- This topic has 205 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
davelj.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 21, 2011 at 8:27 PM #670468February 21, 2011 at 8:33 PM #669322
CA renter
Participant[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.
February 21, 2011 at 8:33 PM #669384Participant[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.
February 21, 2011 at 8:33 PM #669991Participant[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.
February 21, 2011 at 8:33 PM #670130Participant[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.
February 21, 2011 at 8:33 PM #670473Participant[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.
February 21, 2011 at 8:37 PM #669327davelj
Participant[quote=threadkiller]Wouldn’t it be nice if when our troops come home they could buy a home that was affordable in the 50’s, instead of built in the 50’s.[/quote]
The average American home was 1,200 square feet in the 1950s. I’m pretty sure that most troops would find that size home affordable today in most places.
The problem is that the average American home today is almost 2,400 square feet. And, admittedly, most troops are going to have a tough time with that implied mortgage.
Frankly, most people probably have a lot more house than they need. I would like to think that our Troops are smart enough not to buy into The Lie that they need a big house to be happy.
February 21, 2011 at 8:37 PM #669389Participant[quote=threadkiller]Wouldn’t it be nice if when our troops come home they could buy a home that was affordable in the 50’s, instead of built in the 50’s.[/quote]
The average American home was 1,200 square feet in the 1950s. I’m pretty sure that most troops would find that size home affordable today in most places.
The problem is that the average American home today is almost 2,400 square feet. And, admittedly, most troops are going to have a tough time with that implied mortgage.
Frankly, most people probably have a lot more house than they need. I would like to think that our Troops are smart enough not to buy into The Lie that they need a big house to be happy.
February 21, 2011 at 8:37 PM #669996Participant[quote=threadkiller]Wouldn’t it be nice if when our troops come home they could buy a home that was affordable in the 50’s, instead of built in the 50’s.[/quote]
The average American home was 1,200 square feet in the 1950s. I’m pretty sure that most troops would find that size home affordable today in most places.
The problem is that the average American home today is almost 2,400 square feet. And, admittedly, most troops are going to have a tough time with that implied mortgage.
Frankly, most people probably have a lot more house than they need. I would like to think that our Troops are smart enough not to buy into The Lie that they need a big house to be happy.
February 21, 2011 at 8:37 PM #670135Participant[quote=threadkiller]Wouldn’t it be nice if when our troops come home they could buy a home that was affordable in the 50’s, instead of built in the 50’s.[/quote]
The average American home was 1,200 square feet in the 1950s. I’m pretty sure that most troops would find that size home affordable today in most places.
The problem is that the average American home today is almost 2,400 square feet. And, admittedly, most troops are going to have a tough time with that implied mortgage.
Frankly, most people probably have a lot more house than they need. I would like to think that our Troops are smart enough not to buy into The Lie that they need a big house to be happy.
February 21, 2011 at 8:37 PM #670478Participant[quote=threadkiller]Wouldn’t it be nice if when our troops come home they could buy a home that was affordable in the 50’s, instead of built in the 50’s.[/quote]
The average American home was 1,200 square feet in the 1950s. I’m pretty sure that most troops would find that size home affordable today in most places.
The problem is that the average American home today is almost 2,400 square feet. And, admittedly, most troops are going to have a tough time with that implied mortgage.
Frankly, most people probably have a lot more house than they need. I would like to think that our Troops are smart enough not to buy into The Lie that they need a big house to be happy.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.