Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Look where they are leaving and where they are going. A city that still has a massive social burden. You seeing people leaving for Calumet City or South Holland or Maywood (i.e., other places that are now subjected to the same massive burden but have nowhere near the ability of Chicago to withstand it)? No. They are very specifically going as far away as they can from anyplace that has public housing and section 8. Which leads full circle to the original proposition. Why is it okay to impose it on homeowners in South Holland while exempting those in DuPage?

I really haven't figured out your point with these arguments. It think it's something like "Section 8 is bad," or perhaps it is "Democrats are ruining the inner cities." As you seem to be offering only your personal experiences, I will offer mine.

Suburbs in Houston are cheap and plentiful. You can get a big house with a big yard on a quiet street for not too much money. Sure, you have to deal with the commute. But it's not so bad if you working in one of the sprawling business campuses that ring the city. Why are they there? Land. Cheap, cheap land. And tax breaks.

I hate suburbs, work downtown, and I hate commuting. When I was looking to buy a place in Houston, it was going to be in the inner loop. Some of the most expensive properties were in an area that is probably one of the most racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse in the city. I have not done research on the issue (help, RT!), but I suspect there is a good deal of Section 8 housing in this area.

For the same prices as the places we were looking at in this neighborhood, we could have gotten a 5,000 sf house on the golf course in the burbs. The only neighborhoods more expensive than the r/e/c diverse one are the ones with the mansions housing our local industry leaders. I doubt there is any Section 8 housing in River Oaks. It is a Republican stronghold.

"Republican" and "Democrat" are terms that don't mean much in local elections. Ability and backbone mean so much more. Local governments do not deal so much in macroeconomic abstractions. The deal with concrete issues such as, well, concrete to fill the potholes. And garbage collection.

What was your point again?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

What was your point again?

Bottom line: If we are going to have section 8 or public housing, it should not be concentrated; rather, the burden should be imposed everywhere within reason. Before the argument was shifted to the causes of suburbanization (by me, heh heh heh), this was essentially it. I originally posted an article from the Chicago Suntimes that detailed how there are numerous suburbs in Chicago that have no section 8, whereas the absolute worst neighborhoods in the city (Lawndale, Englewood) are overrun with concentrated vouchers and public housing.

The premise is:

1.) If Johnson declares a war on Poverty, then we should all be equally enlisted;
2.) If anyone declares any kind of war on anything, we should not be fighting to lose (sound familiar?).

I promise the rest of ya, this is my last post on the thread. Ya weren't supposed to like hearing it. Who else here could attack Dems, Republicans and Sebby in one political string?

He(the real Right)llo

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Bottom line: If we are going to have section 8 or public housing, it should not be concentrated; rather, the burden should be imposed everywhere within reason. Before the argument was shifted to the causes of suburbanization (by me, heh heh heh), this was essentially it. I originally posted an article from the Chicago Suntimes that detailed how there are numerous suburbs in Chicago that have no section 8, whereas the absolute worst neighborhoods in the city (Lawndale, Englewood) are overrun with concentrated vouchers and public housing.

The premise is:

1.) If Johnson declares a war on Poverty, then we should all be equally enlisted;
2.) If anyone declares any kind of war on anything, we should not be fighting to lose (sound familiar?).

I promise the rest of ya, this is my last post on the thread. Ya weren't supposed to like hearing it. Who else here could attack Dems, Republicans and Sebby in one political string?

He(the real Right)llo

I am all for Section 8 housing in River Oaks. I'm with you, I guess.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I really haven't figured out your point with these arguments. It think it's something like "Section 8 is bad," or perhaps it is "Democrats are ruining the inner cities." As you seem to be offering only your personal experiences, I will offer mine.

Suburbs in Houston are cheap and plentiful. You can get a big house with a big yard on a quiet street for not too much money. Sure, you have to deal with the commute. But it's not so bad if you working in one of the sprawling business campuses that ring the city. Why are they there? Land. Cheap, cheap land. And tax breaks.

I'd wholeheartedly agree with this. It costs next to nothing to buy land in a prarie here and develop it. While it would suck my soul to have to move to one of those places, I don't have three kids and need a place to put them. You can own a decent sized house, with a fair amount of land for under $200K in a hell of a lot of suburbs.

I hate suburbs, work downtown, and I hate commuting. When I was looking to buy a place in Houston, it was going to be in the inner loop. Some of the most expensive properties were in an area that is probably one of the most racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse in the city. I have not done research on the issue (help, RT!), but I suspect there is a good deal of Section 8 housing in this area.

For the same prices as the places we were looking at in this neighborhood, we could have gotten a 5,000 sf house on the golf course in the burbs. The only neighborhoods more expensive than the r/e/c diverse one are the ones with the mansions housing our local industry leaders. I doubt there is any Section 8 housing in River Oaks. It is a Republican stronghold.

Houston is a little different than a lot of other large cities because the city tends to annex the suburbs to retain the tax base, so it's all Houston. The city is physically the size of Rhode Island, there is no zoning, and there are no natural constraints like rivers or mountains or other cities on growth. For some reason the school systems are separate though, and I think that has a bigger impact than subsidized housing.

