A LOLA yelled out to Joe "go ahead, lie some more!!"

[fsu813]

"Once again the policy is that unless you own the house you live in, you do not count."

- that's not what i said. property owners, period.

Renters shouldn't have a say in the future of a neighborhood, imo. they have no stake in it, no investment. here today, gone tomorrow. so logically, those with a vested stake in the neighborhood should be the ones taking the lead on issues that will affect them long after the renter is gone and the next has taken his/her place. of course there are exceptions, but that's pretty much how it works in every neighborhood. which works out fine, because most renters in any neighborhood don't especially want to put in the extra time, energy, and money in the non-glamourous parts of improving the neighborhood.

[Sportmotor]

eh if someones place of residency is that area they have just as much right to have a say as anyone as they contribute to the local economy just like anyone else that lives there

[Miss Fixit]

"Once again the policy is that unless you own the house you live in, you do not count."

- that's not what i said. property owners, period.

Renters shouldn't have a say in the future of a neighborhood, imo. they have no stake in it, no investment. here today, gone tomorrow. so logically, those with a vested stake in the neighborhood should be the ones taking the lead on issues that will affect them long after the renter is gone and the next has taken his/her place. of course there are exceptions, but that's pretty much how it works in every neighborhood. which works out fine, because most renters in any neighborhood don't especially want to put in the extra time, energy, and money in the non-glamourous parts of improving the neighborhood.

FSU, I must respectfully disagree.  As a landlord, I have had tenants who rented the same home for 10 or more years - and who took good care of my property and made a sigificant contribution to their neighborhood.  SPAR should be reaching out to renters and asking them to become active members - both San Marco Preservation and RAP have actively and successfully solicited renters as members.  Not everyone who has the means to own real property chooses to do so, and just because someone hasn't accumulated a downpayment or earned a credit rating that will qualify them for a mortgage doesn't mean they can't be an asset to the neighborhood in which they reside.  They eat at local restaurants, shop at local businesses, send their children to local schools.  Renters shoud be respected and included.

[Springfielder]

"Once again the policy is that unless you own the house you live in, you do not count."

- that's not what i said. property owners, period.

Renters shouldn't have a say in the future of a neighborhood, imo. they have no stake in it, no investment. here today, gone tomorrow. so logically, those with a vested stake in the neighborhood should be the ones taking the lead on issues that will affect them long after the renter is gone and the next has taken his/her place. of course there are exceptions, but that's pretty much how it works in every neighborhood. which works out fine, because most renters in any neighborhood don't especially want to put in the extra time, energy, and money in the non-glamourous parts of improving the neighborhood.

That's pretty ignorant, let alone arrogant to say that someone who rents does not have a stake in the neighborhood. It also reflects your ignorance as to whether renters care and work towards the betterment of the neighborhood in which they live. There's so many reasons as to why people opt to rent, none of which has a thing to do with whether they have a stake in their community or not. Your better than thou attitude reflects the very attitude that is detrimental towards anyone who rents, assuming that property owners are the only ones that care, that give of themselves, their money and efforts into the community in which they live and are very much a part of.

There are people in this neighborhood that rent and have been more active in this neighborhood and have given more than people such as yourself would ever know, because you seem to come off with an impression that those who rent are less than yourself. This is the very kind of attitude that's the cancer of a good neighborhood, filled with good people, but pampas attitudes such as yours seem to consider those people less than acceptable. Which clearly reflects that you don't know squat.

There are people who rent that are outstanding, hard working, community involved and driven. Just as there are property owners who are not.

[uptowngirl]

There are people who rent that are outstanding, hard working, community involved and driven. Just as there are property owners who are not.

_this just needed to be posted again, and again, and again -although I fear it falls on deaf ears!

[Springfielder]

Have to agree with you on that, Uptown Girl....it's clear that there are those who just want to feel more superior, even though they are not.

[Livein32206]

"Once again the policy is that unless you own the house you live in, you do not count."

- that's not what i said. property owners, period.

