Would you be willing to accept low income and homeless housing on your neighborhood?

Would you be willing to accept low income and homeless housing on your neighborhood?


Most people agree that we need more shelters, and more low income housing for the poor and homeless. But none of us want it in OUR neighborhood.

What's the answer here? I truly don't know. Other than the masses getting over the stigmatism that poor people will destroy their neighborhoods

 

We need a re-examining of our homeless policy. We have to avoid turning into an authoritarian state, but at the same time, allow people to admit they are incompetent to govern their own lives and make them wards of the state.

I've lived in mixed income housing before and it was fine. Maybe the highest standard of living I've ever had. But I didn't have deranged people defecating in the hallways or stabbing my loved ones to death due to a schizophrenic delusion. I was lucky.

 

No , because people’s neighborhoods shouldn’t suffer .

Instead we can use undeveloped government land to create tiny home sanctuaries in which can be low cost to the tax payer and at the same time allow the homeless and those in poverty get a leg up with very cheap rent and at least have the basic necessities . It will allow them to save up and improve their lives .

Our neighborhood now has many homes classified as section 8 and sadly it has caused property value to decrease as well as seeing an uptick in violent crime and vehicle break ins .

I want to get people off the street and help those in poverty , but at the same time it’s not fair to homeowners and their investment being affected due to their neighborhoods being filled with folks who don’t respect the neighborhood.

 

I do support apartment type buildings for low income housing on the outskirts of town

I do not support putting low-income housing next to middle class housing though

this just causes the middle class to move and then the entire area becomes poorer

the reality is, crime goes up when those with nothing live next to people with something, it makes the poor feel like they have less when everyone around them has more

 

The problem with this, and has been proven repeatedly time and time again in mass housing projects the world around.

When you stack poor and impoverished people en-mass in an area, it creates massive crime issues with gangs, and those people end up being terrorized and trapped within their own communities.

Piling poor people up into small areas simply doesn't work. A different solution needs to be found.

 

I believe in cameras in government housing for this very reason, hallways, and outside, kinda like a hotel

 

I mean yeah I can honestly understand that viewpoint and obviously we do see it happen . It’s not a simple black and white fix, it will take tweaking and effort . At the same time people who have made it to where they are shouldn’t be burdened with others plight so to say .

I’m not talking about housing projects in the form we see from the past , THAT was an absolutely horrible
waste of money as it didn’t accomplish anything .

We can do better , but we have to find the right process ..

 

You'd still have an enforcement and maintenance issue.
Get rid of government housing. Mixed income for competent people works well. Incompetent people should be given the option to declare they are so and become wards of the state.

 

Instead of forcing low income/homeless housing into neighborhoods via government mandate, the problem could be solved if concerned citizens would simply open up their homes to these people. Seriously. Plenty of people act like they are really concerned about the homeless and low income folks - so they should take a few into their homes and take care of them. But it turns out, the "compassionate" amongst us aren't compassionate at all if it requires them to take action.

 

we had crime go up in our neighborhood and almost everyone got arlo, ring, nest, blink, or some type of camera now, crime and porch pirates seem to have disappeared, looking for easier targets

basicly it's crimes of opportunity that attracts crime

the war on drugs creates lots of opportunity too sadly and funds gangs

Camera's do seem to deter crime

 

We do have low income people living with in a mile of where I live. Individual houses, trailers or campers, not high density housing. We are semi-rural.

They have their issues with crime and domestic violence, but it seems to stay within their boundaries for the most part. When crime travels out to neighboring homes, they don't usually like the result, so for the most part they keep it to themselves.

I don't think high density low income housing is a good idea for any area, because of the higher probability of violent crime reaching beyond the area. I don't like it within the area either, but it takes people willing to participate for it to happen.

 

Hell, no.

You mean most ignorant, uneducated and uninformed people.

You need only search newspapers.com to read 1,000s of articles published in newspapers about how Liberal do-gooders goaded and cajoled city councils into spending $Millions on homeless shelters, only to have those homeless shelters sit vacant and unused, except, of course, when temperatures get frigid.

NEWSFLASH: Homeless pukes don't like rules.

Yeah, that's right. It's real hard to party when the shelter locks its doors anytime between 9:00 PM to 11:00 PM for reasons of safety, security and to discourage alcohol and drug abuse and prostitution.

The same answer that existed for 200 years.

Reservations. If Reservations are good enough for the Indians, then they're good enough for the homeless.

