Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!
17744 messages in 849 discussions
Latest Aug-4 by Showtalk
2124 messages in 206 discussions
4633 messages in 257 discussions
6546 messages in 426 discussions
2844 messages in 221 discussions
4646 messages in 107 discussions
1395 messages in 106 discussions
966 messages in 94 discussions
3369 messages in 207 discussions
2470 messages in 108 discussions
5512 messages in 484 discussions
1463 messages in 91 discussions
6966 messages in 392 discussions
12070 messages in 603 discussions
453 messages in 14 discussions
#1 should read
We have four suburban areas where the developers created a mini downtown and the are very populated with everyone. Has nothing to do with politics unless you want to count the development company CEO being Republican. They were designed to give a small town atmosphere and give home buyers local entertainment and eateries. They are considered very desirable areas and have held their property values much better. The first one is the strongest Republican voter district in the metro area...Sun City. Verado is west of us, has their own local schools, preplanned parks, daycare centers, etc.
They are talking about moving low income housing projects to the suburbs, and taking away zoning for single family homes, so other those of housing can be built on properties that are now SFDs, not what you have mentioned.
There would have to be major major legislation to accomplish that. States have control, then counties, then cities. Not something I think will have any chance of passing. It's election year...both sides are spewing all kinds of idiotic things.
It’s been talked about for a long time. It’s already in place in a few areas.
Before you take Stanley Kurtz' distorted editorial seriously, take a look at Biden's actual plan https://joebiden.com/housing/.
I'm sure there are areas, but can you show me what political party was in control at the time and what government level seized the private property? Federal, state, county or city? I ask for a reason.
The city of Phoenix loaned a developer $$ to build a hotel during one of the Super Bowls here. After the SuperBowl, the developer defaulted on the loan and the City of Phoenix became the owner. There were/are several ideas promoted. A home for homeless, apartments for military homeless vets. Rooms combined and Refurbished to apartments for low income families (section 8 in other words). Then came corona and now they are thinking of using it as a "temporary" housing/care center for those recovering from Covid but not in need of intensive medical care. If AZ were to elect a Democratic governor and something was done with this hotel to benefit homeless or the poor, the Democrat would be blamed for it when in reality it started 2 decades ago with a Republican governor and mayor.
Distorted is a matter of perspective. That link took me to a Biden ad. No article, no plan.
I read the piece carefully and it also links to Biden’s ad page, but I was able to get to his plan. So the “distorted” piece also references the plan. From the distorted piece it is clear the plan requires reasoning and lack of local control. Most cities that are considered suburbs or not inner cities, have some type of growth plan. They control growth not to keep people out but to make sure utilities and resources are not overtaxed. Suburbs were originally designed to basically move the riff raff out of cities and warehouse them in more isolated areas, distant from the main power centers of a state or community. They were cheaper and more accessible for the middle class, and often companies or businesses set up near suburbs so their employees had less expensive places to live. I apologize for the bad copy. I was unable to get it all with a clear font. From the piece:
This de facto annexation strategy had three parts: (1) use a kind of quota system to force “economic integration” on the suburbs, pushing urban residents outside of the city; (2) close down suburban growth by regulating development, restricting automobile use, and limiting highway growth and repair, thus forcing would-be suburbanites back to the city; (3) use state and federal laws to force suburbs to redistribute tax revenue to poorer cities in their greater metropolitan region. If you force urbanites into suburbs, force suburbanites back into cities, and redistribute suburban tax revenue, then presto! You have effectively abolished the suburbs.
Obama’s radical AFFH regulation puts every part of Obama’s radical AFFH regulation puts every part of progressives’ “abolish the suburbs” strategy into effect (as I explain in detail here). Once Biden starts to enforce AFFH the way Obama’s administration originally meant it to work, it will be as if America’s suburbs had been swallowed up by the cities they surround. They will lose control of their own zoning and development, they will be pressured into a kind of de facto regional-revenue redistribution, and they will even be forced to start building high-density low-income housing. The latter, of course, will require the elimination of single-family zoning. With that, the basic character of the suburbs will disappear. At the very moment when the pandemic has made people rethink the advantages of dense urban living, the choice of an alternative will be taken away.progressives’ “abolish the suburbs” strategy into effect (as I explain in detailnce Biden starts to enforce AFFH the way Obama’s administration originally meant it to work, it will be as if America’s suburbs had been swallowed up by the cities they surround. They will lose control of their own zoning and development, they will be pressured into a kind of de facto regional-revenue redistribution, and they will even be forced to start building high-density low-income housing. The latter, of course, will require the elimination of single-family zoning. With that, the basic character of the suburbs will disappear. At the very moment when the pandemic has made people rethink the advantages of dense urban living, the choice of an alternative will be taken away.