Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
People with brains understand that gentrification is evil when it negatively impacts specific groups.
If you're a rich white guy making 150K a year, a couple apartments in your neighborhood being turned into subsidized housing has no effect on you or the $2200 a month condo you're renting. Whereas the dude who makes $20,000 a year is screwed when the property values of his neighborhood get jacked up by gentrification and his $1000 a month rent goes up to $1650.
As someone who lives in the San Francisco bay area, I see this first hand every day. I grew up in San Francisco- it's my home- but unless I become a Google employee or find some equally high-paying career, I'm literally going to be forced to move away if/when something happens to my Mom and the house we're renting. The cost of living is simply too high for me to afford with my job.
It isn't even just people with crappy jobs, too. Something like 80% of City employees live outside of the city. Electricians making $50/hour can barely afford to live here. Thanks, tech-boom.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2015/07/20 05:34:31
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Actually it would make his condo less desirable. The deflation of local property values will hurt local homeowners and cause local business to suffer. While the opposite actually has benefits of higher wages to combat increased rent.
Both have negative effects on certain people, but its most assuredly worse to tear down an area that is currently doing just fine.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
"Tearing it down" is a hilariously obvious (and dishonest) spin. If these were million dollar condos being built instead of affordable housing, that would be considered "expansion" and a boom to the local job/economic market. You aren't fooling anyone.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2015/07/20 05:35:48
The NYP is a rag. Linking it here has lowered dakka's IQ by several points. Somewhere a dakkaite just forgot where he parked his car because he was exposed to the stupidity in that article. Please never link to the NYP again.
Ahtman wrote: President Obama's Secret Potato Salad Recipe
Hah! I was going to go in to angry rant about the unbelievable stupidity in faux outrage over data collection, but your post did it so much better.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Grey Templar wrote: Actually it would make his condo less desirable. The deflation of local property values will hurt local homeowners and cause local business to suffer. While the opposite actually has benefits of higher wages to combat increased rent.
'benefits of higher wages to combat increased rent'
That's amazing. I mean, just think it through, please. Consider someone being told by their landlord that their rent is going up, along with everyone else in this building and the rest of the neighbourhood. "Don't worry," says one tenant, "this rent increase will force all of our pays to go up, so the overall effect is an economic benefit."
Just think about how deeply ridiculous that sounds. Forget any kind of technical economic knowledge, on an instinctive level you're so far wrong that you really just need to stop.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/20 05:39:00
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
BlaxicanX wrote: People with brains understand that gentrification is evil when it negatively impacts specific groups.
If you're a rich white guy making 150K a year, a couple apartments in your neighborhood being turned into subsidized housing has no effect on you or the $2200 a month condo you're renting. Whereas the dude who makes $20,000 a year is screwed when the property values of his neighborhood get jacked up by gentrification and his $1000 a month rent goes up to $1650.
As someone who lives in the San Francisco bay area, I see this first hand every day. I grew up in San Francisco- it's my home- but unless I become a Google employee or find some equally high-paying career, I'm literally going to be forced to move away if/when something happens to my Mom and the house we're renting. The cost of living is simply too high for me to afford with my job.
It isn't even just people with crappy jobs, too. Something like 80% of City employees live outside of the city. Electricians making $50/hour can barely afford to live here. Thanks, tech-boom.
Yes its horrible how people are able to come into run down communities, buy up crapped out properties and turn them into jewels, with all those evil incidents like lower crime, better schools, etc. Evil. EEEEEEVVVVVILLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/20 11:30:02
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
sebster wrote: The NYP is a rag. Linking it here has lowered dakka's IQ by several points. Somewhere a dakkaite just forgot where he parked his car because he was exposed to the stupidity in that article. Please never link to the NYP again.
Yeah, you can cut the bias of that article with a knife, and then I looked again... oh, NYP, well that explains it.
It's one of Murdoch's tabloids.
That team would find something nefarious with the Obama Thinks Kittens And Puppies Are Cuddly Act.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/20 13:29:03
sebster wrote: The NYP is a rag. Linking it here has lowered dakka's IQ by several points. Somewhere a dakkaite just forgot where he parked his car because he was exposed to the stupidity in that article. Please never link to the NYP again.
Yeah, you can cut the bias of that article with a knife, and then I looked again... oh, NYP, well that explains it.
It's one of Murdoch's tabloids.
That team would find something nefarious with the Obama Thinks Kittens And Puppies Are Cuddly Act.
ARE YOUR RABBITS IN DANGER?!
Obama Administration Passes New Law Privileging Cat/Dog Hierarchy
Is this the first step in Obama's shadowy plan to take your rabbits away from you and feed them to gay black immigrant stem-cell researching pro-lifers?
Find out more from these three interviews with reactionary bigots tenuously related to the story...
Why must I always choose beween certain death and probable death.
Too late. Obama went back in time to Germany (you know the Naaaazzzzzziiiiz) to help breed dachshunds, so one day he could utterly dominate your rabbits. The power to destroy a thing is the power to control a thing!
Obama, history's time traveling greatest villain!
Also, how are they going to racialize categorize neanderthals? As the last of my kind, I should get preferential treatment. Don't be a hata! Stop Neanderthal bigotry by the Homo Sapiens Sapiens!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/20 14:20:54
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
"Tearing it down" is a hilariously obvious (and dishonest) spin. If these were million dollar condos being built instead of affordable housing, that would be considered "expansion" and a boom to the local job/economic market. You aren't fooling anyone.
I'll admit there is mixed evidence on this subject. Ultimately it depends on the specifics, but you can't make a blanket statement that building cheap housing will have no effect on the area. There is evidence that it can depress an areas values.
It depends on what you are replacing. If you replace a property that was going to be used for something else productive, you can actively harm an area. Basically, you have to only replace properties that were already blighted in some way for it to have a positive effect.
So really the feds have little business in deciding "Your area needs more affordable housing".
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
"Tearing it down" is a hilariously obvious (and dishonest) spin. If these were million dollar condos being built instead of affordable housing, that would be considered "expansion" and a boom to the local job/economic market. You aren't fooling anyone.
I'll admit there is mixed evidence on this subject. Ultimately it depends on the specifics, but you can't make a blanket statement that building cheap housing will have no effect on the area. There is evidence that it can depress an areas values.
It depends on what you are replacing. If you replace a property that was going to be used for something else productive, you can actively harm an area. Basically, you have to only replace properties that were already blighted in some way for it to have a positive effect.
So really the feds have little business in deciding "Your area needs more affordable housing".
Even if building affordable housing in a previously affluent area does lower the value of the existing occupied properties, complaining about building those houses carries the implicit bias than the rich have more right to remain rich than the poor have to have a house they can afford.
Which seems messed up.
Why must I always choose beween certain death and probable death.
"Tearing it down" is a hilariously obvious (and dishonest) spin. If these were million dollar condos being built instead of affordable housing, that would be considered "expansion" and a boom to the local job/economic market. You aren't fooling anyone.
I'll admit there is mixed evidence on this subject. Ultimately it depends on the specifics, but you can't make a blanket statement that building cheap housing will have no effect on the area. There is evidence that it can depress an areas values.
It depends on what you are replacing. If you replace a property that was going to be used for something else productive, you can actively harm an area. Basically, you have to only replace properties that were already blighted in some way for it to have a positive effect.
So really the feds have little business in deciding "Your area needs more affordable housing".
Even if building affordable housing in a previously affluent area does lower the value of the existing occupied properties, complaining about building those houses carries the implicit bias than the rich have more right to remain rich than the poor have to have a house they can afford.
Which seems messed up.
That's not the problem. The problem is the government is deciding some area is racially lacking, and that that is automatically a bad thing, and then attempting to force a non-solution down your throat. Which potentially has bad side effects.
Its ultimately a racist methodology. Deciding that every community should have X % of a certain race, and then trying to force that to happen.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
"Tearing it down" is a hilariously obvious (and dishonest) spin. If these were million dollar condos being built instead of affordable housing, that would be considered "expansion" and a boom to the local job/economic market. You aren't fooling anyone.
I'll admit there is mixed evidence on this subject. Ultimately it depends on the specifics, but you can't make a blanket statement that building cheap housing will have no effect on the area. There is evidence that it can depress an areas values.
It depends on what you are replacing. If you replace a property that was going to be used for something else productive, you can actively harm an area. Basically, you have to only replace properties that were already blighted in some way for it to have a positive effect.
So really the feds have little business in deciding "Your area needs more affordable housing".
Even if building affordable housing in a previously affluent area does lower the value of the existing occupied properties, complaining about building those houses carries the implicit bias than the rich have more right to remain rich than the poor have to have a house they can afford.
Which seems messed up.
That's not the problem. The problem is the government is deciding some area is racially lacking, and that that is automatically a bad thing, and then attempting to force a non-solution down your throat. Which potentially has bad side effects.
Its ultimately a racist methodology. Deciding that every community should have X % of a certain race, and then trying to force that to happen.
An ultimately racist methodology? Sorry, I'm going to have to be walked through how building affordable housing does not benefit racial minorities (who tend to be the ones who need affordable housing).
Why must I always choose beween certain death and probable death.
