Thread: Police Called When Crowd Signing Up For Housing List Gets 'Out Of Control'

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1 Police Called When Crowd Signing Up For Housing List Gets 'Out Of Control' 
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,097
    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 Young
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    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.
    That will never happen. When the Republicans took over congress in 1994, the NY Daily News ran an editorial calling NYC's Public Housing Authority a "success story" and provided some statistics, but they were careful not to do the math, because when you divided the number of units by the total cost, you could see that a two-bedroom apartment cost the city $2,600 per month, with a $2,400 subsidy from the feds. Back then, luxury two-bedroom apartments in Manhattan went for less than that, and they weren't in filthy, graffiti-covered, trash-strewn, crime-infested high-rise death traps. That money was one of the big incentives to keep it in place, of course, but it also serves a deeper purpose, which is perpetuating incumbency among politicians. Public housing perpetuates dependency and concentrates those dependent voters in one place, making it easier to pick them up on election day and get them to the polls, or to pass around the early ballots for those who can't be bothered. Having a mass of Democratic voters locked up in one place perpetuates their power, and they will not give that up without a fight, no matter how badly it works out for the people who pay for it and the people who live in it.

    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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,269
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Unreconstructed Reb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    882
    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

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck View Post
    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.
    I agree, but if government is going to throw money at the problem, rent vouchers are cheaper than housing projects.

    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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    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.
    YOu can easily restate that in a way that is not politically biased and which you wouldn't be shy at work about.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    YOu can easily restate that in a way that is not politically biased and which you wouldn't be shy at work about.

    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.
    There is no way to restate that without some liberal hearing dog whistle racism. It's just the times that we live in.

    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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    There is no way to restate that without some liberal hearing dog whistle racism. It's just the times that we live in.

    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.
    I confess that I do not understand the ghetto. If I were a black parent, I would want to live as far from the urban core as possible. I would want my children to be as isolated from the negative aspects of ghetto subculture as I could manage. But there are no guarantees. In the DC area itself, you occasionally read about such parents, who busted butt or did whatever they could do to move to Charles or St Mary's County, only to have teenaged children whose first act at age 16 was to head for Anacostia and get killed/arrested/ruined.

    When I was a kid, Alabama Avenue was a really nice place to live.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,269
    In my area, Landlords, such as myself, may ask to have their properties TVRHA certified, and then rented out to qualified individuals. There is NO problem evicting unwanted tenants and NO problem collecting the rent. Some landlords specialize in this type of property, but none of mine are TVRHA certified, since I have virtually no turnover of tenants.

    Here is what TVRHA says:
    The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program increases affordable housing choices for very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, sanitary, and in good repair housing by allowing them to choose privately owned rental property. Since housing assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, participants are able to find their own housing, including single-family homes, townhouses, apartments and manufactured homes. The participant is free to choose any housing that meets the requirements of the program and is not limited to units located in subsidized housing projects.

    TVRHA pays the landlord the difference between 30% of the family’s income and the PHA-determined payment standard. The rent must be reasonable in comparison with other unassisted rental properties in the area. The household may rent a unit with a higher rent than the Payment Standard and pay the landlord the difference.

    A family that is issued a Housing Voucher is responsible for finding a suitable housing unit of the family’s choice where the owner agrees to rent under the program. This unit may include the family’s present residence. Rental units must meet minimum standards and health and safety, as determined by TVRHA.

    A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by TVRHA on behalf of the participating family. The family then pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program.
    It seems to be working fairly well, but there are still old projects in the area. There is a special satellite police office in the projects; what does that tell you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •