Affordable Housing Apartments Near The Katy Mills Mall

[VicMan]

Elder's statement does not have the word "illegal" in there anywhere.

OK - now why is it so controversial to make a statement that poverty and illegal immigration are linked?

[Hanuman]

Why don't you give me one contextual example where the statement can be viewed as innocent. I'd be happier to be wrong than right on this, trust me.

Whoa - up there pardna'! Better reholster your six iron Flinch, or I won't be able to post here anymore ... I was just getting ready to state that I didn't want a jail facility close to my neighborhood, but I don't want you to think I'm a racist - and insensitive to our repeat offenders and their friends. I was just talking to a friend of mine on this point. We concluded that there is no reason for a River Oaks Country Club any longer, as it uses up land that low income apartment dwellers would better occupy. I'm sure that my friends in River Oaks would welcome them.

I think you probably owe Mayor Elder the courtesy of getting to know what is really in his heart & mind before you nail him to the cross with hearsay, and assumption... ehhh??

[livincinco]

Elder's statement does not have the word "illegal" in there anywhere.

You're right. OMG, I'm a racist too!

[livincinco]

Now that I've accepted my inherent racism. I'll retract my point regarding illegal immigration and just point out the following and again ask what's so controversial about the assertion that residents of this complex would be immigants (but not illegal).

As a share of all persons in or near poverty, immigrants and their children account for more than one-half of the poor and near poor in California and roughly one-third in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, and Arizona. - Center for Immigration Studies.

[WAZ]

Interesting. In this thread, you wanted to put ex-cons in wealthier neighborhoods, so that the poor would not be forced to live amongst them. Yet, when a proposal to allow the poor to leave the neighborhoods full of ex-cons for (presumably) better neighborhoods, you are ready to sign up to speak against it.

If that's what you got from the thread, I can almost see why you've been flaming me ever since. :-)

I NEVER said I wanted to put ex-cons in wealthier neighborhoods. I only said that too many of them are in poor neighborhoods, and I asked for realistic ideas to keep this from happening.

I'd like Houston to be a city where dangerous ex-cons and sex offenders have a harder time finding places to live. I want them to stay priced out of expensive neighborhoods. I want them kept out of poorer neighborhoods, too. We can keep convicts (especially sex offenders) in prison through their full terms - denied early release because they don't have homes to go to. When the law says they must be released, they can move to other metropolitan areas.

What I wrote about the apartments near Katy is very much in keeping with this ideal. The Houston area has a surplus of low-cost housing, and one result of it is that landlords are left scrounging for tenants. Some landlords keep their complexes full by not screening their tenants. To these landlords, it doesn't matter if their tenants are dangerous ex-cons or sex offenders. They pay rent.

The construction of new low-cost housing adds to the surplus and exacerbates the problem. The rehabbing of existing low-cost housing does not. And the tenant screening requirements in official "low-income" housing are an added bonus to these rehabbed properties.

[VicMan]

As a share of all persons in or near poverty, immigrants and their children account for more than one-half of the poor and near poor in California and roughly one-third in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, and Arizona. - Center for Immigration Studies.

1. Which report from the CIS says that? and

2. The Southern Poverty Law Center harshly criticizes the CIS, accusing it of being part of a John Tanton-led nativist lobby - http://www.splcenter.org/publications/the-nativist-lobby-three-faces-of-intolerance/cis-the-independent-think-tank

[AtticaFlinch]

Livincinco, you haven't convinced me. Elder uses the idea that many of the residents of the place not being Americans as evidence the place will be a problem. As has been explicitly stated many times here, he doesn't use the word illegal. He doesn't connect these immigrants to crime. Even though it's possible to read into the implied poverty (as it is low-income housing), Elder doesn't mention that either. No, the idea that the residents may not even be American citizens is enough to condemn the entire property as devastating to the community. In other words, having dirty foreigners in the neighborhood will devalue Katy property values.

One thing I'd like you to bear in mind, I've repeatedly said I don't give a flying fart what the developers and the residents of the neighboring communities decide to do with the land. I really don't care. It couldn't possibly concern me less. My big contention is with the racist - excuse me, xenophobic - ideologies underlying the opposition, particularly the contingent embodied by the Katy mayor. It's just wrong. It's immoral and unethical, and it doesn't belong in the 21st century. I'll take your inability to articulate a cogent reason as to why a housing community inhabited by immigrants is inherently problematic as being sufficient evidence to conclude there isn't one. Since that's the case, I'll stand by my conclusion, one which so many people oddly seem hellbent on disproving (or making about me), that Elder is a bigot.

