Why is there so much public housing in NYC?

Especially when you find out they have second homes in the country... or are hiding income.

Compared to where?

what happens to the people living there?

Most other big cities have torn down almost all if not all their projects and replaced them with either market rate + vouchers or mixed 40 market rate/ 40 middle class/30 low income developments. NYC is the last hold out. There was JUST an NYT story on this very topic.

I tell you why - NYC's endemic crony-corrupt-political-graft etc culture. Too many backs getting scratched.

We asked all of the poor people to leave or become wealthy, but they decided they just wanted to be poor and stay where they were to piss people like RR1 off.

I agree. Chicago is much better.

Hi Rufus!

He's baaaaaack!!!! Just what the board needed.

Public Housing:

Boston - 14,000 units - 5.5% of housing units
New York - 178,554 units - 5.4% of housing units
Baltimore - 10,000 units - 3.4% of housing units
Minneapolis - 5,800 units - 3.3% of housing units
Oakland - 3,308 units - 2% of housing units
San Francisco - 6,575 units - 1.8% of housing units
Milwaukee - 4,303 units - 1.8% of housing units
Seattle - 5,200 units - 1.8% of housing units
Sacramento - 3,144 units - 1.7% of housing units
Chicago - 16,500 units - 1.4% of housing units
Detroit - 4,000 units - 1.1% of housing units
Kansas City, MO - 1,964 units - 0.9% of housing units
Houston - 4,200 units - 0.5% of housing units
Los Angeles - 9,300 units - 0.7% of housing units
San Diego - 1,800 units - 0.4% of housing units

Look at where New York in comparison to the second largest city. Pathetic.

Look at where New York is in comparison to the second largest city, Los Angeles. Pathetic.*

I'm sick of looking at those ugly towers looming in a distance wherever I am, and all those smelly poors who bring down the quality of life. Ugh, why can't public housing just be built in Bronx or something.

And on a side note - Stuy Town is just nasty. How could anyone live there? I would rather live in Alabama.

I hate the subway too.

Yesterday, some guy besides me kept coughing when we were riding the train and I was about to just die trying to hold my breath and not breathe in his nasty germs. The stations were sooooo disgusting (even worse as it was 12 am when they were cleaning the subways and I had to step my Prada shoes all over that brown water), everything looked so run down and dingy and gross. I also saw about 5 rats. I was crying for the comfort and luxury of my Mercedes.

Public housing leveled. Poors/uneducated/trashy/worthless/parasite welfare leeches relocated. Subways cleaned (I still wouldn't use it though). NYC would be much better.

wow, 2 new accounts in 1 hour. That is a record for you rufus. By the way, did you re-apply to Columbia yet?

I'm not Rufus.

If public housing was completely eliminated, rents would surely skyrocket.

Alpo, I'd say thats the dumbest thing I ever heard, but you've actually say things just as dumb pretty much daily.

So, all those folks in the projects will suddenly be in the market for $$3k one bedrooms? Really?

Replace the projects with standard housing, or hell, even mixed, like suggested above, and you'll LOWER rents.

"If public housing was completely eliminated, rents would surely skyrocket."

WRONG. Rents would decrease you fool.

I agree with somewhere else. Rent stabilzation/control and public housing push up costs for everyone else. I have no problem paying taxes to support education, reasonable healthcare, and public transportation. However, there are too many people gaming the system and pusing up costs for everyone else.

"Replace the projects with standard housing, or hell, even mixed, like suggested above, and you'll LOWER rents."

And who is going to do that in this market? NOBODY.

Rents would increase without projects because then the project tenants would move into market rate housing after getting Section 8 vouchers.

It's actually not that simple. If you replace public housing with "average" housing, that bumps the desirability of not only those units, but those nearby as well. Chances are, that drastic of a change would increase local incomes in the short term (by having average-income individuals/families move in) and push the poor out. That probably means a short-term increase in rents for most people, but a gradual averaging out of rents over the long-term, as you'd have more homogeneous housing stock. What matters above all is income levels. The only stupid thing on this thread is the name-calling.

> And who is going to do that in this market? NOBODY.

Now you're changing your story. Funny.
And I guarantee you'd find people to do it in this market if they offered the land at market price... there is still development going on here, ALpo. You should come and visit NYC sometime.

