[quote=SD Realtor]CAR the logic does not wash. What about the working poor in Beverly Hills, or Santa Monica or Palos Verdes? Why is it fair for the govt to provide govy supplied homes for people in San Diego but not in Dallas? Does that mean the secretary in Dallas should now move to San Diego to get a govy home? Wouldn’t everyone do that?
Your justification that uber nice areas deserve subsidies just because they are expensive does not wash. They are expensive BECAUSE there is alot of competition for them. To say that well, the taxpayers should fund housing in the UBER nice areas is blantantly unfair.
Gotta be all or nothing CAR. Don’t paint a subsidy picture just because competition has driven up prices in one area due to an excellent climate.[/quote]
I think that the working poor should be able to live a reasonable distance from their place of employment. After all, they are the ones who can least afford to commute (higher fuel, repair, and insurance costs, as well as accelerated auto purchases). They are as necessary to any economy as the wealthy, IMHO, and should be treated respectfully and fairly.
BTW, I wasn’t referring to San Diego, alone, nor to the “desirable” areas in San Diego. It’s important for ALL areas to have safe, clean homes for working families, and I would allocate a certain number of opportunities based on need in the area and the population size, along with some other variables. I think it could be done for less money than what we’ve been doing with loan guarantees, grants, partnerships with for-profit/non-profit organizations, etc. The one organization that I do think is on the right track is Habitat for Humanity.
