Thursday, April 24, 2008

Poor Developments

I know this is old news, but I couldn't help but notice the difference in tone, from our political leaders including Mayor Becker, concerning recent development proposals.

Becker et al seem hostile to a lakefront development that, to the best of my limited knowledge of the subject, would not require government subsidy. Meanwhile, Becker eagerly seeks to continue efforts to seek state subsidies for a housing/retail development along State Street.

Is Racine sending the message that we wish to deter people who will buy homes while trying to attract people who can't afford homes?

19 comments:

Real Debate said...

Yeah you pretty much nailed it.

Pariah Jeep said...

The market is not what we will choose to pay for, it is what we can be compelled to pay for. Why did I ever choose to work in the private sector?

Greg Helding said...

As a member of the City Plan Commission, I have to be careful what I say outside of public meetings. However, I can tell you the opposition to the 21 story lakefront project is not based on its lack of government subsidies.

Denis Navratil said...

I understand your position Greg, but you can share info that was already discussed at the public meetings, can't you? Anyway, my point is that, from what info is readily available to the public, the city seems to demonstrate a preference for housing projects for people who can't afford to pay for said housing. This is probably a wise strategy for increasing the number of Democrats, but an unwise strategy for producing sustainable economic growth.

Urban Pioneer said...

Amen Denis!
The notion that we are going to create even more subsidized housing, when we have acres of housing available for the "underclass". Why should we try to bring more unemployed and unemployables to our city?? We wish to cite the plight of the downtrodden, and then we pave the streets with money so they can live in low income properties, and tell their friends from all over, that Racine is the place to live?? If we develop a higher class city we will improve the lives of all of the people. The schools will better, the enviornment will be better, and the un-employed will find job oppurtunities, crime goes down. Every one wins!! And 21 stories high on the Lake front would be fantastic!! Think Ft. Myers, Boca Raton, etc. Those cities are filled with money, because they have made the best asset an asset! I still think relocating the Public Library to the West Cinema location is a brilliant idea! We could then make a beautiful lakefront cond complex and Hotel or restuarant on that site!! And the Library would be more accessable to the people of the City and County.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the world of well off white people setting up bedrooms in Racine is sickening.

Yeah, you could have all the black folk do your work for you for minimum wage.

Anonymous said...

Is this a clan meeting?

Pariah Jeep said...

Clan meeting??? Look what's happening in Detroit!

Federal Jucadamsdge forbids Poor Black mothers from naming their own children

(DETROIT) In a decision that's expected to send shockwaves through the African-American community, a federal judge ruled today that black women no longer have independent naming rights for their children. Too many black children-and many adults-bear names that border on not even being words, he said.

"I am simply tired of these ridiculous names black women are giving their children," said U.S. Federal Judge Ryan Cabrera before rendering his decision. "Someone had to put a stop to it."

The rule applies to all black women, but Cabrera singled out impoverished mothers. "They are the worst perpetrators," he said. "They put in apostrophes where none are needed. They think a 'Q' is a must. There was a time when Shaniqua and Tawanda were names you dreaded. Now, if you're a black girl, you hope you get a name as sensible as one of those." Few stepped forward to defend black women-and black women
themselves seemed relieved.

"It's so hard to keep coming up with something unique," said Uneeqqi Jenkins, 22, an African-American mother of seven who survives on public assistance. Her children are named Daryl, Q'Antity, Uhlleejsha, Cray-Ig, Fellisittee, Tay'Sh'awn and Day'Shawndra.

Beginning in one week, at least three white people must agree with the name before a black mother can name her child. "Hopefully we can see a lot more black children with sensible names like Jake and Connor," Cabrera said.

His ruling stemmed from a lawsuit brought by a 13-year-old girl whose mother created her name using Incan hieroglyphics. "She said it would make me stand out," said the girl, whose name can't be reproduced by The Peoples News' technology. "But it's really
just stupid."

The National Association of Elementary School Teachers celebrated Cabrera's decision. "Oh my God, the first day of school you'd be standing there sweating, looking at the list of names wondering 'How do I pronounce Q'J'Q'Sha.'?" said Joyce Harmon, NAEST spokeswoman. "Is this even English?"

