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

[zoo]

And when you contact them, be sure to ask them if they support a "Stampede the poors and 'others' out strategy" so you can get the response you seek.

Try this more accurate phrasing next time:

"Mr. Katz, while your work has not yet been sited in a spirited public debate regarding economic segregation/integration and its impact on poverty-stricken communities, one participant has indicated a review of your work on urban housing policy and its effect in this regard. I am hopeful that, with your experience and background, you would be willing to issue a comment on the topic that will assist our readers in developing an informed perspective."

If you wish to contact those who are sited, you would have to contact Paul Jargowsky, Todd Swanstrom, Margery Austin Turner, Lynette A. Rawlings or Susan J. Popkin.

[zoo]

Strider/Stephen, have read them all and recognize well the larger issues with which the concentration of low-income populations are intertwined, including transit, workforce housing, and job availability.

you have publicly denounced the idea of trolleys and workforce housing that we have endorsed on this site

Stephen, there we were having such a good debate. Regretful you must resort to lying, or meh-ing, or YouTube posting when you find yourself on the losing end. I have never, nor would I ever, denounce "the idea of trolleys and workforce housing." That, like much of the rest of your twisted propoganda, is just absurd.

The bottom line here is that even the studies you claim to subscribe to do not say force a social economic group out.

Strider, nor did I. Please re-read that part of my post (esp the first few words of the second phrase):

And though I'm sure someone will try, don't bother twisting my words to mean that I think any more African-Americans that want to come to Springfield should be excluded -- that is not what I typed or intended. However, I'll admit I feel that way about low-income, as improvement of area economics and revitalization (my hope) go hand in hand.

My post does not say anyone currently, and legally, residing in Springfield should be forced out. My post refers to those wanting to come in, and I have no bones to pick with any one single home-renter or buyer who is in compliance with the laws of the municipality.

However, I'm calling bullshit on any group, non-profit or otherwise, that wants to stack more low- or no-income persons (of any ethnicity) in Springfield, while claiming it's good for those persons or is necessary to maintain diversity, just because Springfield is perceived as the easiest place to do so or "where we've always put 'them.'" That is the kind of language and reasoning I hear frequently from you, other seemingly well-intentioned social service providers, and public policymakers in this screwed up, suburb- and segregation-minded mess of Jacksonville.

Fact: If economic integration is the answer as the experts indicate, in Springfield integration requires re-balancing the socio-economics in favor of higher wage earners.

[zoo]

You are for running a street car/rail line trolley down either main street or hubbard/laura?

How about "HELL YES!"

You are for low income workforce housing being developed in Springfield?

This question refers to two separate things -- check HUD. Workforce housing (80-120% ami), yes. By "low-income" housing, I presume you are referring to affordable housing (below 80% ami)? There is already so much of it in Springfield, with existing single- or multi-family for sale or rental, I don't think more is necessary. But if workforce housing were executed as multi-family, I would certainly be ok with an integrated structure/complex that included a few more low-income units. But the majority of units would need to be workforce-level, and maybe include a few on the other end of the socio-economic spectrum for middle- and higher-wage earners so the entire community mix gets closer to integrated.

[zoo]

Then perhaps you shouldn't have asked the question (edited)...

[zoo]

I am for multi-family, workforce housing (80-120% ami) being developed. There is already a bunch of single-family, workforce housing available in Springfield for sale or rent, so I'm not sure why any developer would do this (yet), and hope that developers, or workforce level homebuyers, will shift focus to rehabbing existing housing stock for this purpose.

I am for affordable housing (<80% ami) only where it is an integrated, smaller part of a multi-family project that also includes a larger percentage of workforce and middle-higher income level units. I am against an affordable unit-only project, as that continues the existing economic imbalance (segregation of the poor in Springfield and other northside communities).

[buckethead]

I find that response to be reasonable.

[ChriswUfGator]

I still think we're ignoring the 800-lb gorilla in room, to wit; 99% of Zoo's <80%'s are part of a protected minority.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda, whatever. Zoo, you're dodging the reality of it. Call it whatever you want, but if the net result is one group excluding another group it's discriminatory in my book. This argument has played out unsuccessfully how many times in history? Yours was the same logic used to apply literacy testing at the voting booth, in areas where everyone knew most blacks were illiterate. Except instead of literacy, you're proposing a standard based on percentage of income or housing cost deviation. Your <80% group is predominantly african-american, and the net effect of allowing for the use of your logic will inevitably be discriminatory.