> Rents would increase without projects because then the project tenants would move into market rate
> housing after getting Section 8 vouchers.

Well, now you're introducing a fabricated reality and using that as evidence.
Yes, if the government hands every resident a check, we'll push rents up.
If the government creates a tax deduction on rent, rents would go up.

Its like claiming watching tv makes you stronger, because you take HGH while sitting on the cough.

Your original assertion is still incorrect. Removing the housing filled with folks who would not participate in the other market won't affect that market dynamic.

And you're ignoring the fact that ALL of the suggestions note replacing it with some other housing!

The govt. would have to hand all the project tenants money for market rate housing. They are not going to force them out onto the street. Use some common sense.

Alpo, use some basic reading comprehension. ALL of the ideas mentioned, and ALL of the city examples given, replaced the housing with other housing.

You are arguing a strawman.

Yes, massive recurring riots with huge property damage and a long-term sense of urban unlivability will drive residents and businesses out of the city faster than anything imaginable, sending rents plummeting. Great plan!

It works very well for Detroit, "The 1.1% City", and Los Angeles (which is Spanish for "City of Riots").

People seem to be forrgetting that if you demolish projects, nothing will be built in their place since 95% of projects are in horrible neighborhoods. If you tear down a project in East NY, who is going to build there? Developers willl build by the few projects that are in good areas, but that is it. The remainder would just become vacant lots full of garbage. And I would not want to imagine the rioting that would happen if you kicked people out of the projects. It would make the summer of 1968 look like good times.

Alan.....Know your audience. Keep is stupid.

Tear the ones in Manhattan down and put up luxury condos or just level them and turn the land into beautiful parks.

It would be great if NYC had as much parkland as London.

alan, Los Angeles may be a shithole, but the poor people in Los Angeles live a more luxurious life than the poors in New York. They have a nicer housing stock, not those dreary complexes.

Those big hulking red fugly monstrosities need to come down. They are a blight on the city.

> People seem to be forrgetting that if you demolish projects, nothing will be built in their place
> since 95% of projects are in horrible neighborhoods.

Alpo, you should visit NYC sometime. You have no idea what you are talking about.
You just keep digging yourself deeper.

The biggest set of projects is in LIC. Want to call that a horrible neighborhood?
I believe the second biggest concentration is in downtown Brooklyn / Ft. Greene... adjacent to THE MOST EXPENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD IN BROOKLYN.
Upper east in the 90s has a bunch. Upper West has a bunch.
East Village has a ton.
All neighborhoods already anything but "horrible".
The rockways have tons of projects... and would be pretty damn cool almost immediately if you knocked them down.

And the big point you seem to miss... many of the bad project neighborhoods ARE BAD BECAUSE OF THE PROJECTS!

Seriously, get a clue...
TONS

Yeah, one can argue about whether other cities are good/bad in their implementation...

but NYC's projects suck ass, and ruin neighborhoods.

Clearly the system isn't working.

Ed Koch correctly pointed out that LA "looks like the outskirts of Mexico City", and he wasn't referring to its population.

New York has the highest percentage of parkland by area of any major US city, and in fact of any US city. Knowing London as I do, I seriously doubt that it has a higher percentage than NY -- and way too many of their parks are depressingly flat.

http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/citypark_facts/ccpe_TotalAcresPercentofLandArea_09.pdf

Lobby your politicians to spend lots of money to tear down the projects and put their tenants in luxury condos on the same sites, or if they really have money to burn replace them with parks that generate no revenue, but cost a lot to maintain and police.

NYCDreamer, I can't help but keep it stupid. It's what I do.

"The biggest set of projects is in LIC."

So what? You mean there are no projects in the Bronx, Bed Stuy, East NY, Brownsville, Spanish Harlem? Quit cherry picking data.

Wo now wait a minute. I may have lived in Manhattan for 11 years now, but i still left my heart in San Francisco, where I was born. That link is a BIT deceptive. The Bay Area is full of "open space" that are parks by everything but name only, and SF has another 1,000 plus acres of it within it's city limits:

http://www.thehdmt.org/indicators/view/8

In all nine counties (i don't count Santa Cruz) there are tens of thousands of acres that can legally NEVER be developed but are nonetheless not officially "parks." ANYONE who has EVER lived in either SF or NYC knows very well there is more park space per person, and per acre, than in NYC. What's more, there is FAR more park area within 10 miles of SF proper then there is within 10 miles of Manhattan. Half of Southern Marin COunty and northern San Mateo County still has cougars, deers, and tens of thousands of acres of wide open spaces. Anyone who infers, implies, suggests, or says that SF has less park land than NYC is smoking large amounts of crystal meth.

