Obama plans to move people in poor inner city areas to rich neighborhoods--good

1. 0

   LoliHeyposted 7 years ago

   Obama plans to move people in poor inner city areas to rich neighborhoods--good or bad idea?
   
   "Obama's last act is to force suburbs to be less white and less wealthy"---is what the headline actually says.  Obama's plan is to move people in Section 8 housing into rich neighborhoods and support them and provide a way for them to maintain the cost of living there (vouchers).  What is your opinion?  Will it help them?  Pros and Cons?

   replyreport
2. 95

   lions44posted 7 years ago

   Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett had similiar plans in the 1990s that really worked, but they were not "forced" by Section 8 funding.  While it may seem worthwhile to help people move out of poor inner city neighborhoods, two unintended consequences will occur:
   
   1. Developers will use the housing money to build over 55 housing developments that qualify, which will not open more housing for poor families from the inner city. We have that happening here in Western WA.  Seniors tend to be less transitory and have guaranteed income (and it tends to be more than many working families). 
   
   2.The Cities will continue to become gentrified place for the rich and working families will be forced out. Thereby increasing their commute times, increasing their cost of living.

   replyreport
3. 86

   tamarawilhiteposted 7 years ago

   I understand that Section 8 housing rules often result in the same concentration of poverty that government housing projects created. However, similar efforts to distribute the poor did not result in the lower class members learning the good habits of valuing academics and saving and marriage as the upper classes. Instead, it brought crime to the suburbs where the poor were located.
   This is an effort to solve a problem that doesn't actually help. The better solution is bringing back marriage to rebuild the black family, requiring stronger academic performance for children whose parents collect welfare like mandating high school graduation if not enrollment in vocational programs, severely punishing gang members so those neighborhoods are safe while ensuring that gang membership doesn't look like a good career path.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Of course it did! Bringing such people into wealthier neighborhoods debases & depreciates such neighborhoods socioculturally & socioeconomically.That's why neighborhoods must be strictly segregated by socioeconomic income.

      replyreport
4. 84

   gmwilliamsposted 7 years ago

   
   
   No, it isn't a good idea.  There are no pros in bringing people in Section 8 housing to more affluent neighborhoods.  Again, Obama brings in yet another disastrous idea.  Such poor people will only depreciate the socioeconomic & sociocultural value of affluent neighborhoods.  These aren't the poor who improved themselves educationally & socioeconomically before moving into such wealthier neighborhoods.  These are the poor who refuse to better themselves educationally & socioeconomically, happy being in their lower socioeconomic situation.  So the government elect to give such poor people a hand out, feeling sorry for them.  In the government's eyes, such poor people were deemed quite incapable to advancing themselves so here's papa government to rescue them. The Liberal mentality is insidious to poor people, enabling, even crippling them socioeconomically instead of expecting them to advance their own way. 
   
   Such people have a poverty consciousness, mentality, mindset, & philosophy.  They believe that the world owes them a better life on socioeconomic silver platter.  When poor people elevate themselves educationally & socioeconomically, they leave such poverty consciousness, mentality, mindset, & philosophy behind & absorb the consciousness, mentality, mindset, & philosophy of their more affluent counterparts.  They realize the value of property.  They will work hard to maintain that property.  They will also imbue their children with the value of education for they know that there is a high correlation between education and socioeconomic success.
   
   However, such won't be the case with this class of poor people.  They will feel & act entitled to the great things of life but not by their efforts.  They will continue with their negative consciousness, mentality, mindset, & philosophy.  They won't absorb the consciousness, mentality, mindset, & philosophy of their more affluent neighbors at all.  They won't imbue their children with the importance of education, achievement, & socioeconomic success.  They & their children will experience a culture shock.  It will be welfare at a higher level.   Such people won't appreciate the better living conditions.  In fact, they will disrepair such neighborhoods because they never had to work nor sacrifice to attain such better living conditions.  Well, there go the neighborhoods....... However,if the wealthier residents rebel & they will because w/money they have political clout, the section 8 move won't become reality.

   replyreport
5. 50

   bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years ago

   It will be about as successful as was busing. The people in the poor inner city need to change, not their environment.
   
   As the people in these areas change for the better they will move to better areas, and the people that change for the worse will probably go to jail or prison.
   
   Today, several decades are busing, the condition of poor education still exists, almost unchanged. The reason is that busing didn't change the culture of the people that live in the poor areas. And generation after generation there has been a failure to learn and improve to get out of the cycle.
   
   This is not a critical statement, it is just fact. Otherwise, why does this problem still exist.
   
   The federal and state government has given them meals, but what they need is to learn how to fish, as the story goes.
   
   The other problem is the gangs in these poor inner city, and they will follow.
   About twenty five years ago, they moved people from Los Angeles poor areas, some fifty miles east to a new area that was being built up. Today, the gangs are there, the people haven't changed, but they have made another ghetto in what was planned to be a new start.
   
   Environment apparently can't change people and culture. Remember also, that the same Ghetto produces the Criminals as well as the Police, and the Fire Fighters.

   replyreport
6. 86

   Express10posted 7 years ago

   This is interesting and if true, there has been research that proves that this type of action forces the poor to adapt to swim (as in sink or swim) rather than sink in their new surroundings when they are located far away from their old haunts and surroundings. Density of these moved groups will have to be closely watched for this to work, it has worked in the past under similar programs because there was no density & those chosen went through various steps to assure their motivation to leave inner cities behind.
   
   It's been shown that this often works if they are completely cut off from negative and past influences, such as neighborhood friends or family members who are not on the "up and up" and those who simply accept generational poverty. Those who were cut off from negative influences truly did blossom and raise their standards in every way possible, becoming more productive, happier, and good members of their communities. I doubt this plan would be put into action in the current political climate, however, the process absolutely must be very selective if it is to work. It has proved to work in the past.

   replyreport
7. 86

   Alphadogg16posted 7 years ago

   Just like anything else, it all depends on the individual. I'm sure there would be some people who would learn, grow and prosper from this and there will also be those that are so set in their ways/uneducated that will not grow no matter what is done for them. I personally feel that helping too much develops a sense of entitlement in many people.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      A+++

      replyreport