Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Yes, but who has to accept them?

Right now, no one has to accept them. If the problem is that they're only accepted in a few neighborhoods, the answer surely is to find ways to make them more attractive to landlords. I certainly don't think we should force landlords to accept tenants, in the name of social policy. Hell, I'm opposed to rent control.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Right now, no one has to accept them. If the problem is that they're only accepted in a few neighborhoods, the answer surely is to find ways to make them more attractive to landlords. I certainly don't think we should force landlords to accept tenants, in the name of social policy. Hell, I'm opposed to rent control.

Just when I think you've gone completely off the deep end, you come up with some rational shit like this.

[Say_hello_for_me]

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Just when I think you've gone completely off the deep end, you come up with some rational shit like this.

Maybe I misunderstood Hello, but I thought all he was saying was that it's bad for Chicago that you can't use Section 8 vouchers in more places, and that other neighborhoods should step up to the plate.

eta:

Originally posted by Hello
Savings: no more desegregation bussing.

I think you are confusing the question of who is poor with the question of who is black. The average welfare recipient is white (except when the NYT sends a reporter to Chicago to report on welfare).

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Yes, but who has to accept them?

Section 8 status should not be a basis for denial of tenancy. Then again, acceptance of a section 8 voucher in 1 case should not open you up to forced acceptance of more section 8 vouchers (or even 1 more for a building of less than 200 units in my example) in all cases (which I think is the insane policy of today).

Hello

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe I misunderstood Hello, but I thought all he was saying was that it's bad for Chicago that you can't use Section 8 vouchers in more places, and that other neighborhoods should step up to the plate.

Not at all misunderstood, though my position is that the recipients should absolutely be prohibited from concentrating in any community. If it means subsidizing the rent of some family to move to an 8000 square foot mansion in Lake Forest, so be it. If anyone is willing to accept rent, than Section 8 should not be denied uniformly and automatically. Well, ok, maybe that's off the deep end.

Of course, if a community has no renters, than maybe the program can buy homes and *rent* them to the recipients for a few years.

Of course, there should be a lifetime limit of section 8 use for able-bodies adults too, just like the limits on receipt of welfare aid.

Bottom line is that poverty should not be concentrated at the hands of the G.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Courtesy of Mark Kleiman:

• 1. The typographical case against authenticity remains unproven, as far as I can tell: the small raised "th," proportional spacing, and Times New Roman were all available on mass-market IBM machines of the period. (Note that you didn't need a typewriter with a special "th" key; platen inserts were available.) That MS Word turns out to reproduce what an IBM typewriter would have done merely suggests that MS Word was designed properly.
  
  2. That the documents might be genuine doesn't show that they are genuine. So far, we don't even know that they could be genuine, in the sense that we don't know that they could have been produced on a machine that Col. Killian's staff would likely have had access to.
  
  3. CBS went with copies of copies of documents, and did so without establishing their provenance in a way that CBS is willing to share with the public. The typogaphical challenge, though it no longer seems like a lay-down, was obvious enough so that someone should have vetted the documents before publication, for example by reproducing them on contemporary equipment. Getting access to such equipment isn't trivial, but it ought to be well within the capability of CBS News.
  
  4. Going with such iffy documents seems journalistically questionable, though it's still possible that the source is solid in a way that CBS knows but promised not to tell. If I were running CBS News, I'd have some questions to ask.
  
  5. George W. Bush knows whether or not he was issued a direct order to take a flight physical by May 14, 1972. So far, neither he nor his spokesmen have done so. Why not?
  
  6. Even if the documents are bogus, the questions about why 1LT Bush ignored the general regulation requiring an annual flight physical, and why no Flight Inquiry Board was convened as a result, remain. The explanations proffered by the White House don't add up.
  
  7. Also remaining in question: whether 1LT Bush ever showed up in Alabama, whether 1LT Bush actually accumulated enough points to constitute a full year of service for 1972 and 1973, whether 1LT Bush collected pay he wasn't entitled to, and whether 1LT Bush was required to report for duty in Massachusetts and failed to do so.
  
