As the government War On the Poor continues...
If the Supremes rule in favor of HUD on this one, I may push my move to Canada up a few years.

Supremes to toss their bingo buddies into the street?

Quote from the article: "Raising the question: Does Florida Gov. Jeb Bush live in government-subsidized housing?"

I guess he'll be tossed out. Say: Dubya, too, as his daughters are illegally using drugs. Wait! Silly me! Alcohol isn't a drug.

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: twin58 ]

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
As the government War On the Poor continues...
If the Supremes rule in favor of HUD on this one, I may push my move to Canada up a few years.

Supremes to toss their bingo buddies into the street?

---

Comrades:

Please remember that the policy is designed to prevent criminals from taking advantage of government benefits (such as food stamps, subsidized housing, job training, etc.) In many cities, public housing projects are overrun with drug overlords and dealers. So that's why HUD set up the policy to clean up the housing projects.

It appears that the affected senior citizens (under threat of eviction) were living in public housing projects - not in senior citizen housing projects. If they were in senior citizen housing, they could not allow their adult children or their grandchildren to stay indefinitely in their apartment units. Senior citizen housing is strict that only senior citizens can live in their units.

A simple solution would be to transfer these affected senior citizens into senior citizen housing projects.

Mikestead

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

Would you go so far as to predict a HUD victory, Ump? I'd feel good about that, given the lockout you recently assured us would stall or cancel Baseball 2002, on the basis of your colleagues' expertise...

The season hasn't started quite just yet. And even if it starts, that doesn't mean it will finish.

The premise of this zero tolerance policy is that any leaseholder should be responsible for what happens under their roof. If I'm not mistaken, the current policy holds that when illegal conduct occurs as a result of their tenancy, the tenants have broken the terms of their lease. You break your lease and there are consequences to pay.

Yes, there is a certain double standard in play here. Those with the means to provide their own roof (for example, the Kennedys or the Florida Bush clan) are exempt from these consequences. Luckily for both the Kennedy and Bush families, they don't live in government funded, crime infested housing projects. (In this instance, I'm not talking about white collar crime.... )

Yes, the government should provide low income housing for the poor. (And, hell yes, we should be providing more of it.) However, the government, as landlord, has a duty to provide safe housing for all of these tenants.

The goverment cannot and should not be an omnipresent policeman in these projects to ensure the safety of the tenants. Therefore, I believe that holding tenants accountable to minimum standards of conduct (ie: merely upholding the law) as a requirement for tenancy is simply good policy.

Yeah, there are going to be some sob stories as a result of this policy. But I'd rather hear more stories like these than hear more stories about drive by shootings and children being killed in their apartments as a result of random gunfire. Just a value judgement in the end I guess...

[quote]Originally posted by SFHoya:
The goverment cannot and should not be an omnipresent policeman in these projects to ensure the safety of the tenants. Therefore, I believe that holding tenants accountable to minimum standards of conduct (ie: merely upholding the law) as a requirement for tenancy is simply good policy.

Yeah, there are going to be some sob stories as a result of this policy. But I'd rather hear more stories like these than hear more stories about drive by shootings and children being killed in their apartments as a result of random gunfire. Just a value judgement in the end I guess...

---

As a police officer I definitely agree with SFHOYA-We have a responsibility to the law abiding citizens FIRST.

I'm with you, Copman & SFHoya, there's no real "right" - not yet at least - to public housing and it's entirely legal and good social policy to evict those who won't keep drug dealers out of their homes, if not actually invite them to set up shop there. Last time I checked, none of the Bush Babies were selling booze out of their homes, so there goes that analogy. As far as the "government's war on the poor" goes, call off your old, tired rhetoric! To quote Joan Baez's mocking lyrics about - of all people! - Bob Dylan, "the '60s are over so set us free!"

"The '60s, the '60s" -- stop parroting Fox "News" idiots and their ilk.

I see ... a woman in her 70s and 80s who has a mentally disabled grandchild selling crack down the street -- NOT in the apartment -- is supposed to know about it, at the price of being booted. And there's another impending eviction over a youthful relative being seen in the company of someone smoking pot.

The overwhelming coldness toward "sob stories" surfacing on this board does indeed prove the full humanity of gays -- they can be just as vicious (and ignorant of the law) as straight people. (Particularly if they're cops.)

Bill W, How "mentally disabled" is anyone with enough skill - if not sense - to be selling crack? Your second hypothetical is simply overbroad and undefined. As for Fox News, it has yet to pick up this line, but at least it's available in NY now, no? If you don't like being bothered by factual, unbiased reportage, move to San Francisco instead of Canada. We still don't get it here and you can keep company with some of America's most "humane" - albethem vicious - trust fund brats!

Yeah, "factual, unbiased," howling, screaming idiots. Like this cable bimbo Chris Rock quite properly labeled an "uptight bitch':

Ann Coulter and the Liberal Menace (Tom Tomorrow)

Sorry, I realize now why gays are so tolerant of throwing the elderly out of housing: we're all so damn rich.

Boy, Bill W, nothing like a little overreaction, eh? The programs you refer to are clearly broadcast as commentary, not news. Try to make that distinction when (proof)reading the NYT.

BTW, don't you have better things to do than hunting down minutiae to trash President Bush with? Get in a good workout, man, and release some of that anger!

Fox News' non-commentary programs are just as biased. (Perhaps if you lived in a city where you could see it regularly that would be clearer.) ... Just as all the other news nets are tilted to the right. "Alan Keyes Is Making Sense"? In what galaxy?

You're right about my 'trashing' Governor Bush for his historical illiteracy; I apologize. I'll try to keep my criticism to this theft of the White house, having his first oil venture funded by the bin Laden clan, etc, as Michael Moore does in his newly-published "Stupid White Men"...

Well, at least we agree on two things: Alan Keyes makes absolutely NO sense and Michael Moore is a politically comic genius. As for the rest, give it a rest!

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
[The overwhelming coldness toward "sob stories" surfacing on this board does indeed prove the full humanity of gays -- they can be just as vicious (and ignorant of the law) as straight people. (Particularly if they're cops.)[/QB]

---

I'm assuming that the last line means that Bill W is accusing me of being an ignorant & vicious person( as I am the only self identified cop on this board that I know of. As someone who has never once made a personal attack on any one's character on this board................... I refuse to start now. Have a nice day - Bill.

Resurrecting this one, as you may have noticed the Supremes voted *8-0* for the feds' position -- as Arianna H says below, an extreme example of "drug war lunacy":

What Has the Supreme Court Been Smoking?

Read the specific cases cited in the column and tell me if you agree these invalids should be evicted.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]