[buckethead]

I'm guessing you pulled that 99% figure out of a hat.

I do not see where race plays into the logic that bringing more "higher" income earners into the mix is needed to revitalize the district.

But... if you say that 99% of the poor are minority races, who am I to argue?

[ChriswUfGator]

I'm guessing you pulled that 99% figure out of a hat.

I do not see where race plays into the logic that bringing more "higher" income earners into the mix is needed to revitalize the district.

But... if you say that 99% of the poor are minority races, who am I to argue?

Where did you see any discussion of incentives to induce high-income residents to come to the neighborhood? Grants? Loans? What? I must have missed that part. Because it seems pretty clear to me that what we were discussing is how to exclude who we don't want, and not how to include who we do.

And would you really want to wager on what percentage of Springfield residents falling below the poverty line belong to a protected minority? 99% may have been low...

[buckethead]

I would not argue that which I do not know.

I'm basing my assessment on that which I have read in this thread. Zoo seems to indicate a desire to restrict further low income housing initiations in favor of attracting more middle class earners into the district.

I do not know Zoo, nor do I live in Springfield. It might be that I am entirely wrong, but based on the reading I have done in this thread, I see no grounds to label him/her a racist, nor do I see where he/she has suggested the removal of any race or economic class from the district.

I do recall another thread where Zoo seemed to oppose the car wash. I disagreed with that position (as an outsider). I also disgree with the notion that sober houses are a bad usage within Springfield. Any historic structure that has a roof intact is more likely to survive the state of blight that plagues the area than an abandoned structure.

Wishing to incentivise a higher income earners to reside Springfield (regardless of the race of the income earner) does not seem unwise.

I would go so far as to suggest promoting practices that would elevate the incomes of current Springfielders. (How's that for radical thinking?)

[ChriswUfGator]

Wishing to incentivise a higher income earners to reside Springfield (regardless of the race of the income earner) does not seem unwise.

I would go so far as to suggest promoting practices that would elevate the incomes of current Springfielders.

+1

[strider]

Successful economic integration requires working with the market, not against
it.

Their mantra is: “If someone is good enough
to work here, they ought to be good enough to live here.”

Above all, political success requires convincing citizens that the affordable units
will not harm property values.

quote]


First, let's look at your entire quote:  "And though I'm sure someone will try, don't bother twisting my words to mean that I think any more African-Americans that want to come to Springfield should be excluded -- that is not what I typed or intended. However, I'll admit I feel that way about low-income, as improvement of area economics and revitalization (my hope) go hand in hand."

You admitted you do not wish the low income groups to come here and certainly you actions in the past has supported my belief that you do not want them here period.  Also, you need to actually read my posts about the sober house residents as they were here, have been here and will be here regardless of your polices and wishes.

Please explain to me how your and SPAR Council's recent polices support the highlighted quotes above.

[fsu813]

"I do not know Zoo, nor do I live in Springfield. It might be that I am entirely wrong, but based on the reading I have done in this thread, I see no grounds to label him/her a racist, nor do I see where he/she has suggested the removal of any race or economic class from the district."

- yeah, but that doesn't generate contraversy. or haven't you learned that that's the sole purpose of these posts....?

[cindi]

really? seriously?  we have so many people tripping over themselves to buy homes in springfield that there is an option to pick and choose by net worth/race/gender etc? 
can i get some clarification on what the required income is to live in springfield, 'cause i'm thinking i might need to move, super stat.
maybe we can do like they american indians do in order to receive benefits on the reservation and through the tribe - issue tribal cards that show proof of lineage. 

[buckethead]

This seems a bit disingenuous. The point is; people, by and large, are not wanting to move into Springfield due to the fact that much of the area is delapidated, percieved high crime area, and rampant homelessness/drug addicted prescence.

Whether real or percieved, low income housing is thought to inevitably increase much of what middle class earners of every race, culture and creed consider undesirable. ( citation not neccesary )

To deny this is folly which can only perpetuate the status quo. I sense more defensive reaction in this debate than thoughtful solution seeking.