  8. Not in question: the fact that to get out of Vietnam George W. Bush signed a piece of paper asserting that "I have applied for pilot training with the goal of making flying a lifetime pursuit," and that he then, having accepted $1 million worth of training, walked away from flying after 22 months.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think you are confusing the question of who is poor with the question of who is black. The average welfare recipient is white (except when the NYT sends a reporter to Chicago to report on welfare).

True. But you disperse subsidized poverty and I'm pretty certain you don't need to bus as many poor black kids to white neighborhoods or middle class/wealthy white kids to black ones.

Oh, and did I mention the effect this would have on public schools themselves?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
True. But you disperse subsidized poverty and I'm pretty certain you don't need to bus as many poor black kids to white neighborhoods or middle class/wealthy white kids to black ones.

Oh, and did I mention the effect this would have on public schools themselves?

I agree with you. If whites knew that the numbers of blacks who could move into the neighborhood with vouchers was limited in the way you described, you'd see less white flight, I bet. OTOH, residential segregation happens for a variety of reasons, and your system might not cure it. Maybe blacks would use vouchers in black neighborhoods alone.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Here is what I would do . . . .

I thought that's what you had in mind. Put aside the economic and freedom to contarct arguments. How is that not a taking?

eta: In the interest of clarity, I think you are responding here to the subsequent post in which Hello said that voucher use shouldn't be a basis to decline to rent to a prospective tenant. But maybe I'm confused. -- T.S.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I thought that's what you had in mind. Put aside the economic and freedom to contarct arguments. How is that not a taking?

eta: In the interest of clarity, I think you are responding here to the subsequent post in which Hello said that voucher use shouldn't be a basis to decline to rent to a prospective tenant. But maybe I'm confused. -- T.S.

eta (by club) partially, but partially responding to his compulsory argument.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I certainly don't think we should force landlords to accept tenants, in the name of social policy. Hell, I'm opposed to rent control.

See, now, this was my point.

I should just let you talk for me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
See, now, this was my point.

I should just let you talk for me.

Be careful when you say that to someone who can use the edit function . . . .

(AG told me weeks ago not to mess with people's posts. I think the note in club's post above didn't cross a line, but if anyone disagrees at all, tell me, because I don't want anyone to think I'm abusing the mod powers. Especially with Penske in retirement on Ultima Thule, or wherever he went.)

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
eta (by club) partially, but partially responding to his compulsory argument.

Right now (I think) they say, if you take 1, you have to take as many as people have. Supposedly, its one of the great motivators for going condo in gentrifying neighborhoods (getting out of the section 8 program as values rise). How is it a taking if you state merely that people can't discriminate based on the section 8 status itself? The landlords still get the same market reimbursement they demand.

And I'm not sure, but I'd like to think you aren't arguing against my ban on the use of such vouchers in concentration.

Maybe I'm confused though. What compulsion/coercion do you object to?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Right now (I think) they say, if you take 1, you have to take as many as people have. Supposedly, its one of the great motivators for going condo in gentrifying neighborhoods (getting out of the section 8 program as values rise). How is it a taking if you state merely that people can't discriminate based on the section 8 status itself? The landlords still get the same market reimbursement they demand.

And I'm not sure, but I'd like to think you aren't arguing against my ban on the use of such vouchers in concentration.

Maybe I'm confused though. What compulsion/coercion do you object to?

Disclaimer - I am ignorant in this area. But what I object to is compusory aspect of this. I think landlords should be able to rent to whomever they like, period. I also do not like the idea of government planning in the market place, for what I believe are obvious reasons.

That said, I don't necessarily disagree with the effects you believe your plan would have, but I would be pissed off as hell if a landlord in my building or next door decided to acept vouchers. Tell me, would the government compensate me for any dimunition in my propery value?