The practice of giving black children outlandish names began in the 1960s, when blacks were getting in touch with their African roots, said historian Corlione Vest. But even he admits it got out of hand. "I have a niece who's six. I'm embarrassed to say I can't even
pronounce her name," said Vest, a professor at Princeton University. "Whenever I want to talk to her, I just wait until she looks at me and then I wave her over."

Cabrera's ruling exempted black men because so few of them are actually involved in their children's lives.

Anonymous said...

As much as I disagree with 90% of what Racine is doing in development
(Got to love no bid contracts in the Uptown) in this they are right.
Mostly due the the developer's past.

At the same time Denis your are right
Why State and Main having low income housing so the Thugs do not have to travil so far to work? Or is it the
State Funding?
Gorman has such a great rep from the Wagon Loft Project why would we even want them in Racine...

Conscious Thought said...

Their a few things i take issue with here in this conversation.

One being that Alderman Helding should be reminded that he is a PUBLIC official, that works on a committee whose actions and discussions are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Transparency shouldn't be that difficult to implement.

Secondly, i think the city demonstrates a preference for Gorman & Company developments more than anything else. They provide the most kickbacks to the city, despite the fact of the high turnover rate, cheap building materials, non existent maintenance and exorbitantly high rents.

Caledonication said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

PJ, this was (exceptionally funny) satire.

Original article: Federal Judge: Enough With the Stupid Names

Anonymous said...

A couple of years ago, a young friend asked me to help her check out the loft apartments on the west side of Main Street between State and the bridge.

The apartment was beautiful, but then we observed some of the Section 8 neighbors.

She did not feel safe, nor did she want to pay full price to live next to people who couldn't afford to live there, but were being subsidized by her.

She found an apartment in a less interesting but much safer building, that didn't allow drug dealers or the chronically unemployed.

Anonymous said...

...and transferring estates into children's names, and trusts, is SUCH an ethical and moral behavior. The rich hiding assets so that when dead, it can't be touched for the common good.

Despicable.

Urban Pioneer said...

Anon 10:27

WTH???? Since when does money Earned and taxed in a lifetime, become "the Commom Good's" Income, because I died?? If I earned a Bizillion dollars in my lifetime, and pay the appropriate taxes along the way. I should be able to give it to whoever I want: My Kids, My Dog, or my favorite Charity. Or burn it in a Funeral Pyre.
WHY??
BECAUSE IT's MINE!!
I earned it!, the common good didn't earn it, in fact they did everything possible to get in my way!!

It's not hiding or sheltering, It's playing by these Byzantine micro-managing, socialist engineering rules, you Income re-distributors have hatcheted together. We should simplify and lower taxes! I'll follow the rules, but what's left over is MINE! to do what I wish with. If we make it more unfriendly to the wealthy they will move their wealth, Jobs, factories out of this country, so you greedy b*st*rd, socialists can't get it.
Try me, I dare You!
Who's Despicable???

It's not greedy to keep what U earned, It's greedy to covet someone else's wealth, for the "common Good". Because U think your entitled to it.

Anonymous said...

You sheltered ass mo fo! Averg Americins be one peace a bling-bling n' bottul a martel away from financial ruwin. An I don't work fo no minimum wage. I work for what dah boss makes and I shows up when i feels like. If not then you pay me to do nuthin. Now i gotta get back to my crappy crib with cell phone an flat plasma

Anonymous said...

You people are brain washed with your beliefs. You want socialism to make money, then deny that there is socialism for the investor class.

Them US empire is falling hard.

Anonymous said...

Racists

Anonymous said...

Here is Pope John Paul II on the matter. Notice 'Universal destination of goods".:

Pope John Paul II used the same words in Sollicitudo and various other speeches and writings that Peter Maurin so often quoted, from the earliest tradition of the Church regarding private property: The universal destination of goods means that private property is for everybody, not just for those who use it to make their fortune.

“It is necessary to state once more the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine: the goods of this world are originally meant for all. The right to private property is valid and necessary, but it does not nullify the value of this principle. Private property, in fact, is under a "social mortgage," which means that it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods .” (42)

The “social mortgage” the Pope spoke of, as Peter Maurin often said, means that whatever property you have is held in trust for the common good.

These teachings of John Paul II undermine those who encourage cutthroat businesses practices that hurt “the Lord's poor,” (so often couched in a revision of Adam Smith's language) to be ameliorated by philanthropy in one's later life—especially philanthropy that only encourages others to do the same.