Affordable Housing Watchlist

[TheNiche]

You just said the exact same thing that I did. Congratulations.

It doesn't seem like it. I am validating the notion that persons who commit crimes while on government support could conceivably be punished worse than ordinary people, just as TexasVines described, and that it can be done (with workarounds) without triggering a constitutionality dilemma.

[RedScare]

It doesn't seem like it. I am validating the notion that persons who commit crimes while on government support could conceivably be punished worse than ordinary people, just as TexasVines described, and that it can be done (with workarounds) without triggering a constitutionality dilemma.

You gave a civil penalty as an example. Further, that civil penalty applies to every person who receives a homebuyer subsidy. I am talking about the increased criminal punishments that Vines suggested, merely because one lives in subsidized housing. Civil and criminal are different animals. Further, repayment of housing grants for selling too soon is required of every person who receives a grant. There is no unequal punishment. You do not separate those receiving grants from those not receiving grants. Anyone who receives a grant is subject to early sale penalties.

The same applies to selling crack. The punishment applies to anyone selling crack. Just because a person who does not sell it is not punished does not mean the punishment is unequal. The inequality arrises if we double the punishment for selling crack merely because one is a welfare recipient.

[editor]

How about bringing it back on topic, guys. Stop arguing about the argument.

[TheNiche]

How about bringing it back on topic, guys. Stop arguing about the argument.

I disagree with your disagreement to our disagreement with respect to the disagreement.

[Jedijake]

Let's be honest about something. One, being at or below the poverty level does not necessarily mean a person resorts to crime. Of course that is very generalist and rather unfair to make that blanket statement.

However, let's be completely honest about something that is unfortunate, but true. If you open residential areas for people resorting to government housing, it is inevitable that there will be an element of crime increasing in that area.

It is the very nature of those contradictory statements wherein lies the controversy.

Truth be told that those who are good, solid citizens wishing to do right and travel down the path of the straight and narrow, despite what their economic level is, should be protected at all costs. Wealthy, middle-class, and economically disadvantaged people are all susceptible to crime. Tougher laws and diligent law enforcement, security, patrolling, and swift prosecution against criminals is the obvious answer to preventing crime-no matter who committed the crime.

I'm torn over the government housing issue, but probably tend toward not throwing it up just anywhere unless there are STRICT ways to evaluate and monitor those who will inhabit it. But then again, such needs to be the case for ANY area.

Unfortunately, when you look at who gave what loans to whom, resulting in our wonderful national economic mess, it does not look like there is any monitoring going on anywhere.

[memebag]

Unfortunately, when you look at who gave what loans to whom, resulting in our wonderful national economic mess, it does not look like there is any monitoring going on anywhere.

Yeah, a bunch of homeless crack heads snuck into the banking system and crashed the economy.