And Hanuman, I don't need to get all warm and fuzzy with the man before I can make my decision about his character. And don't worry about the prison. Protesting a prison and protesting a home for immigrants are two different things. I wouldn't want to live near criminals either, but frankly it doesn't make any difference to me what their nationalities are, or their skin color, or their religion, or their sexual preference... I don't want to live near criminals for the high recidivism rate of institutionalized criminality. It makes a pretty big difference. Perhaps you can tell me why protesting a prison would possibly make someone a racist.

[Jeebus]

Attica, what should the mayor have said that would be PC enough to not warrant those of you in this thread to continually accuse him of being racist?

Attempt to pretend for just one post that he was attempting to keep poor people from living in his community - right or wrong, I don't really care; and not that he was trying to keep any certain minority out.

[Hanuman]

Livincinco, you haven't convinced me. Elder uses the idea that many of the residents of the place not being Americans as evidence the place will be a problem. As has been explicitly stated many times here, he doesn't use the word illegal. He doesn't connect these immigrants to crime. Even though it's possible to read into the implied poverty (as it is low-income housing), Elder doesn't mention that either. No, the idea that the residents may not even be American citizens is enough to condemn the entire property as devastating to the community. In other words, having dirty foreigners in the neighborhood will devalue Katy property values.

One thing I'd like you to bear in mind, I've repeatedly said I don't give a flying fart what the developers and the residents of the neighboring communities decide to do with the land. I really don't care. It couldn't possibly concern me less. My big contention is with the racist - excuse me, xenophobic - ideologies underlying the opposition, particularly the contingent embodied by the Katy mayor. It's just wrong. It's immoral and unethical, and it doesn't belong in the 21st century. I'll take your inability to articulate a cogent reason as to why a housing community inhabited by immigrants is inherently problematic as being sufficient evidence to conclude there isn't one. Since that's the case, I'll stand by my conclusion, one which so many people oddly seem hellbent on disproving (or making about me), that Elder is a bigot.

And Hanuman, I don't need to get all warm and fuzzy with the man before I can make my decision about his character. And don't worry about the prison. Protesting a prison and protesting a home for immigrants are two different things. I wouldn't want to live near criminals either, but frankly it doesn't make any difference to me what their nationalities are, or their skin color, or their religion, or their sexual preference... I don't want to live near criminals for the high recidivism rate of institutionalized criminality. It makes a pretty big difference. Perhaps you can tell me why protesting a prison would possibly make someone a racist.

"It couldn't possibly concern me less"..~~~~ Say again - over!

Immoral, is in the eye of the bigoter. Alas, d'Artagnan, we are not all for one, and one for all. Water seeks it's own level... birds of a feather flock together ... etc. etc. etc. The perfect World is still not here, even in the 21st Century.

In answer to your query, "Perhaps you can tell me why protesting a prison would possibly make someone a racist" .... It doesn't. The better query should have been, " Then why did I say that?" ... I use the same consideration you gave Mayor Elder ... NONE! Touche' ......

[AtticaFlinch]

Attica, what should the mayor have said that would be PC enough to not warrant those of you in this thread to continually accuse him of being racist?

A good start would have been not to say what he said.

Attempt to pretend for just one post that he was attempting to keep poor people from living in his community - right or wrong, I don't really care; and not that he was trying to keep any certain minority out.

Why should I attempt to pretend to see something that doesn't exist? His bone of contention was that the new residents might not be Americans, not that they were poor and not that they're here illegally. It is what it is. Don't try to make it something it's not.

[Fringe]

After carefully evaluating and assessing all the posts in this thread I have come to the conclusion that Attica is wrong and everyone else is right. Sorry Attica. I know it must be a big disappointment. 

[AtticaFlinch]

After carefully evaluating and assessing all the posts in this thread I have come to the conclusion that Attica is wrong and everyone else is right. Sorry Attica. I know it must be a big disappointment.

Not really. My sense of self-worth isn't contingent upon peer approval on HAIF. Besides, if I'm the only one who's wrong and everybody else is right, and considering several people agreed with my position, that means despite disagreeing with me, you also agree with my take on this. We can call this the Fringe Paradox. But be careful with this paradox. If we let it get out of control, it'll rip a hole in the space-time continuum and destroy the universe.

[Fringe]

Not really. My sense of self-worth isn't contingent upon peer approval on HAIF. Besides, if I'm the only one who's wrong and everybody else is right, and considering several people agreed with my position, that means despite disagreeing with me, you also agree with my take on this. We can call this the Fringe Paradox. But be careful with this paradox. If we let it get out of control, it'll rip a hole in the space-time continuum and destroy the universe.

Now you have confused me to the point I don't know which position to take any more. 

[Hanuman]

My sense of self-worth isn't contingent upon peer approval on HAIF.

Is Too !!!