Renters shouldn't have a say in the future of a neighborhood, imo. they have no stake in it, no investment. here today, gone tomorrow. so logically, those with a vested stake in the neighborhood should be the ones taking the lead on issues that will affect them long after the renter is gone and the next has taken his/her place. of course there are exceptions, but that's pretty much how it works in every neighborhood. which works out fine, because most renters in any neighborhood don't especially want to put in the extra time, energy, and money in the non-glamourous parts of improving the neighborhood.

Wow, I'm not even sure where to begin what that statement. To quote another, "That's pretty ignorant, let alone arrogant to say that someone who rents does not have a stake in the neighborhood." Arrogant and ignorant don't even begin to describe such a view. Again, quoting another "This is the very kind of attitude that's the cancer of a good neighborhood, filled with good people, but pampas attitudes such as yours seem to consider those people less than acceptable." How true, such views are a cancer that destroys the very fabric of a community.

What makes you think that you're any better because you own the property in which you live, than someone who rents? There are renters that care very deeply about what goes on and work towards making their neighborhood a better one. There's also many property owners who don't give a hoot about what happens, and don't put forth any money or effort into the neighborhood. So just where and how do you decide who would be an acceptable exception? And who are you (or those of like-minded views) to even make such a judgment?

I know many who rent here in Springfield, who have been here for many years, and every one of those neighbors are very civic minded. Some have spent their own money to make improvements to the house and/or apartment they rent. They show up and work at community clean ups. Some have been paid members of SPAR and other neighborhood groups, and yet there's folks like you, that feel they shouldn't have a say in what happens in their own neighborhood. That they don't have a stake in their neighborhood.

That they don't pay property taxes, and I would imagine that you'd lump in those fees too. Have you ever stopped to think (which clearly with statements as you've made, you haven't or don't care) that they do pay those taxes. Some are paid indirectly through their rent and some pay the fees as part of their rental agreement.

These renters also spend their money at neighborhood establishments, like Uptown, Three Layers and many others, yet their input isn't valid or wanted, according to you. I also find it ironic that SPAR doesn't seem to have a problem with taking their money for membership, which then gives them voting power and a say in what happens in the neighborhood. Yet there are people like yourself, who entitle themselves to stand in judgment and deem renters unacceptable and un-entitled to be part of the community in which the live, spend their money, their time and efforts.

The flagrant arrogance of such views is sickening, (and quoting again) and the "cancer" of a healthy community.

[sheclown]

To quote from Dr. Seuss:

"a person's a person no matter how small."

[Miss Fixit]

To quote from Dr. Seuss:

"a person's a person no matter how small."

How true, and appropriate timing:  Dr. Seuss' birthday is this week.

That said, wouldn't it be nice if we could all rise above name calling on these forums and be the bigger person when we are offended - it's really not necessary to blast everyone whose opinion you disagree with, no matter how offensive or ridiculous their opinion may seem.  Just reasonably and rationally state your own case and hopefully common sense will ultimately prevail!

I'm now prepared to be blasted myself for being a naive, pollyanna-ish idiot!! 

[sheclown]

Likewise, it would be nice if community leaders were in place who didn't actively attack anyone whose opinion they disagreed with (using tax payer money to do it, I might add).

Perhaps it will happen now.  

[hooplady]

- that's not what i said. property owners, period.

Um...property ownership is all that matters?  I guess we just leave all the decisions to Petra, the banks, and a few other big players.  Oh, and you do understand that would include the sober houses - the owners of those houses each have a lot more property than you or I do.

We do not build a diverse neighborhood by creating a two-tiered system of landed gentry and serfs.   No.  That's not my Springfield.  No sir.

[braeburn]

Anyone renting a property, by law, is defined as being in "possession" of said property. How does that make "owning" the property any different?

[fsu813]

gee whiz.

well, now that my comments were taken out of context.........(suprise)

- Miss Fixit,

i said there are always exceptions, of course. those that have lived in the neighborhood for a long time & thus do have a vested stake in the 'hood would be an example of that.

of course the vast majority of renters do NOT fall in this catagory. anyone care to guess what the renter turnover rate / length of stay is in the neighborhood?

also, thank you for a reasonable response. you may disagree, like everyone does from time to time, but the faux outrage & jumping to conclusions displayed by some others is not necessary or becoming. kind disagreements are always better than harsh ones.