For that matter, LA County (if not LA city) has ten times as much open space as the similarly sized area surrounding Manhattan. Look at an aerial map of of either LA or SF and the ten miles around there city limits - WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more open space and frankly WILDERNESS then in NYC.

See: http://www.sfgate.com/traveler/acrobat/maps/1998/sfbay01.pdf

and

http://www.visitcalifornia.com/media/pages/getting_around/maps/LA_OC_Map.pdf

All that green is PARKLAND, dummies!

LA national forest by itself has 650,000 acres, almost all within LA county. That ONE park has more than 3x the park area of ALL five boroughs per the above list.

There are similar GIGANTIC swaths of open land literally just across the border from SF in Marin and San Mateo Counties. To have anything REMOTELY similar here would be like turning 100% of the land area of jersey city, Hoboken, Weehaken, Newark West New York, and Fort Lee into park land and claiming NYC has parks because technically this new, giGANTIC park was across the water in New Jersey. And that would be just for the park just south of SF - you would have to turn large parts of Bronx into a Park to equate with the 74,000 acre Golden Gate national Park in Marin County!

Sorry....LA national forest has more parkland within LA county than 3x the ENTIRE LANDMASS of all five boroughs of NYC. The Golden Gate national rec area, which in the North is JUST OVER THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE and in the south is five miles from the SF border have FOUR TIMES the park land of all of NYC.

Jason, perhaps you're right per person, but per acre and strictly city limits, no. If you choose to make the inappropriate comparison between Frisco "proper" and Manhattan, maybe. But if you start getting into LA county, or the multi-county area around Frisco, you get into a comparison that includes the Adirondacks, among many others, in the NY area.

And the Bronx, by the way, is 24% parkland.

Uhhhhh, that is plain silly. What is the total area of New York City? Its SIX AND A HALF TIMES that of San Francisco. Including the comparible areas near San Francisco (i.e. those comparable to the boroughs versus Manhattan) you ad SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND ACRES pf park land from the GG national recreation area ALONE. If you include the other parks, you are talking MANY times the park area of NYC. So no, you don't need to include the Adirondacks. SF is less than 30,000 acres. NYC total is almost 200k. The 200,000 acres of land closest to teh center of SF - ie. Northern San Mateo County and Southern Marin County, have almost 100,000 acres of park land. Meaning HALF the area is parkland. The fact that its JUST on the other side of the border of the city limits on both sides is meaningless.

The same is true for LA proper versus LA county. Its absurd to think people who live in the city of SF or LA somehow won't go RIGHT OVER THEIR BORDERS to park areas larger than the entire five borough area of NYC.

While we are at it, Denver has plenty of wide open spaces around it not in the city limits, but no one would claim NYC has more open space then Denver. And I could go on.

Anyone who has ever actually LIVED in SF would spit out their drink if you tried to claim NYC has more parks then SF based on the technicality that 100,000 of park acres that all start within LESS THAN A MILE of the city limits on both sides is somehow-limits.

SF, unlike other large cities (including NYC, LA, Dallas, etc) never annexed surrounding cities. So its relatively small in land area. However, were you to include the nearest 165,000 aces, and thus make the city like-for-like the size of NYC's five boroughs, it would have FIVE TIMES the park area. Sweet Jesus just click on the link to the map I give you, its RETARDED to think that there are more parks in NYC:

See: http://www.sfgate.com/traveler/acrobat/maps/1998/sfbay01.pdf

Anyone who lives ANYWHERE in the nine counties of the Bay Area, or within the city limits of the three biggest cities = Oakland, San Jose, and San Francisco, has 5X as much open space within a ten mile radius of where they live than ANYONE in NYC, or Westchester, or Bergan, Suffolk, Nassau, or Husdon county. Its not even close.

Jason, dear -- New York City the largest amount of parkland in the United States.

