...could something like this happen--separate entrances to an apartment building:
http://nypost.com/2013/08/18/upper-west-side-condo-has-separate-entrances-for-rich-and-poor/
This particular area of New York is approximately 85% Democrat.
The Democratic Party: "Separate but equal" since the 1800s and still going strong...
The rich have insisted on being separate from the dregs of society since day 1. Of course, the "dregs" are anyone who isn't rich. This is what happens to rich people. They have a privileged mind-set. And that's exactly how we treat them.
It doesn't matter where you go. This is how it is in this country. There are gated communities in liberal California, and gated communities in conservative Texas.
If the Occupy movement were smart, they'd use this fact to their advantage. Sadly, the Occupy movement was never linked to arson.
It doesn't matter where you go. This is how it is in this country. There are gated communities in liberal California, and gated communities in conservative Texas.
If the Occupy movement were smart, they'd use this fact to their advantage. Sadly, the Occupy movement was never linked to arson.
Hey Willy, I've seen Hasidic Jewish people live next door to admitted BGF gang members.
I'd like to hear OWS comments, on what they think about Baltimore's mixed income neighborhoods.
Would they deem the project a win or a loss?
...other than like a lot of industrial towns in the USA, it's in decline. This has more to do with our free trade policy than anything else.
I don't think a mixed income neighborhood is the answer. The solution is to eliminate poverty. This is not impossible. All we have to do is stop enacting economic policies that kick poor people in the face and greases the asses of the rich.
Cause we haven't heard a peep out of them since the Fed started printing money and using it to prop up Wall Street. Isn't that strange? It's almost like OWS was nothing more than part of Obama's re-election strategy. Hmm...
It doesn't matter where you go. This is how it is in this country. There are gated communities in liberal California, and gated communities in conservative Texas.
If the Occupy movement were smart, they'd use this fact to their advantage. Sadly, the Occupy movement was never linked to arson.
The democrats love this nonsense.
I don't know who enjoys it more the rich or the poor
..but it's always seemed to me to be something of a scam. Let's face it: A developer is only going to offer this type of arrangement if he's getting healthy tax breaks from the government. This is yet another example of the sort of stuff I abhor--the government trying to use the tax code to incentivize "preferred behavior". It creates lot of jobs--for the government, for lawyers, for accountants. But who pays for it? You and me. Twice over. Once, in that we pay the freight (in the form of general taxes) for these preferred behaviors--and then a second time, because we have to pay for additional bureaucracy for the necessary "compliance" overseers.
In a more perfect world, private economic decisions would be made without the need to take into account the tax implications of those decisions. "Master plans" like these almost invariably muddy the waters, turning Adam Smith's Invisible Hand into the Invisible Foot.
What does virtually EVERY politician (either party) say about themselves when running for office? "I'm a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal!" My question is always, "When your fiscal conservatism runs smack-dab into your social liberalism, who wins?"
This is a perfect example. Here we have a "social liberal" goal--to enable people of modest incomes to live in more high-end neighborhoods. But at what cost? The rent money that would otherwise be realized by the developer for renting those apartments at fair market value is instead being paid out of general tax revenues--or to put it another way, you and I are paying for it. Where did the fiscal conservatism go in this equation?
Now add to that this separate entrance deal: How is this any different than Rosa Parks and Claudette Colvin being forced to the back of the bus, or "white" and "colored" drinking fountains?
Stuff like this aggravates me on so many different levels, I want to scream.
I'm always skeptical of government programs which at their base have "planned social progress" motivations. This particular one is so naked, so obviously hypocritical in nature; I can't see any reasonable argument in its defense.
And crony capitalism is itself kind of a form of "soft fascism".
In a truly capitalist system, with far more modest taxation, lessened regulatory and compliance mechanisms, and (important if we're going to have this sort of system) an informed and engaged populace, a situation like this would never come into being.
Deluxe high-rise apartment buildings in wealthy areas would be built, and would attract competitive rental fees. Buildings for those of lesser means would exist as well.
What we would not have is this hybrid system of government incentivization (crony capitalism), and we would not have this "separate but equal" nonsense going on; unless perhaps developers and so-called "socially conscious" progressives freely and voluntarily decided that these are the sorts of mixed income housing projects they'd like to participate in, and could attract some low or middle income tenants who would not mind being treated in this manner.