- Springfielder,

not that this suprises me, but you've managed to contort "renters shouldn't have as much say as property owners on the future of a neighborhood" to "property owners are better than renters". which is not what I said at all. please get that straight before you lay out another negative attack job, thanks. =P

- uptown,

like i said in the orginal post, of course there are always exceptions. but the vast majority of renters don't fall under the catagory you described.

- livin32206,

again, that's not what i said at all. your entire 5 paragraph response is based on something that was not said. see my comments to Springfielder.

- hoop lady,

yes, i understand that banks & llc's would have a greater say than an average renter. and that's not ideal, iether. but, like i said...they have an investment. a renter can be here today, gone tomorrow....and that's often the case with the vast majority of renters in the neighborhood. 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, whatever. the majority won't be here for very long, they are just passing through in essence.  And they do not put effort forth improving the neighborhood.

of course there are exceptions, like i said in my original post, but i'm speaking to the rule rather than the exception.

i dread the day when temporary residents decide what's best for the 'hood...then leave. of course, chances are slim to none that that would ever happen, as relatively few choose to get involved in anything. which is thier choice.

think of it this way, if i own 3 shares of a company and someone else owns 300 shares.....i shouldn't have as much say in the direction of the company. they have a much larger stake in it and have earned the right to have that larger voice.

but, this is just my opinion. doesn't mean much besides that.

[fsu813]

so since further clarification is never need, i supposed you'll give up your habit of editing and reediting a large percantge of your posts....



just seems like some posters need a continuing education course in reading comp.

and a course on how to disagree without being disagreeable wouldn't hurt either.

[zoo]

Zoo, my dear, Angi's houses were in operation before YOU moved into the neighborhood.

As were a lot of other things, like drug houses and operations, prostitution rings and bordellos, guns, guns and more guns, historic homes that had been allowed to deteriorate so badly they couldn't be given away to be restored, and fewer businesses that served, rather than preyed, on the residents of the area. Do you think there is any correlation b/w what was in the area before 2002, and "businesses" like yours and Angi's that were also here? Hmmmm.....

Argue 'til you're blue in the face that increasing the concentration (MORE) of people without incomes, and with dependency problems or mental illnesses, is positive for a community. Show me ONE STUDY corroborating that concentrating these groups in an area already lacking economic diversity is helpful to them or the area!!!

The economic balance in Springfield has been way out of whack for a long time -- 92% low-income with many either having no/little un-subsidized income at all, or enjoying the unreported, illegal income received from preying on challenged groups. This due in large part to racism, the automobile, slimy landlords, criminal opportunists, and even some non-profits and public policymakers who erroneously believed they were helping by segregating. In Springfield this imbalance is changing, now ~74% low income, and whether you're informed enough to realize it or not, that will ultimately help those who have been here all along that are economically challenged.

- Promoting Neighborhood Diversity: Benefits, Barriers and Strategies, an Urban Institute publication "summarizes the substantial body of evidence that residential segregation undermines the well-being of individuals, communities, and American society as a whole." Feel free to dig deeper into the evidence at: http://www.urban.org/publications/411955.html.

- Public Housing and the Legacy of Segregation, also an Urban Institute publication, is primarily focused on public housing, but is clear that positively transforming public housing "has focused on de-concentrating poverty." Read more at: http://www.urban.org/publications/211518.html.

These pubs also explain why anyone who supports economic integration in Springfield -- which means continuing to mix more economically successful HHs with the less economically successful, and, yes, primarily, African-American population -- gets called racist. Throughout U.S. urban centers' history, and even more so in the SE, race and low-socioeconomic status are inextricably tied. Hence the bogus, "if you want diversity in economics, you must be anti-black," some post-ers wrongly infer and implicate.

More balanced economics means more businesses, creating more entry-level jobs, that will serve (rather than prey on) the entire community. More no/low-income HHs = fewer businesses, jobs and brass rings for economically challenged residents to grab.

Grandfathered in is fine with me. New, continued concentration -- Springfield as "path-of-least-resistance dumping ground" -- is not. Informed, NOMIMBY, and proud of it. And please don't bother responding to me; but feel free to argue with the experts at the Urban Institute, Brookings, etc. instead...