VanVorster wrote:
I remember when I first moved to Van Vorst Park, I saw a post on JC List that actually said something akin to this "The nonsense on Wayne Street has to stop. All white people who make this City great and continue to make it great, please report to the park on Wayne Street and reclaim our City."

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

VanVorster wrote:
I think you are distorting his words. And boodipoh makes a great point. "But other international cities are terrible at intermingling residents based on income. In fact, it is common (and quite accepted) that poorer residents are relegated to living in the periphery of major cities, with longer commutes and poorer conditions, than more affluent residents living within city limits." It's called revanchist gentrification or hyper gentrification where initial gentrifiers are pushed out or alienated. I love Jersey City and have been here around 20 years and civic minded like many others. I remember when I first moved to Van Vorst Park, I saw a post on JC List that actually said something akin to this "The nonsense on Wayne Street has to stop. All white people who make this City great and continue to make it great, please report to the park on Wayne Street and reclaim our City." There are many black and brown people who make this City great, contribute in many ways and just because someone makes above a certain incomes doesn't mean he/she makes the City great. Likewise, just because someone makes below a certain income, doesn't mean they make the City bad. People should think more.

no one is forcibly forcing low income people to move out of prime areas, at some point, prime areas become unaffordable...supply and demand. although i agree that government efforts can help/hurt affordability

VanVorster wrote:
I think you are distorting his words. And boodipoh makes a great point. "But other international cities are terrible at intermingling residents based on income. In fact, it is common (and quite accepted) that poorer residents are relegated to living in the periphery of major cities, with longer commutes and poorer conditions, than more affluent residents living within city limits." It's called revanchist gentrification or hyper gentrification where initial gentrifiers are pushed out or alienated. I love Jersey City and have been here around 20 years and civic minded like many others. I remember when I first moved to Van Vorst Park, I saw a post on JC List that actually said something akin to this "The nonsense on Wayne Street has to stop. All white people who make this City great and continue to make it great, please report to the park on Wayne Street and reclaim our City." There are many black and brown people who make this City great, contribute in many ways and just because someone makes above a certain incomes doesn't mean he/she makes the City great. Likewise, just because someone makes below a certain income, doesn't mean they make the City bad. People should think more.

hero69 wrote:
well, how many low income residents live in prime areas of mahattan, san francisco, los angeles, sao paolo, london, paris, moscow, lagos, buenos aires, sydney, beijing .....

Mao wrote:
In my neighborhood (Lafayette), it seems that maybe at least half of the units are not market based. Thus, there are swaths of cheap rentals, or the subsidized owner occupied two families. The medium sized buildings are rent controlled. Even many of the smaller deregulated buildings take Section 8 Vouchers. Yet Fulop and city council members go on and on like Tribunes of the People, promising free rent unabashed about the naked demagoguery of it all. See, for example, this press release.
http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/uploa ... Trust%20Fund%20Awards.pdf.
And, we can?t talk about it. I was at a meeting hosted by the City Planning Office and the City Planner, Matt Ward, basically refused to allow a discussion about the deleterious effects of subsidized housing.
Yet the science is pretty much settled that none of these programs work but instead have perverse effects. Even the New York Times grudgingly admits it.
times.com/2013/07/28/magazine/the-perverse-effects-of-rent-regulation.html?_r=0
See also,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa127.html
Of course, a campaign to stem and increase in subsidized/controlled housing would be dead on arrival no matter what the evidence.

Mao wrote:
In my neighborhood (Lafayette), it seems that maybe at least half of the units are not market based. Thus, there are swaths of cheap rentals, or the subsidized owner occupied two families. The medium sized buildings are rent controlled. Even many of the smaller deregulated buildings take Section 8 Vouchers. Yet Fulop and city council members go on and on like Tribunes of the People, promising free rent unabashed about the naked demagoguery of it all. See, for example, this press release.
http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/uploa ... Trust%20Fund%20Awards.pdf.
And, we can?t talk about it. I was at a meeting hosted by the City Planning Office and the City Planner, Matt Ward, basically refused to allow a discussion about the deleterious effects of subsidized housing.
Yet the science is pretty much settled that none of these programs work but instead have perverse effects. Even the New York Times grudgingly admits it.
times.com/2013/07/28/magazine/the-perverse-effects-of-rent-regulation.html?_r=0
See also,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa127.html
Of course, a campaign to stem and increase in subsidized/controlled housing would be dead on arrival no matter what the evidence.