledo Temporary Housing For The Poor.
All public housing complexes should be on a ten year shut down plan after which they will either be bulldozed or individual units rehabbed and sold to non-inestor owners.
12-10-2012, 11:42 AM
Instead of having public housing, NYC could have simply issued rent vouchers, which would have been far cheaper, but it also would have meant scattering those potential Democratic voters throughout the city. That would have meant no buses to the projects on election day, and lower turnout among the permanent underclass.
12-10-2012, 12:37 PM
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
I don't think subsidized housing is ever a good idea. I'm not saying that unfortunate people should not get assistance, but I am saying that their rent should not be subsidized or paid for. The rental market itself would take care of the need for cheap housing.
12-10-2012, 01:14 PM
Public housing are just dens of iniquity for these parasites."The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson
12-10-2012, 01:30 PM
The original argument for housing projects was urban renewal, the idea that government should reverse urban blight by destroying slums and replacing them with modern buildings. However, the economics of the idea were never sound, and the social policies that they advanced were based on wishful thinking. Urban blight was a function of massive immigration to cities, rent control, and middle class flight from cities. Basically, a large influx of people, usually black, led to housing shortages, followed by laws that attempted to restrict rents, which made middle-class neighborhoods cheap enough for lower class elements to move in. This drove out the middle class, and the businesses that they patronized. Blockbusters exacerbated the problem by buying a home in a good neighborhood and moving in an undesirable tenant (someone who would fail to keep the home in repair, menace the neighbors and otherwise drive down home values), and then buying up the surrounding homes at a loss to the owners. Whole cities were destroyed by these actions, and the governmental response was to pretend that the market had failed (when in fact, it was government policies that caused it), and propose great big governmental solutions.
BTW, any assistance given to people will end up subsidizing their rents, or other expenses, just because money given them for food, for example, frees up other money for rent. It's just the nature of the welfare, that if you provide one benefit, you end up freeing up money for other activities, some legitimate, some not. This is why drug tests for welfare recipients ought to be a requirement.
12-11-2012, 11:39 AM
Subsidized housing can mean the projects, but it frequently is a landlord who the government pays part of the rent to, and the tenant pays the rest. I've seen some nice housing in this type of program-Section 8. It gets a bad name, and there are lots of abuses, but when the landlord and tenants are both coming into the deal with honesty, it can work well. There are some provisions that give landlords low-interest loans to improve the property. The tenant can frequently live with her family in a single home, instead of an apartment in a project, which provides better access to schools, jobs and the other things that lead out of poverty.
12-11-2012, 12:25 PM
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
I'm suspicious of these "rent to own" signs I see in the poorer sections of St Pete. It occurred to me that what they might be doing is renting these houses out Section 8 and supposedly using some of the rent collected towards the "down payment" with a promise of owner financing. A more criminal model would be if they were telling the tenant that it was a contract for purchase, ie you get Section 8 to pay for your house, but deed doesn't transfer until it's paid for. Either way- it's I'm pretty sure it's illegal and that no one actually ends up buying a house this way.
12-10-2012, 03:03 PM
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
Rent vouchers scatter the poor rather than concentrating them in a place where there IS NO EMPLOYMENT. That's my complain about public housing: it creates a permanent poverty zone and usually a crime zone as well.
12-10-2012, 04:02 PM
We agree about the problems of public housing, but rent vouchers are not a solution, either. Vouchers scatter the poor, but don't solve their problems, and they end up bringing them to the neighborhoods that they move into. Moving one poor, socially screwed up family into a middle class neighborhood (funny how Section 8 housing never puts the poor in Beverly Hills, Georgetown, Park Avenue or any of the really ritzy areas) just means that you have a family that can't afford to shop anywhere near their home, can't get around and cannot relate to their neighbors. Instead of moving them up, they end up bringing the neighborhood down, but if the neighbors have a problem with that, they are subject to legal sanction via non-discrimination laws. Thus, if a family moves in next door, puts their beater car on blocks and plays loud music at all hours, you end up unable to do anything. I've had toxic neighbors before (we lived across the street from an apartment house that rented to illegals) and the noise, crime and hassle was beyond description. Eventually, we moved, and were happy to get away, but we were also renting at the time. If we'd owned our home, we'd have been screwed.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|