Get over it and stop arguing with hard cold statistics.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933260.html

and

Park Acres as Percent of Land Area:

1. New York City - 19.6% - [38,229 acres]
2. Washington DC -19.4% - [7,617 acres]
3. San Francisco -18% [5,384 acres]
4. Jersey City -17.3% [1,660 acres]
5. Boston -16.3% [5,040 acres]
6. Philadelphia -12.6% [10,886 acres]
7. Long Beach -10.1% [3,275 acres]
8. Baltimore -9.5% [5,905 acres]
9. Chicago -8.2% [11,860 acres]
10. Los Angeles -7.9% [23,761 acres]

Of course the projects are a dump and a high percentage of them are trashy (in behavior, attitude, dress, smell, self-entitlement complex, dumb, aggressive, ad nauseum). Why is this even debatable? Oh, that's right, since they're not "white trash", it's "unfair" and "too easy" to say they're trash. Rolls eyes.... trash is as trash does.... I'm sure I"m trash when compared to the British Royal family....

So the bottom line is that we should hire star architects and use the finest exterior cladding so the projects are sparklingly beautiful? Or just stick to the lowest-cost finishes to house people in unfancy buildings?

I must say, though, I'm very surprised and impressed that posters on StreetEasy are on such close terms with so many people in projects that they know what the people who live there are like. It must be a real drag for you to always go to their houses for dinner parties and cocktail parties and the like.

Good one, alanhart.

My only project experience, in 30 years here, was a friend in those buildings east of Amsterdam at 103rd. He'd have parties a few times a year. The hallways and elevator were sort of down-at-heel, but nothing horrible. Everything was done in those big glazed school tiles, as if meant to be hosed down. Other than that, can't say what they're like. Not as if you can ask "So, tell me, what's it like to live in a *shudder* project?"

"Jason, dear -- New York City the largest amount of parkland in the United States."

Justin, dear, San Francisco has SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND ACRES of parkland LITERALLY on its borders. Not NEAR - JUST ACROSS. Like I said, it would be as though The ENTIRE land area of jersey city, newark, weehaken, hoboken, fort lee, seacacus and a few other cities just over the river were one big park. So its not INSIDE the city limits. That ONE park is larger than ALL the parks in NYC COMBINED, and it LITERALLY boarders San Francisco.

Every single man, woman, and child in San Francisco lives within one half to 10 miles of FAR more park land than anyone anywhere in NYC.

Put another way, its FAR EASIER to get to one of two roughly 37,000 acre wide open wilderness areas plus a third that is about 10,000 acres from ANYWHERE in SF than it is for someone to get from Battery Park to the Upper West side - and if you live in the southern part of SF or in the Marina district, faster than it would take to get from Battery Park to Chelsea. Each of these parks has more acreage than ALL the parks in NYC combined. You can mountain bike from the Marina through the presidio over he GG bridge and into a 40,000 acre park complete with deer and mountain lion in 30 minutes or less, or take a ten minute bus ride. There is simply NOTHING comparible no matter where you live in NYC. Nothing THAT close and THAT big.

I had many friends who lived in the projects--Fulton and Elliot primarily but a few of the LES/East Village as well. That was a very different time and different city but back then the projects were overwhelmingly working people and families. Why do you think that there is parking available? Because blue collar workers needed transport to jobs across th city. And yes, they were also, the Elliot houses in particular white, at least 50% white. I remember the projects as being clean and modern, actually a lot nicer than the tenements where some of the other kids lives.

Other than brief visits with my volunteer work to the Strauss Houses in Kips Bay I don't think I've set foot inside a project in 35 years. I wouldn't want to live in the projects the fact is we need affordable housing. There needs to be a place for people at all income levels in New York, yes even in Manhattan. This is not a f'ing game preserve for the rich and beautiful. Nor does all housing have to be architecturally significant--more important that it be a safe and pleasant place for people to live.

There is nothing inherently bad about the projects or most of the people who live there. Crime is bad and we need to dedicate as much resources as possible to public safety, even in the projects. The city and the residents need to have a mutual agreement to maintain the buildings and grounds so they do not look scary, foreboding and neglected. "We will fix broken elevators and you will not write on the walls". Let kids in afterschool programs get involved in improving the physical plant.

