rolanni | Poor people! In my neighborhood! Not!

Man, I shouldn't read the paper before coffee.

A buncha people would rather have an abandoned building in their neighborhood, with all the problems attendant to that, than have said building turned into housing for poor people, by which they mean people who earn $20,000 to $30,000 per year

Erm, folks? The day-job doesn't pay that much over twenty grand, though writers of course pull down Fabulous Amounts of Money(tm), and I kinda really resent the. . .monied prejudice (detailed in comments) that those who don't make swaths of dough are inevitably a nexus of violence, crime, drug use, and all other social ills. I wonder, frankly, how I'd afford recreational drugs, which had always seemed to me to a luxury of the wealthy -- speaking of class prejudice.

Yeah, there probably will be Section 8 (housing vouchers) involved. I think there's a law or something. . .

Sigh. I'm really, really tired of the conversation about putting this building to use, which has been going on 'way, 'way too long. First, a new force in the neighborhood, who had moved up from New York City, I believe, to retire, found out that the city was going to make the old school into "affordable" apartments and went ballistic, citing poor people, crime and his property values. Apparently there aren't any poor people in New York. Or perhaps he moved here thinking that wouldn't be any poor people in Maine.

Coffee now, I think. . .

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

We have a name for people like that in the UK - NIMBY (not in my back yard). They will all agree the need for affordable housing or whatever just so long as it is not anywhere near where they live. Very annoying.

NIMBY applies to many things in the US -- even churches. We have a Presbyterian church about a half mile from here. They wanted to expand. Needed a zoning variance, due to being a conditional use (residential zone). Neighborhood agitators fought, and won a denial.

Most of my downtown rehab projects have low-income units as part of the mix -- required for some sources of financing. Some, such as the transition housing, are all low-income and include "those" people*. No controversy yet . . .

*"Those" people are homeless, mental health issues, etc. Not to be confused with the group homes, which we have also slipped into unsuspecting neighborhoods.

These are the same kind of people who move into a new development of McMansions somewhere in a rural area. Then they compain that they can smell the cow manure from the few remaining farms next door - and they want this stopped.

Tell 'em if they want to eat T bone steaks, they gotta put up with the smell of the animal that has to be killed to provide their 8 oz steaks.

Scheesh.

Idjuts!

Here in upstate New Yawk, we call them "citidiots" (as in city idiots) - same ones who want their private road plowed by the county, and want an amulance there in 2 minutes and.....

Cathy

and want an ambulance there in 2 minutes and.....

But do you see them volunteering for the local fire and EMS squads, if those are volunteer operations? Seldom† if at all -- their time is more valuable than that, don'tyaknow.

†I'd say "never," except that once in a while you get a public-spirited adrenaline junkie who'll actually step up and pitch in.

If the neighbor complaining is from New York, kindly send him a note to return there. Maine don't need any more 'city folk'. No, NIMBY is a problem. I read the article in the paper and the affordable housing was a condition of the federal money the city of Waterville is planning to use. Also, someone needs to remind this 'new yorker' that people that need affordable housing are probably retired or disabled. When I lived in Maine I used to dread the 'out-of-staters' who arrived with their plans to make Maine just like where they came from. I'm about a year away from returning to Maine to retire, and even though I don't qualify for low income housing, I'm not rich either. Just hope this guy doesn't decide to get into politics. He's probably a retired Goldman Sachs employee..

Edited 2009-11-20 15:06 (UTC)

The irony is that most folks who will sign the petition have no clue who will actually be eligible to live in the units - many who sign would probably qualify. I don't know if the plan is to build family units or elderly/handicapped - the article isn't specific. But the folks who would be most likely to live there are almost certainly local - the single mother trying to make a home for her child, or the elderly parents that can't really manage the family home any more.

Most of the time it's possible to establish preferences for this type of development, so they could give preference to local residents or to working families. And it's always possible for the management/owner to screen applicants for suitability (no drug or criminal background, pays the rent on time, etc.). With good management, this type of development can be a huge asset to the community. Not to mention that it's apparently going to redevelop & reuse an existing building.

This knee-jerk reaction against a project that could really help a local community makes me tired.

Mary

In fact, a development like this is going to come in our town, and I was with a crowd of adults who cheered. See, it's possible to arrange things so that preference is given to people who are holding down jobs, or to retired folks on a pension. Which means that sudenly there will be a neighborhood anchor of a whole lot of people who live in decent housing who are holding down jobs, or who have retired after a lifetime of working. "Those people" are who any town needs.

Poor people! In my neighborhood! Not!

Poor people in my neighbourhood! Not!

Re: Poor people in my neighbourhood! Not!

no subject

Poor people in my neighborhood

Re: Poor people in my neighborhood

no subject

no subject

no subject

NIMBY is alive and well.....

Re: NIMBY is alive and well.....