If it's offered voluntarily, without coercion, if it's and "opt-in" system, I have no problem with it. When it comes delivered in a take-it-or-leave-it fashion by government in partnership with deep-pocketed business interests, and we the taxpayers have to foot the bill...well, then I have a huge problem with it.
My west coast home is in a gated community, with fairly high HOA fees. Some people tease me about this and say I'm paying $XXX per month in "rent" on top of mortgage and taxes.
I don't look at it quite that way. What I'm paying for is an extra level of "quasi-government"; and (key point) I am accepting the consequences of that decision. Believe me, there are some pretty stupid rules with which I've agreed to comply there; but it's my choice.
The best part though, is that I also have the choice to leave if I find the rules to be too onerous, too heavy a burden for me to be willing to shoulder (or if the HOA fees go up to a level that I find to be too high). Guess what happens then? I can "opt-out". I can look for another home in a different gated community, or just go "barefoot" in an area with no gates and no extra quasi-government and accept the consequences of that decision.
And that, my friends, is the model for how everything ought to be. The ability to come and go with your money. No decisions imposed from above. No "one size fits all" solutions. Decisions forced down to the lowest possible level, to the state, to the local community, to the household, to the individual--as much as is possible and practicable.
I know, this is radical crazy talk. But this is the exact model that the Founding Fathers sought, and it's one that we should be looking at again, and trying to emulate.
(I know I'm just talking into the void now..simply can't help myself...)
..in that if you are a US citizen and move to another country, you still owe US income tax on your foreign-derived income. The US is the only nation that does this. You can actively renounce your US citizenship--but if you do, good luck getting back into the US--or becoming a citizen again. Further, do you realize how much clout the US has in setting standards for the rest of the world? On everything? Businesses in other countries want to sell their products here. Do you think there aren't USDA inspectors in every country from which we purchase our food? You might be living in another country--but to the extent that that other country trades with the US, you're still sort of subject to US sovereignty.
But back to taxes for a moment: These (again!) tax consequences are why huge multi-national corporations (think 21st century "infrastructure" companies, like Apple, Microsoft, etc) are sitting with huge wads of cash in their foreign subsidiaries, because if they repatriate the money, they get hit over the head with taxes.
That's one of the problems with our modern world. For hundreds of years it was possible to "Go west, young man". People from Europe (and eventually Asia and the rest of the "Old World") came west to seek a better life and self-actualization. Later, people were able to hack their way all through North America, building new towns, cultivating new farmland, developing entirely new industries, constantly fleeing the overweening, sprawling leviathan.
Now? There ain't no further west. There's no "New" New World on the horizon. Way too many decision are made for 330 million people by a small group of individuals in one city that was quite literally plopped down in the middle of nowhere and has no practical reason to exist--other than to be the place from which so much of our lives are governed, regulated, and administrated.
There's nowhere else to go. This is our last best chance to get it right. If America fails, the lights go out all over the world, and we'll be plunged back into the darkness...
More like it's the least bad place to call home--for now. Maybe.
I think that the nation was founded on a set of values and principles which are unique and that this nation was (as a great man once said) "a shining city on the hill" inspiring the rest of the world; but that nation no longer shines as brightly. We have a President who believes in "American un-Exceptionalism" and that we must be brought down a peg (or two or three or four)--and large portions of the population and many influential entities in journalism, academia, etc, seem to agree with that view. They don't want the shining city on the hill--they want the darkness. And so few people are capable of thinking critically, or disposed to do so (and we can only blame the educational system and drivel like Facebook for that), that they also either want the darkness, or don't see the threat.
---
ok, you've played around with me long enough here. You've managed to bring me way off my original point about the "separate but equal" entrances to what are arguably public accommodations (as they were built by my tax dollars) and into whole other areas.
Congratulations: You've trolled me. I'm sure the only part you're annoyed about it is no one else is listening to this "conversation" of ours, so you haven't managed to do anything more than annoy the crap out of one person. I'm done playing now. I'll go back to ignoring this board again--the signal to noise ratio is just way out of adjustment here.
Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life on this planet.