Long ago and far away, Mexican-American children in San Bernardino, California, had to sue to use the public swimming pool. (The case, Lopez v. Seccombe, was one of the first in which a judge finally decided maybe Plessy v. Ferguson's "separate but equal" ate shit.) Now a proposed condo complex in West Hollywood has reupped to the bad old days, but instead of not letting
I spent something like twenty minutes writing a reply, because I thought you deserved one. And it was deleted by the robot censor, which means I've found yet another forbidden set of letters, although I don't know what they are (and I' depressed by this). I will try to sum up.
I believe that you think you are making a legal or economic argument, but this is not the case.
1. There does not need to be a law to require the poorz to have pool access. The developer is requesting a bunch of zoning relief; the WeHo Planning Department has the right to ask for anything not forbidden by law in exchange for approving the project.
2. The developer, and the ultimate landlord entity, do not give a fig for who exactly provides their revenue stream; just that the total exceeds their total expenses by enough to make a nice profit. If they accept the terms, it means they anticipate a nice profit, so economic great justice.
Your argument regarding paying for luxury amenities is therefore a moral one. One should not reap benefits without paying for them. But the whole premise of low-income housing is to give (a tiny fraction of) economically-stressed folks a benefit that they don't entirely pay for, courtesy of the rest of us. Now, there are people who do not agree with this idea. But you say "affordable housing is a right", which is actually stronger than my own position. So, you are okay with giving people a "hand up". Why quibble?
They already know they're poor. What value is there in rubbing their noses in it?
Note to Shy: the robot censor is really pissing me off.
We moved here from the intolerable conditions of SoFla (me) and SoCal (my husband) a couple years ago. We are outnumbered by wingnuts 2 to 1 but they mostly keep to themselves (we have the occasional Teabagger buffoons downtown but since 7 million signed up for healthcare they have scurried back under their rocks). No, the city does not have a proud heritage when it comes to civil rights. The visitor's center downtown has an exhibit right now that traces the history of the African American journey and St Augustine's role. We were in tears by the end of it. But we have carved out a life among the enlightened minority here and we love it.
Making them face the pool is like making them face the alley (or the "courtyard") in Manhattan. Light and air and views (and blessed silence) are for the rich to enjoy.
Also, the "poor door" is the only door to the totally separate poor section of the building, which -- surprise -- does not have river views like the rich section does. The class distinctions were built right into the blueprints, and were heartily approved of by Bloomberg's cronies. So now the developer shrugs and says, "Hey, whatcha gonna do?" NYC could make 'em bash through the walls, but they'd have to install fire doors, which would be tne new poor door, only inside.
Being a jerb creator, Mr. Sterling will also be offering a nicely-compensated positon as Personal Assistant, to whoever exhbits sufficient ambition (you want the job, dont you?) and talent (i.e., filling out a bikini.)
<em>That addresses an earlier concern by city planners that the relatively large size of the units proposed earlier would make it unfeasible economically to continue to rent them for less than the market rate.</em>
So because you&#039;ll make $X-Y dollars instead of $X dollars, it&#039;s &quot;economically unfeasible&quot;? If it&#039;s that bad for business, <b>why are you in the rental property business in the first place???</b>
...first &quot;Poor Doors&quot;, now pools only for the wealthy! I wonder when it will become legal for the wealthy to hunt poor people and harvest their organs?!
A hot day in July- &quot;Mommie, can I go swimming today?&quot; &quot;Don&#039;t be silly, sweetie, you know the pool is for the rich people.&quot; &quot;Oh, mom...&quot; &quot;But if you&#039;re good, the next time you&#039;re sick, you can lick their doorknobs.&quot;
I spent something like twenty minutes writing a reply, because I thought you deserved one. And it was deleted by the robot censor, which means I&#039;ve found yet another forbidden set of letters, although I don&#039;t know what they are (and I&#039; depressed by this). I will try to sum up.
I believe that you think you are making a legal or economic argument, but this is not the case.
1. There does not need to be a law to require the poorz to have pool access. The developer is requesting a bunch of zoning relief; the WeHo Planning Department has the right to ask for anything not forbidden by law in exchange for approving the project.
2. The developer, and the ultimate landlord entity, do not give a fig for who exactly provides their revenue stream; just that the total exceeds their total expenses by enough to make a nice profit. If they accept the terms, it means they anticipate a nice profit, so economic great justice.
Your argument regarding paying for luxury amenities is therefore a moral one. One should not reap benefits without paying for them. But the whole premise of low-income housing is to give (a tiny fraction of) economically-stressed folks a benefit that they don&#039;t entirely pay for, courtesy of the rest of us. Now, there are people who do not agree with this idea. But you say &quot;affordable housing is a right&quot;, which is actually stronger than my own position. So, you are okay with giving people a &quot;hand up&quot;. Why quibble?
They already know they&#039;re poor. What value is there in rubbing their noses in it?
Note to Shy: the robot censor is really pissing me off.
can&#039;t the poor kids just play in the sprinklers while their parents are landscaping the place?
Naughty Cally, trolling for goatz.
Not if the developers get their way.
We moved here from the intolerable conditions of SoFla (me) and SoCal (my husband) a couple years ago. We are outnumbered by wingnuts 2 to 1 but they mostly keep to themselves (we have the occasional Teabagger buffoons downtown but since 7 million signed up for healthcare they have scurried back under their rocks). No, the city does not have a proud heritage when it comes to civil rights. The visitor&#039;s center downtown has an exhibit right now that traces the history of the African American journey and St Augustine&#039;s role. We were in tears by the end of it. But we have carved out a life among the enlightened minority here and we love it.
I love you.
You just know those po&#039; folks are using the pool as a bathtub.
Renting it out for an amount that is less than market rate??!? Is that even Constitutional (under the teabagger Constitution)?
Making them face the pool is like making them face the alley (or the &quot;courtyard&quot;) in Manhattan. Light and air and views (and blessed silence) are for the rich to enjoy.
Also, the &quot;poor door&quot; is the only door to the totally separate poor section of the building, which -- surprise -- does not have river views like the rich section does. The class distinctions were built right into the blueprints, and were heartily approved of by Bloomberg&#039;s cronies. So now the developer shrugs and says, &quot;Hey, whatcha gonna do?&quot; NYC could make &#039;em bash through the walls, but they&#039;d have to install fire doors, which would be tne new poor door, only inside.
Being a jerb creator, Mr. Sterling will also be offering a nicely-compensated positon as Personal Assistant, to whoever exhbits sufficient ambition (you want the job, dont you?) and talent (i.e., filling out a bikini.)
Wow -- it&#039;s worth a million bucks to them, just to have 3 fewer poorz in the place?
This way, the smaller apartments will end up housing multifamilies. Win-win?
<em>That addresses an earlier concern by city planners that the relatively large size of the units proposed earlier would make it unfeasible economically to continue to rent them for less than the market rate.</em>
So because you&#039;ll make $X-Y dollars instead of $X dollars, it&#039;s &quot;economically unfeasible&quot;? If it&#039;s that bad for business, <b>why are you in the rental property business in the first place???</b>
Someone is going to find a lot a Baby Ruths Floating in their pool.
...first &quot;Poor Doors&quot;, now pools only for the wealthy! I wonder when it will become legal for the wealthy to hunt poor people and harvest their organs?!
A hot day in July- &quot;Mommie, can I go swimming today?&quot; &quot;Don&#039;t be silly, sweetie, you know the pool is for the rich people.&quot; &quot;Oh, mom...&quot; &quot;But if you&#039;re good, the next time you&#039;re sick, you can lick their doorknobs.&quot;