"Tearing it down" is a hilariously obvious (and dishonest) spin. If these were million dollar condos being built instead of affordable housing, that would be considered "expansion" and a boom to the local job/economic market. You aren't fooling anyone.
I'll admit there is mixed evidence on this subject. Ultimately it depends on the specifics, but you can't make a blanket statement that building cheap housing will have no effect on the area. There is evidence that it can depress an areas values.
It depends on what you are replacing. If you replace a property that was going to be used for something else productive, you can actively harm an area. Basically, you have to only replace properties that were already blighted in some way for it to have a positive effect.
So really the feds have little business in deciding "Your area needs more affordable housing".
Even if building affordable housing in a previously affluent area does lower the value of the existing occupied properties, complaining about building those houses carries the implicit bias than the rich have more right to remain rich than the poor have to have a house they can afford.
Which seems messed up.
That's not the problem. The problem is the government is deciding some area is racially lacking, and that that is automatically a bad thing, and then attempting to force a non-solution down your throat. Which potentially has bad side effects.
Its ultimately a racist methodology. Deciding that every community should have X % of a certain race, and then trying to force that to happen.
An ultimately racist methodology? Sorry, I'm going to have to be walked through how building affordable housing does not benefit racial minorities (who tend to be the ones who need affordable housing).
This is the government looking at areas, deciding they have too much/not enough of a certain race, and then taking steps to "fix" it. That is discrimination. No decision should ever be made based on race, yet they are doing just that. its favoring one race over others, only because they are a specific race.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/20 19:23:31
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
It's called the census. Collects all kind of data which is all available to the public via simple to use online databases. I used them when I did research in my public health projects and epidemiology projects.
"Tearing it down" is a hilariously obvious (and dishonest) spin. If these were million dollar condos being built instead of affordable housing, that would be considered "expansion" and a boom to the local job/economic market. You aren't fooling anyone.
I'll admit there is mixed evidence on this subject. Ultimately it depends on the specifics, but you can't make a blanket statement that building cheap housing will have no effect on the area. There is evidence that it can depress an areas values.
It depends on what you are replacing. If you replace a property that was going to be used for something else productive, you can actively harm an area. Basically, you have to only replace properties that were already blighted in some way for it to have a positive effect.
So really the feds have little business in deciding "Your area needs more affordable housing".
Even if building affordable housing in a previously affluent area does lower the value of the existing occupied properties, complaining about building those houses carries the implicit bias than the rich have more right to remain rich than the poor have to have a house they can afford.
Which seems messed up.
That's not the problem. The problem is the government is deciding some area is racially lacking, and that that is automatically a bad thing, and then attempting to force a non-solution down your throat. Which potentially has bad side effects.
Its ultimately a racist methodology. Deciding that every community should have X % of a certain race, and then trying to force that to happen.
An ultimately racist methodology? Sorry, I'm going to have to be walked through how building affordable housing does not benefit racial minorities (who tend to be the ones who need affordable housing).
This is the government looking at areas, deciding they have too much/not enough of a certain race, and then taking steps to "fix" it. That is discrimination. No decision should ever be made based on race, yet they are doing just that. its favoring one race over others, only because they are a specific race.
Ah, you meant that the American government was being racist towards white people.
The 'no decision should be made based on race' thing is usually termed 'colour-blindness'. Even when people genuinely try to implement it, it tends to work in the favour of racial majorities, because people hold implit biases. I favour systems which try to actively do good for racial minorities, because they aim towards creating a level playing field before saying 'but race doesn't matter'.
Why must I always choose beween certain death and probable death.
Not going to start a new thread for this being it does fir more into this
The Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if it is determined they are unable to manage their own affairs, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The push, which could potentially affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others, is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others, according to the paper.
The language of federal gun laws restricts ownership to people who are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” – which could potentially affect a large group within Social Security, the LA Times reported.
If Social Security, which has never taken part in the background check system, uses the same standard as the Department of Veterans Affairs – which is the idea floated – then millions of beneficiaries could be affected, with about 4.2 million adults receiving monthly benefits that are managed by “representative payees.”
The latest move is part of the efforts by President Obama to strengthen gun control following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in 2012.
Critics are blasting the plan, saying that expanding the list of people who cannot own guns based on financial competence is wrongheaded.
The ban, they argue, would keep guns out of the hands of some dangerous people, but would also include people who simply have a bad memory or have a hard time balancing a checkbook.
The background check for gun ownership started in 1993 by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, named after White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was partially paralyzed after being shot in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.
Gun stores are required to run the names of potential buyers through a computerized system before every sale.
Since this would effect me I am against this.
If it happens then I will more likely "lose" my weapons before they come to confiscate them
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Ah, you meant that the American government was being racist towards white people.