Drag them before a judge and have them declared incompetent, because any person who is homeless by definition is ipso facto prima facie evidence of incompetence. Make them wards of the State and stick them on the Reservation.

That will cost you far less than the $90,000 per homeless person per year you were spending in 2016, which is the last time I checked the data.

The homeless can spend their time on the Reservation milking cows and goats, and feeding chickens, pigs, and turkeys, and prepping land, clearing land, planting crops, weeding crops and harvesting crops, and then processing those crops for food to eat which they will cook themselves.

A solution was found. It's called Section 8 Vouchers.

 

It depends on how it is done. When you have whole apartment complexes of section 8, you have ruined the neighborhood and have quadrupled crime and murder. I know this from experience in my city. Ultimately you have created a community where a larger then average proportion have problems.

But if you "spot " allow section 8 within neighborhoods...maybe two section 8 households per 100 household neighborhood, it's a good thing. I've seen that as well and it doesn't bring a crime problem and is a good experience for the low income families.

I also live near a low income complex run entirely from the funds left by a rich oil man. No government involved. This complex has rules or you are kicked out. It's a very nice well kept area. No crime or loss of value.

I think we need to have expectations and high standards.

 

I once lived in a section 8, low income housing in my SMALL town, and I NEVER took two steps without my .357, inside or out....it was a nightmare for the 8 months we existed there (can't call it living)....why...evicting the troublemakers was like firing a DC bureaucrat, next to impossible as long as they paid the rent. I can always tell when a new batch of "undesirables" have landed in the low income housing within walking distance of my neighborhood, anything not solidly nailed down disappears...and yeah, I still keep that .357 handy.

 

I prefer a system where people can trade their rights and freedoms for being a ward of the state (and trade back, of course). Govt housing communities where everything one needs is provided on a minimalist scale. In exchange for an existence on the public dime, they trade in certain freedoms like privacy and voting. They'll be required to have their home inspected regularly, regular mandatory medical checkups and possibly be subject to curfews and other security measures. They may not vote in elections while voluntarily living off the govt. To gain freedoms back, they simply have to move out of the ward community and stop receiving govt assistance (for 6 months or a year, to prevent rapid turnover from being a way to game the system).

 

Getting people evicted in non-subsidized housing is a bitch. My daughter lived in a $2,200 2 bedroom, 1 bath apartment with a room mate and above them were a couple of loons who dangerously fought tooth and nail daily. She moved out before they ever did. Landlords once had a policing impact on the community. With their power taken away (ability to evict) or badly limited, that policing impact is gone. We need it back.

 

It has nothing to do with their poverty. I would wager that everyone who voted no, did so for CULTURAL reasons (ie, the loser mindset which precipitates crime and anti-social behaviour) alone.

If access to such housing were adequately selective for genuine need, the only residents would be those motivated to torque the opportunity into self-reliance and growth. They would be ambitious, well-behaved, self-respecting, hard-working, civilised people who just needed that cheap base to build their resources.

 

That. That's one of the missing and crucial pieces of the puzzle. In our infantile desire to 'be nice', we decided that discarding the incompetent to their own devices was a kindness. Nothing could be crueller, in fact.

If people are demonstrably unable to maintain themselves due to psychological impediments (laziness, apathy, selfishness, insanity, whatever), they become a detriment to society. They absorb far more resources than necessary, in being fostered to live under their own vastly inadequate auspices. They do themselves more harm, and gain nothing.

 

That's a behavioural issue, not a poverty issue. There are plenty of very poor neighbourhoods in the world which don't have high crime etc.

Our HUGE mistake, was to not require a standard of behaviour from these people. We kept shunting the money to them no matter what they did, and this has entrenched an attitude of immense entitlement, and zero personal and social responsibility.

 

I don't want multi-family housing in my neighborhood be the residents rich or poor. Beyond that, wouldn't care as long as they aren't a nuisance.

 

How about doing it right, and restricting access to such housing to those with a demonstrated history of good behaviour?

 

The right process, is to ensure it goes to those who won't abuse it.

 

So rather than FIX CRIME, just keep making a space for it.

Brilliant.

 

This, to the power of ten.

 

Bingo. Anyone who claims to care will want to see methods like this, which actually work for those in need.

I don't think they're 'high' standards at all. They're actually very basic - bare minimum if you will. We even require children to make their beds - adults have no excuses.