Whatever...it just angers me no end when people advocate for what would be in the end a city of seven and eight figure townhouses and apartments and the people who can afford them. Considering many of you aren't from here, please return to wherever there is and establish your upper class/aesthetically pleasing utopia on more accommodating soil.

"Considering many of you aren't from here, please return to wherever there is and establish your upper class/aesthetically pleasing utopia on more accommodating soil."

*books flight to Monaco*

Why is there working-class/welfare housing on the Upper East Side, but none on the 7th Arrondissement in Paris or in London's Kensington? It's no wonder they feel more elegant and refined.

All projects should be located in Bronx.

I remember looking at a $8M apartment the other day in West Chelsea, and one of the views being of this ghetto project housing.

Those scary projects need to be strapped with dynamite and brought down.

wonderbra, in your case it's more like "*books flight to Morocco, to live out your years*"

Here's a link to the 16,000 units of housing projects in Kensington: http://www.chg.org.uk/

It's sad that the PJ residents had to look at the $500K apartment that you wish you could pay $8m for.

Keep drinking those wine coolers -- everyone's very impressed with your sophistication.

The public housing program can probably be reformed some day under the right leadership, but there's no hope of curing the ugliness from the hearts of people like wonderboy and RR1. We might walk on the same streets or sit next to each other on the trains. Very scary!

I know good people who live in public housing.
They are decended from immigrants who didn't have the luck and resources to achieve
the "American dream" of owning homes that they could not afford.

Uggggghhhh all the examples I cited above meant replacing projects with vouchers and/or mixed-income housing. Net-net, the same amount of people get government housing aid, but vouchers are actually more cost-effective than projects, do not ghettoize the people, and in places like LA, SF, or NYC, can save the cities and Fed govt LOTS of money when say projects in Chelsea and the UWS are sold.

Aren't you the one who said that the primary effect of Frisco's replacement of projects with vouchers is that Frisco is now lily white, and all the projects residents move out to Oakland (possibly to projects there)?

And what's the upside? Housing buy/rent prices have come down in Frisco? Vouchers don't drive demand, forcing up rents in formerly affordable Oakland? Last I heard, landlords look for a premium in order to accept vouchers. It's another half-baked, unscalable idea, like charter schools.

"They are decended from immigrants who didn't have the luck and resources to achieve "

Then they need to go back to where they came from...or move to someplace cheap like North Carolina.

Public Housing = Terrible. Push it out to the outskirts (Bronx) like they did in Paris.

Demolish Public Housing.

This thread is interesting...

projects are a disgrace. should move them out of the city - NJ seems a good candidate.

"Jason, perhaps you're right per person, but per acre and strictly city limits, no. If you choose to make the inappropriate comparison between Frisco "proper" and Manhattan, maybe. But if you start getting into LA county, or the multi-county area around Frisco, you get into a comparison that includes the Adirondacks, among many others, in the NY area."

Well, thats a pretty dumb limitation to make. Because if we're going to go within proper borders, then do just Manhattan. Thats what we're really talking about.

Manhattan loses by a landslide.

"And the Bronx, by the way, is 24% parkland."

And I'm sure tons of Nassau County, too.

But why are we talking about them?

"I know good people who live in public housing.
They are decended from immigrants who didn't have the luck and resources to achieve
the "American dream" of owning homes that they could not afford. "

So, lets throw them in with folks who aren't good people... and have their kids go to the same schools... and assure they can NEVER reach the American dream...

Brilliant!

"Aren't you the one who said that the primary effect of Frisco's replacement of projects with vouchers is that Frisco is now lily white, and all the projects residents move out to Oakland (possibly to projects there)?"

Very close, but no. It was PRIVATE slum housing that was torn down using emminent domain in the 60s, and which was replaced with market-rate luxury high rises. Not the projects, which are government owned. And the former happened 30 years before the latter.

It would be the equivalent of tearing down all the PRIVATELY owned tenement buildings in Hells Kitchen, East Harlem, and Harlem, and replacing them with a bunch of Mid-town west style high rises, but using eminent domain.

The projects in SF were replaced by mixed-use housing and vouchers for those who did not get in the mixed use in the 90s. And yes, in SF, LA, Atlanta, etc, SOME project residents ended up moving to entirely new neighborhoods with the vouchers, but most stayed nearby their old digs.