[tcr98taws6]

The cost of a gallon of gas right now is about $2.60. Let's say your low-income drones live only 15 miles away from their far-flung crappy job serving you burgers at the sparkling new Wendy's being built in Katy. That's a 30 mile per day commute. Now, let's assume their old beater get less than current CAFE standards for fuel economy. I think it's a safe assumption that poor people will have older, less fuel-efficient cars, but feel free to disagree on that point. Anyhow, either way, if their car gets 20 mpg, their total round-trip cost to work and back home will consume a gallon and a half of fuel, or $3.90. Assuming they work full time at 40 hours a week, and assuming that 40 hours is broken up into five shifts of eight hours each, then that would mean the poor low-wage worker was spending $19.50 per week in gas. Over the course of a full year, that fuel cost adds up to $1,014. From a slightly different perspective, the mileage added to the automobile each year will total 7,800, the federal government estimates the cost associated with operating a vehicle to be 56 cents per mile. Looking at costs from this perspective, the low-wage worker will have spent $4,368 per year. Either cost you evaluate, whether total operational costs or just fuel costs, if a person makes low wages, which I would place at less than $25-30k/year, a workday commute would consume a substantial portion of their income.

That said, if you're willing to pay more for your goods and services, so the places you shop at can afford to pay their employees more to offset their commute costs in order to ensure no poor folks live near you, then more power to you. I'd rather my goods pricing reflected something closer to the true cost of an item and not just the cost of labor, but we all have different priorities, I guess. I'd rather live near the dirty untouchables and reap the benefits of their labor rather than shut myself off from the outside world. Your life though, your home. And as has been said before, if you really don't want the people who do your dirty work to live within sight of you, then buy the land and do something else with it.

You favor the idea that everyone simply should accept the apartments. That's clear. And your arguement is based on the need for the low income worker being able to provide the services for low wages attached to certain jobs without any racial profiling or acceptance of these individuals unfortunate current state of living.

Why is it we can't rely on our high school and college children of the community, or even our own poor within the community who need jobs to fill the positions?

Why is it we all need to feel political correct? Why can't one simply express the opposing view without being lynched by the so called open-minded? The fact that I oppose low income apartments in the community makes me a terriblely closed minded person?

As many others know, and some have stated, opening these apartments does nothing to solve the issues with the already over-abundant number of poorly managed, low income apartments available throughout metro Houston.

All we are doing is spreading the problem into another community where the problem is minimal today.

Everyone feel better now?

[AtticaFlinch]

You favor the idea that everyone simply should accept the apartments. That's clear.

No. This isn't true at all. I don't give a rat's arse whether or not low-income apartments are built near a mall in Katy. I don't like the immoral and unethical reasons thus far given for the opposition though.

And your arguement is based on the need for the low income worker being able to provide the services for low wages attached to certain jobs without any racial profiling or acceptance of these individuals unfortunate current state of living.

Did you read anything I wrote before you decided to deconstruct my position? Wrong again.

Why is it we can't rely on our high school and college children of the community, or even our own poor within the community who need jobs to fill the positions?

I suppose if you could rely on your own children and your own already extant poor, then no one would move into the apartments. The market would take care of itself. Bingo Bango! Problem solved!

Why is it we all need to feel political correct?

And why should we all feel a need to be ethically correct? Or morally correct? What benefit do I gain by not being a heartless prick? Having no morals nor ethics sure worked out for those Wall Street guys, didn't it? Why should I attempt to be any better than them?

Why can't one simply express the opposing view without being lynched by the so called open-minded? The fact that I oppose low income apartments in the community makes me a terriblely closed minded person?

Are you closed-minded? Here's a simple test: Justify your reason for not wanting the poor near you, and do it in such a way as you'd feel comfortable justifying it to St Peter at the Pearly Gates should that need ever arise.

Look, I may not claim to be a Christian or live under any specific moral banner, but I tend to operate at a high level of personal ethics. And, even though I don't believe in a judgement day, I tend to view many of my decisions through the perspective of needing to someday articulate ethical justifications for my actions. Perhaps you and I come from two opposing schools of thought on this. Perhaps if your own selfish reasons outweigh the welfare of your fellow passengers on this interstellar life raft, then you should go with what you feel is the right thing to do. Just don't expect me to agree with you, or to tell you that you're right. I won't compromise my sense of ethics so you can sleep more comfortably at night.

As many others know, and some have stated, opening these apartments does nothing to solve the issues with the already over-abundant number of poorly managed, low income apartments available throughout metro Houston.

All we are doing is spreading the problem into another community where the problem is minimal today.

Doubtless this is correct. I totally agree, and like you, I also think we should address the underlying issue and stop putting band-aids (here we go with the band-aids again) on major wounds. Anyhow, being as you brought this up, how should we go about eliminating poverty so there's no need for such things as low-income housing? That is the next obvious step, right? There'd be no low-income housing if there's nobody to fill it up with.