Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Please let me know if either of you take concrete steps to put this into law. I will want to sell my property well before then.
The question I have for all of you is who is going to make the determination as to who is permitted and not permitted to live where? And are you going to have compulsory acceptance of the vouchers? Seems to me you would have to in order for this to work. Also seems to me to be a taking, but as has been documented here before I'm no con law scholar.
|
Here is what I would do. I would say vouchers come on a limited first-come first-served basis in every community, and I'd let the market dictate the voucher limits, but with compulsory-acceptance.
The first-come first-served would operate as follows. Assume that one of every 200 residences in America (or 1 of every X number of residences in America) is currently subsidized by voucher. I would say that voucher density can be no more than 1 of every 150 residences in any community. Thus, I would not even give voucher recipients the choice to live in a community where other voucher recipients already live. On a typical Chicago residential block in the bungalow belt there are something like 40 homes. Thus, 1 of every 4 blocks would have a voucher recipient. 1 of every 200 mansions in Lake Forest would also have a voucher recipient, if any are for-rent and the voucher-recipient is the first offeree. 1 of every 200 homes in Columbia Maryland. 1 of every 200 homes in San Jose, CA. 1 of every 200 homes in any community.
In the Chicago example, I think it would work by saying that no voucher recipient can use a voucher within 1 block (assuming the bungalow belt model) of another recipient. In a 400 unit apartment building, I'd let 2 in.
And that's it. You would have 398 non-voucher units to call the police on the 2 voucher units. The children of the 2 voucher units would be immersed in a school with the children of 398 non-voucher units. Think the classrooms would be overly disrupted by bad kids in anywhere near what classrooms in the inner-city face today?
And if residents of the 398 non-voucher units all decide to vote for a President that vows an end to vouchers and public housing, so be it.
Savings: no more desegregation bussing. Increased ability of law enforcement to monitor the children of the poor and disenfranchised.
Oh, and the first time any voucher recipient is convicted of any felony, I'd pull the voucher permanently.
Call it what you will, but if you have any reason to believe that our nation would face its current problems with these people after 30 years of my plan, please state them. The only people who would have a problem with this are the NIMBY people and communities who live under our system, but avoid the effects of our laws by living in exclusive communities blah blah blah. Buy yo, like I said, if they don't like a fair system, they can always end the system altogether (or find another fair system). Right now, the burden is borne in gross disproportion by the few and avoided by the many.
Hello