But the net result was much more racial and economic diversity after than before.
__________________________________________

"Well, thats a pretty dumb limitation to make. Because if we're going to go within proper borders, then do just Manhattan. Thats what we're really talking about."

Thanks for the support, but SF wins from either POV. Granted, WITHIN the city limits, NYC has more parkspace (not Manhattan). But on either side of the border, SF has over 80,000 acres of parkspace, or more than 2.5 times the entire landmass of the city.

If we compare JUST Manhattan to SF, that would be as though the ENTIRE borough of Brooklyn was a Park. no people, the ENTIRE borough.

If we compare all of NYC to SF, it would be like ALL of Hudson and Westchester counties being park. Every square inch.

And then saying NYC did not have a lot of parks.

Stupid, in other words.

Why can't the poor step it up and start paying their "fair share" of taxes?

Oh, somewhereelse:

Those people have very good kids who do well in public schools.

You live in the Village, and you're an elitist?

I am not an elitist. I came from a working class family and worked hard, saved, and paid my bills. I gave up things in the short term (more nights out, fancy clothes, cab rides, etc) in order save for years for a downpayment for a home. I did not feel entitled to have my expenses subsides by others. No one is entitled to live in Manhattan or anywhere else for that matter. If you can not afford market rate rents, you should live in an area you can afford. That is what I did for several years when I made less money. It gets tiring to work long hours and give away half of your money in taxes. And no.. I am not an elitist. I just believe in earning and working towards your goals.

Well, isn't that special?!

aboutready
about 2 weeks ago before going on vacation
ignore this person
report abuse
I am not an elitist. I came from a like "trailer trash" background, and found a husband who worked hard, saved, and I tried all the time to have someone else pay my bills. I gave up working for the long term in order to sit home. I did feel entitled to have my expenses subsides by others and still do. I am entitled to live in Manhattan and not put down carpet in the apartment despite the rules for that matter. I can afford market rate rents through my husband's hard work, but I still want to sue my landlord for treble monetary damages. That is what I did for several years. It gets tiring to sit home long hours. Taxes are also for little peole, have you heard my several complaints about the AMT? And no.. I am not an elitist. I just believe in finding a husband, having him earning and working towards my goals. Also, my mother died so you can not criticize me, and my daughter got asthma and that is someone else's fault.

"when I made less money" ... at which Duane Reade were you a minimum-wage checkout clerk?

AH and Truth - what's with the snotty comments? That is usually not your style(s) - maybe trying to be witty on SE is taking its toll.

The poor get subsidized housing, food stamps, free education. free health care. social security disability and welfare. There is no need for the poor to improve themselves. They live in a nanny state with no desire for liberty. If there is liberty; there is personal accountability and individual responsibility. That concept frightens people. People would rather have a welfare state then freedom.

if its so great to be poor, why don't you burn all your money and check it out? think of all the great perks you've laid out. sounds great. let us know how it works out for you.

Hey cc, Don't you understand my post. I want liberty and not a welfare state even if i fail.

what would that look like to you? people living in the street? begging? or should they just shoot themselves?

What happens when the money runs out and the country is broke and the "rich" are taxed out of existence? A third world banana republic in the model of Venezuela awaits you cc.

so...tell us what you would do? what would the country look like if you suspended all transfer payments? by the way, would that include corporate subsidies as well?

Absolutely no corporate welfare. No more crony capitalism;just pure capitalism.

so...what happens to all the people who are currently relying on this money to live?

They have to be fazed out over time.

how would you accomplish that?

you're pretty adamant about the way things need to be? surely, you have some plan for how to do it?

Don't worry cc it will never happen. We will continue to slide into socialism and everyone will have their "fair share".

julialg.....absolutely agree with you. There is also so much fraud in the system, it's just incredible!

I have to work now. I need to pay my taxes to support others "Shared sacrifice"

isn't it fun to complain?

"Oh, somewhereelse:

Those people have very good kids who do well in public schools."

Then they're the exception. I can introduce you to tons of families who raise their kids well but the schools absolutely suck because they live among folks without the same values.

Family members are public school teachers, and will tell you that it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil a classroom. And the schools that services projects are just in horrible, horrible shape.

