Between them, Bob Gustafson (Affordable housing thread) and
Craig Miller (Housing Crisis thread) point up some of the
issues which make the housing crisis such a tough nut to
crack.
-preservation vs. a desperate need for housing
-those who stand to get taxed out of their homes vs. using
tax money to build affordable housing
-stake holders vs. developers
MCDA vs. other developers (Many Crows added this one).
With the Holman decree, SSB seems to have wanted to have
Becky Yanish (as MCDA) take down as much marginal housing as
possible, so SSB could put pressure on the suburbs to house
those who earn 30% or less of the median income. Too, the
current research says that those who are from the lower
income strata need to be scattered to enable them to pull
themselves up by their boot straps, so to speak (if they had
straps, if they had boots to pull up).
The real politick of that is a pretty gruesome sight with
unintended consequences up the wazoo. The point of taking
housing down is to make it impossible for the poor to find
housing within the city and the value of homes to rise so
taxes can as well. Whole families wind up in shelters (same
as the poor house, grim, grim, grim). Whole families live
out of their cars, under bridges. The homeless become feral
as a self-protection, poor regular people wind up on the
outside looking in after having been a part of the life of
the body politic, then they get angry, then they get
dangerous. People with nothing to lose are always more
dangerous. People who worked hard to earn houses all their
lives are angry, maybe, but they're hopeless, too. Often
they die to escape poverty or it kills them from lack of
proper nutrition.
At the same time, if the taxes and costs of services rise
too much more, I'll be joining them under the bridges, so I
have a legitimate reason to want some solutions which do not
require huge tax bites that I can't afford to pay, even
though, having been homeless at times, I would not wish that
situation on anyone. (It was doable when I was young and
frisky and strong and a much bigger risk taker. I'm 57 now
and camping out for months on end--I've done it--is no
longer my idea of a good time.)
This is a terrible bind, but in this housing crisis all the
stake holders--which means everyone with shelter--need to
help find a solution. I agree with Gustafson, that it does
mean taking down marginal houses--and maybe the two houses
next to them, to build multi-unit buildings. At the same
time, I would give a nod to preservation to this extent, it
isn't necessary to take down every older, vacant house like
MCDA was doing--a nod to neighbors who don't want to have to
look at some of the infamous multi-unit buildings which have
been built in the past. We have a couple in my neighborhood
so ugly they make your eyes bleed to look at them.
I feel stumped and frustrated about this, and I'm moving
toward hopeless.
WizardMarks, Central
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
