No I don’t think they will be thrilled, that doesn’t change my view that it should happen and in the long run would actually benefit those homeowners. The problem is most people can’t think ahead.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Disney World Cast Member unions to begin week of negotiations for wage increases, healthcare costs and more
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Low cost housing ( aka low income apts ) built to benefit nearby homeowners is wishful thinking.
It's a starting point for negotiations. That's how it works. They'll end up meeting in the middle.
In the short term no, in the long term yes because increasing housing supply decreases homelessness, lifts more people out of poverty and should decrease crime. However it will takes years for this to occur and the negatives (loss of house value, transient increase in crime, getting “undesirables” in your neighborhood) occur immediately. Which means politicians will get voted out and thus the self destructive cycle propagates.
eliza61nyc
Well-Known Member
I agree but look at it from the homeowners perspective, many folks have a large chunk of their wealth tied into their homes. Now I'm over 60, I don't have "years " to wait for my neighborhood to rebound so the immediate ramifications are extremely important to me. I don't want to live in a neighborhood where I'm scared to come out my house when the sun goes down. So it's not so cut and dry.
I realize it may sound uncompassionate but I did work 2 jobs, missed family time etc etc so I could move into a safe, well established neighborhood.
I'm not sure if there is an easy answer
Last edited:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
That you’re scared of the poors says so much.
eliza61nyc
Well-Known Member
I'm scared of criminals rich or poor. Lol feel free to move to the projects if you wish. Next I was directly referencing @Touchdown comment about the increase in crime that often occurs in low income housing units and why there is normally public pushback from the residents in that neighborhood.
Here in Philly many landlords are no longer accepting section 8 housing vouchers, there is a reason for that.
Now as too what it says about me?? Since I'm not sleeping with anyone here, that's not a problem.
Last edited:
WDW has a lot of acres to build low cost housing. I’ve been in very hot and heated situations where we the homeowners fought and won when our area was advised that low cost housing was going to be built in our area which would certainly lower our property values , increase crime, more traffic etc.
lentesta
Premium Member
Is there real-world evidence this is true? For example, when states started raising minimum wages in 2016, did engineers, doctors, lawyers and white collar professionals ask for more money as a direct result? And they got it?
I get the intuitive appeal of the argument that "when some people ask for more money, everyone asks for more money". But economics has enough "expect one thing and see another" scenarios that I'd like to see some research on this before believing it.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I’m many cases projects replaced low income neighborhoods and even some genuine slums that were safer and had deeper community ties. The problems had far more to do with design and how everyone else reacts to places where there is a concentration of low income persons (resources are pulled).
Mid-century housing projects eschewed urbanism for the single use, limited typology of Modernism that remains the dominant legal framework across much of the US. They lost the social and business places of the neighborhood. They lost the variety of housing types. They lost what Jane Jacobs called “the eyes on the street,” the variety of residents who were around and could see what was going on that limited the ability to engage in criminal activity, particularly crimes of opportunity. Over time basic elements like doors in units were not built as a means of reducing costs. Even well designed and built developments eventually fell to a lack of maintenance and care.
The problem is not that the poors can’t be trusted together. The problem is that when they’re grouped together they become an easy target for everyone else. If you have to cut how many potholes the city can fix it’s easy to justify not doing it in the poor neighborhood where they’re paying less taxes and own fewer cars, but you can’t do that if there isn’t a clearly defined poor neighborhood.
eliza61nyc
Well-Known Member
Not sure if it was true state wide but was definitely a result in the chemical industry I worked in. When the base line pay scale for the operators went up 3 %, the next week the scientists, lab workers and project managers filed their intention to request an increase to their starting salary. And during our negotiations, the big argument was if you could raise the operators salary you can raise ours as well.
Again it may not be a 100% correlation
JMcMahonEsq
Well-Known Member
There are multiple studies that support this proposition. However you made a jump from raising min wage jobs to the top end of the pay scale. That isn't where the effect is truly felt.
The bigger impact is on the mid level wages. Jobs that require some training, but not a post graduate type degree, that have historically made a significant amount above minimum wage. When min wage is raised such that low stress/low responsibility type jobs are now being paid just about as much as those mid level type wage jobs, you see a dirth of people willing to perform those jobs, or demanding wage increases to do so.
For example positions like teachers aides/assistants, private day care teachers, home aide, in house care providers, ect. Why would anyone work those positions for only slightly above min wage, when the can take a stress free 9-5 work and forget it type job with more flexibility and without a large reduction in wages.
Are you of the belief that middle and upper salaries haven’t increased? Just look at what happened this year. Practically everyone extra money in 2020 and 2021 and most (other than the unemployed) used that extra cash to buy non essential items/travel leading to massive inflation in 2022 when we fully reopened. Listen to the fed minutes they have stated repeatedly that wage increases and inflation are directly correlated and they are rising interest rates in an effort to stop that wage growth because inflation hurts everyone.
JMcMahonEsq
Well-Known Member
Not really, not even in the long term will property values in the area where low income housing is built improve.
Sure increasing housing supply can, as a general rule help decrease homelessness (but not as much as you would think. Areas like LA and SF have at least 35% of their available affordable housing sitting empty, and its not because of a lack of qualified people to move in.
Second while affordable housing can help lift people out of poverty, it is the people that gain the benefit, and hopefully if the program works well, are able to move beyond poverty and potentially afford better housing. It doesn't lift up the property value of the low income housing itself. The housing project(s) remain available to other low income/homeless families, which will keep the property values low. Similarly as to increases in crime surrounding the project areas. As people hopefully "graduate" out of the low income house program, others fill their place, which all bring with them the unfortunate circumstances that give rise to higher crime rates. Your not in 10-20 years going to see low income/project areas be turned over into medium level house value levels.
Ayla
Well-Known Member
It seems you've forgotten there was an income cap on who received that money.
lentesta
Premium Member
OK. Can you cite a couple?
I'm questioning your assertion that it's due to increases in lower-paid jobs. You have any citations for this?
You need to look outside your bubble. This isn't true for many people. Many.
You seem to be of the assumption that I disagreed with that policy, I didn’t, what we are dealing with now is so much better than the alternative. However, it was needed fast, and due to that speed went to a lot of people who didn’t need it. Businesses and individuals. That said I don’t think there was a better way to do it, not at the speed needed to stop the economy from crashing and irreversibly damaging it.