The 'no decision should be made based on race' thing is usually termed 'colour-blindness'. Even when people genuinely try to implement it, it tends to work in the favour of racial majorities, because people hold implit biases. I favour systems which try to actively do good for racial minorities, because they aim towards creating a level playing field before saying 'but race doesn't matter'.
So what you are saying is racism is ok as long as its only against white people? Right, good for you
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/20 19:53:29
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Ah, you meant that the American government was being racist towards white people.
The 'no decision should be made based on race' thing is usually termed 'colour-blindness'. Even when people genuinely try to implement it, it tends to work in the favour of racial majorities, because people hold implit biases. I favour systems which try to actively do good for racial minorities, because they aim towards creating a level playing field before saying 'but race doesn't matter'.
So what you are saying is racism is ok as long as its only against white people? Right, good for you
No, I'm saying its not racism.
The Webster Definition doesn't work. We can't look at a system like America's, where white people are vastly better off because they hold most of the institutional power, and then use a definition of racism which favours the status quo (ie, the definition where anything that isn't colourblind is racist). This definition excludes things like affirmitive action, which is necessary to create a level playing field to base a society on.
Why must I always choose beween certain death and probable death.
Scrabb wrote: Someday President Obama will actually do something nefarious and no one will care.
"The Republicans that cried wolf." as it were.
Beware listening to anything this guy says he is probably an Islamic Kenyan plant and I am more than willing to bet he wasn't even born in the US!
I found you out, HUSSEIN SCrabb!
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
Ah, you meant that the American government was being racist towards white people.
The 'no decision should be made based on race' thing is usually termed 'colour-blindness'. Even when people genuinely try to implement it, it tends to work in the favour of racial majorities, because people hold implit biases. I favour systems which try to actively do good for racial minorities, because they aim towards creating a level playing field before saying 'but race doesn't matter'.
So what you are saying is racism is ok as long as its only against white people? Right, good for you
No, I'm saying its not racism.
The Webster Definition doesn't work. We can't look at a system like America's, where white people are vastly better off because they hold most of the institutional power, and then use a definition of racism which favours the status quo (ie, the definition where anything that isn't colourblind is racist). This definition excludes things like affirmitive action, which is necessary to create a level playing field to base a society on.
Affirmative action is racist too you know. If we can't use the best and most widely used dictionary definition we might as well use none.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
a) It's not a "secret" db if it's going to be published... eh?
b) There's going to be an awfully arbitrary classification:
- The agency proposes using nonwhite populations of 50% or higher as the threshold for classifying segregated areas.
c) This is a load of crock.. why just blacks?
-HUD plans to drill down to an even more granular level, detailing the proximity of black residents to transportation sites, good schools, parks and even supermarkets. If the agency’s social engineers rule the distance between blacks and these suburban “amenities” is too far, municipalities must find ways to close the gap or forfeit federal grant money and face possible lawsuits for housing discrimination.
Non-blacks can be poor too ya know.
d) This seems invasive to individual's privacy...
-Mortgage contracts won’t be the only financial records vacuumed up by the database. According to federal documents, the repository will include “all credit lines,” from credit cards to student loans to car loans — anything reported to credit bureaus.
e) Especially this:
-The FHFA will also pry into your personal assets and debts and whether you have any bankruptcies. The agency even wants to know the square footage and lot size of your home, as well as your interest rate
I don't know if this is "all on Obama"... but, these Government activities is troubling as it's ripe for abuse.
Ah, you meant that the American government was being racist towards white people.
The 'no decision should be made based on race' thing is usually termed 'colour-blindness'. Even when people genuinely try to implement it, it tends to work in the favour of racial majorities, because people hold implit biases. I favour systems which try to actively do good for racial minorities, because they aim towards creating a level playing field before saying 'but race doesn't matter'.
So what you are saying is racism is ok as long as its only against white people? Right, good for you
No, I'm saying its not racism.
The Webster Definition doesn't work. We can't look at a system like America's, where white people are vastly better off because they hold most of the institutional power, and then use a definition of racism which favours the status quo (ie, the definition where anything that isn't colourblind is racist). This definition excludes things like affirmitive action, which is necessary to create a level playing field to base a society on.
Affirmative action is racist too you know. If we can't use the best and most widely used dictionary definition we might as well use none.
Most widely accepted in America. But we'll stick with it, and I'll revise my position.
I don't think that all (Merriam Webster) racism is bad. In fact, if its a racist policy designed to create an equal position between whites and racial minorities, you can sign me up. Because, as of yet, America is not doing very well at the whole 'equality' deal.
Why must I always choose beween certain death and probable death.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Racism is bad, full stop. There is no such thing as good racism.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