So if those kids are *still* doing well, then they'd probably be doing even better if they didn't have such concentrated welfare schools.

> You live in the Village, and you're an elitist?

Wrong on both counts.

I think public schools should be better, not worse.

"What happens when the money runs out and the country is broke and the "rich" are taxed out of existence? A third world banana republic in the model of Venezuela awaits you cc."

Yeah, morons like alpo have this idea that the government can just pay for all jobs...

who pays for the government, who knows?

but...what happens if you cut people off now?

It is always now..... The beast will keep growing until it swallows everyone.

'I have to work now. I need to pay my taxes to support others "Shared sacrifice"'

... what you're saying explains precisely why nations with progressive taxation and broad social safety nets have much higher productivity than free-market/third-world nations: you're motivated to work harder to keep a greater dollar amount. As you get into higher tax brackets, you have to work even harder and produce even more. If you were allowed to keep the other half of the money (that which belongs to society and not to you), you'd slack off, start drinking too much, and become an even bigger bore on SE than you already are ... hard to imagine though that may be.

alanhart... That is true up to a point.. Eventually, I will go on strike. Just like the unions you love so much. No more of my tax money to feed the beast.

you so conveniently ignore the basic question. you have a future as a politician. like it or not, transfer payments are part of what keeps us in (shaky) equalibrium. you do realize that you're no better than the people you love to endlessly criticize; you have no solutions only whining about getting more for yourself.

Alanhart and truth... well you certainly like to make obnoxious comments. By the way, I did not work at Duane Reade. However, I think you sound like a jerk looking down at someone who does. My point is that if people should live within their means and not feel entitled to subsidies.

hfs.com, no I do not live off of my husbands noney. I did not live in a t park. You sound like an angry bitter loser.

I do have a solution cc. It is called free market capitalism.

what happens to all the people who have no money?

The people who have no money have to get jobs and work hard and save money.

but there are no jobs. haven't you noticed? depending of who's counting, there are between 15 and 20 million people out of work--now what?

There are no jobs because the government is taxing the producers to death.. Maybe you can create some jobs.

there are no jobs because demand has fallen off of a cliff. taxes are no higher today than they were three years ago when there were jobs.

either way, it appears that you agree that there are no jobs; so, once again, what about all the people who are dependent on government help? what happens to them under your new system?

cc If you want to help the poor, I will not stop you.

tell me you're not really serious about this drivel? or tell me what you would do to remake the economy. actions---not slogans.

And my point is that you want to live in a "desirable" neighborhood, presumably with lots of services (restaurants, drug stores, upscale groceries, etc.), staffed by the very same low-income people who you say have no right to live in those desirable neighborhoods, and imply that there's a magic place a hop skip and a jump away in the outer boroughs where they can live affordably at market rate ... but there isn't.

You probably would not want to be told that you should commute 90 minutes each way to work for minimum wage to serve higher-paid people, and virtually never see your children; or that you shouldn't even have children because your minimum wage income is enough for you to share a bedroom with other adults on a fairly permanent basis, but not more.

You had the benefit of coming from a working-class family, while others come from families that are far below that that -- the "working poor". When they spend a dollar on potatoes, it comes to a far higher percentage of their take-home income than when you do -- or when a working-class family does.

If you went to public school your entire education was paid for by others -- taxpayers. If you went to private or parochial school, much of your education was subsidized by others -- philanthropists and/or tithers. If you attend higher education (private or public, college or advanced degrees) your tuition represented a very small fraction of the cost of education, the rest paid for by others (taxpayers and donors) -- and that's before any scholarships, grants, or taxpayer-subsidized loans. And it gets down to much finer levels than that: the streets, sidewalks, hospitals, rail lines, etc. acquired for public use by eminent domain and built and maintained with taxes.

Yet instead of being appreciative of the things you've gotten and the things you have, you focus on what others have (and you've decided they don't deserve). The next step down the ladder of depravity and reptilian self-pity is to become like julialg: completely unable to focus happily on the 50% of her nominal earnings, and obsessive over the part that she's told she's earned, but really hasn't -- it belongs to the society that maintains the matrix in which she works.

Hey, everybody -- have a great Easter or Passover!

I told you free market capitalism Plus, no income tax which is immoral and get the government the hell out of the way.