There's Section 8 housing right next to River Oaks, and I'd argue that the property that Allen Parkway Village (the oldest subsidized housing project in the city, and subject to massive contraversy because it was recently torn down (and uglyly rebuilt) is on is probably some of the most valuable in the city. The fourth ward (where Allen Parkway Village is located) has been able to accomodate a lot of the recent gentrification without losing it's longtime (poor, black) residents because the city made an effort to require subsidized housing when Perry Homes came in and started tearing down the old shotgun houses.

I think we keep on growing outward because it's inexpensive and the highway department likes to build freeways. I can't imagine living outside the loop though.

[SlaveNoMore]

Did you just call me Coltrane?
You of all people should respect this. If not, you can no longer be a Little Lebowski Urban Achiever.

And aren't we proud of all of them?

[Gattigap]

Finally, an organization that we can all agree on (or, at least we theoretically could.)

Kerry-Haters for Kerry

My favorite page? The Panic Room.

Worried that you'll blurt out to friends and acquaintances what you really think about Kerry, costing him precious votes? Don't keep it bottled up inside! Let it all out here, in the Panic Room, where nobody will see it. You'll feel better -- without demoralizing the base!

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan

There's Section 8 housing right next to River Oaks, and I'd argue that the property that Allen Parkway Village (the oldest subsidized housing project in the city, and subject to massive contraversy because it was recently torn down (and uglyly rebuilt) is on is probably some of the most valuable in the city. The fourth ward (where Allen Parkway Village is located) has been able to accomodate a lot of the recent gentrification without losing it's longtime (poor, black) residents because the city made an effort to require subsidized housing when Perry Homes came in and started tearing down the old shotgun houses.

I may well be wrong about this, but I thought that the Allen Parkway Village was publicly owned. Section 8 provides vouchers for low-income folks to rent from private owners. Either way, it is obvious that Chicago could learn from Houston's example. That's some prime real estate.

I think we keep on growing outward because it's inexpensive and the highway department likes to build freeways. I can't imagine living outside the loop though.

Also, developers and highway contractors tend to play a pretty big role in local politics. I don't think they really care if the politicians are Republican or Democrat as long as they get their projects approved. Judging from Houston's growth patterns, they often are. Fortunately, with Tom DeLay representing the suburbs, more people seem to be wanting to move to the inner loop.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Finally, an organization that we can all agree on (or, at least we theoretically could.)

Kerry-Haters for Kerry

My favorite page? The Panic Room.

The note on the banner is pretty funny:

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is shite. If you look at every election in the last 50 years (and probably longer) the more optimistic/personally likeable candidate always wins. The reason why the DEMs are having trouble this that thier candidate is not optimistic/likeable.

[SlaveNoMore]

From Drudge:

• On Oprah's Wednesday 'voting party' show featuring important celebrities like P. Diddy (Vote or Die!), Drew Barrymore and Christina Aguilera, svelte suffragette Cameron Diaz took to shock tactics to get the female vote out.
  
  After a discussion on lynching and the vote with Oprah, Diaz spoke of the dire consequences for women if they sit out this election:
  
  Ms. DIAZ: We have a voice now, and we're not using it, and women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. We could lo--if you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body, and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote, and those are the...
  
  WINFREY: It's your voice.
  
  Ms. DIAZ: It's your voice. It's your voice, that's your right.

No additional comment is necessary.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From Drudge:

• On Oprah's Wednesday 'voting party' show featuring important celebrities like P. Diddy (Vote or Die!), Drew Barrymore and Christina Aguilera, svelte suffragette Cameron Diaz took to shock tactics to get the female vote out.
  
  After a discussion on lynching and the vote with Oprah, Diaz spoke of the dire consequences for women if they sit out this election:
  
  Ms. DIAZ: We have a voice now, and we're not using it, and women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. We could lo--if you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body, and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote, and those are the...
  
  WINFREY: It's your voice.
  
  Ms. DIAZ: It's your voice. It's your voice, that's your right.

No additional comment is necessary.

No "additional" comment is necessary? Think of the poor baby electrons, going to bed tonight without mothers and fathers, simply because you and Drudge had to share this! Oh the humanity!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He said "more likeable" not "likeable."

Nixon v. Kennedy = Kennedy
Nixon v. Humphrey or McGovern=Nixon

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From Drudge:

• On Oprah's Wednesday 'voting party' show featuring important celebrities like P. Diddy (Vote or Die!), Drew Barrymore and Christina Aguilera, svelte suffragette Cameron Diaz took to shock tactics to get the female vote out.
  
  After a discussion on lynching and the vote with Oprah, Diaz spoke of the dire consequences for women if they sit out this election:
  
  Ms. DIAZ: We have a voice now, and we're not using it, and women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. We could lo--if you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body, and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote, and those are the...
  
  WINFREY: It's your voice.
  
  Ms. DIAZ: It's your voice. It's your voice, that's your right.

No additional comment is necessary.

Cameron Diaz has the right to age 20 years in the past 5. And she has exercised that right.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I may well be wrong about this,

I find this type of qualifier unnecessary in your posts at this point. No offense.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
No "additional" comment is necessary? Think of the poor baby electrons, going to bed tonight without mothers and fathers, simply because you and Drudge had to share this! Oh the humanity!

What? Did Oprah give you a new Pontiac?