Moving certain people out of a neighborhood can change the character of the area.  Relocating those people to a new neighborhood, does not change the character of the people.

If we really thought that human behavior depends only on intrinsic character and not on environment, we would put zero effort into making schools nicer, workplaces safer, and all jail sentences would be for life.

Intrinsic character ultimately determines environment. Ask anyone who's property was devalued as a result of HUD housing subsides. i.e., mine.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

It's not the end of the world when people move.  Gentrification is good.  Crime goes down elsewhere, everyone wins. Affordable housing can be built elsewhere.

Moving certain people out of a neighborhood can change the character of the area.  Relocating those people to a new neighborhood, does not change the character of the people.

When I worked for Habitat for Humanity in Jacksonville for a couple of years I always wondered why people who lived in these neighborhoods we were building in would want to stay in those same neighborhoods. They weren't getting out of the bad neighborhood, they were buying a house in that same environment of crime and drugs and poverty.

So I asked one of the homebuyers and they said it's all they knew. That even among all of the negatives that came with staying there the positive was they were going to own a home as opposed to renting from someone who could kick them out at any time and for any reason. Basically it's "better the devil you know than the devil you don't" mindset when staying there. 

We also saw a similar mindset a couple of times when the homeowners defaulted on their loans and HabiJax bought the houses back. We'd go in to renovate and the inside was destroyed. It didn't look like the brand new house they'd moved into the year before. It looked like the house they described trying to get out of when they applied for a Habitat house. You can change a person's environment but it won't necesarily change who they are if it's a deeply ingrained mindset.

---

I knew they would mention the beltway in Atlanta. Guess what happened there? All the bad got moved out because they couldn't afford it as the land became valuable and the owners either sold or rebuilt.

The liberals that want all this stuff never care about all the damage their gentrification does.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

It's not the end of the world when people move.  Gentrification is good.  Crime goes down, everyone wins. Affordable housing can be built elsewhere.

Affordable housing can only be built where communities allow. As evidence of that video you shared a few weeks ago, affordable housing was proposed in a specific neighborhood and it was denied because people didn't want it in their nice little neighborhood.

Also, property value/tax goes into it. You're not going to see an affordable housing building or a Habitat for Humanity house in the mid and higher end neighborhoods because the building owners and homeowners wouldn't be able to afford the property tax.

---

If we really thought that human behavior depends only on intrinsic character and not on environment, we would put zero effort into making schools nicer, workplaces safer, and all jail sentences would be for life.

Good point. I look forward to your petition to add subsidized housing to your neighborhood.

I grew up walking distance to subsidized housing. There's a trailer park adjacent to my subdivision today. Get out of here with your prejudices.

---

If we really thought that human behavior depends only on intrinsic character and not on environment, we would put zero effort into making schools nicer, workplaces safer, and all jail sentences would be for life.

Intrinsic character ultimately determines environment.  Ask anyone who's property was devalued as a result of HUD housing subsides.  i.e., mine.

Confirmation bias, you have a call on line 1, confirmation bias, line 1.

I would bet your property value didn't go down, anyway. Not unless you're referring to the year 2007 or 2008, when everybody's went down.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It's not the end of the world when people move.  Gentrification is good.  Crime goes down, everyone wins. Affordable housing can be built elsewhere.

Affordable housing can only be built where communities allow. As evidence of that video you shared a few weeks ago, affordable housing was proposed in a specific neighborhood and it was denied because people didn't want it in their nice little neighborhood.

Also, property value/tax goes into it. You're not going to see an affordable housing building or a Habitat for Humanity house in the mid and higher end neighborhoods because the building owners and homeowners wouldn't be able to afford the property tax.

Right. In my opinion it is shameful when people behave as they did in that video. "I'll pay you to come clean my home, but I won't let you live in the same town as me." It's disgusting, and it needs to stop.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Good point. I look forward to your petition to add subsidized housing to your neighborhood.

I grew up walking distance to subsidized housing. There's a trailer park adjacent to my subdivision today. Get out of here with your prejudices.

---

Intrinsic character ultimately determines environment.  Ask anyone who's property was devalued as a result of HUD housing subsides.  i.e., mine.

Confirmation bias, you have a call on line 1, confirmation bias, line 1.

I would bet your property value didn't go down, anyway. Not unless you're referring to the year 2007 or 2008, when everybody's went down.

OMG!  Mike you are not this stupid so why do post this nonsense?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I grew up walking distance to subsidized housing. There's a trailer park adjacent to my subdivision today. Get out of here with your prejudices.

---

Confirmation bias, you have a call on line 1, confirmation bias, line 1.

I would bet your property value didn't go down, anyway. Not unless you're referring to the year 2007 or 2008, when everybody's went down.

OMG!  Mike you are not this stupid so why do post this nonsense?

Put aside your prejudices and stereotypes, and ask Google if subsidized housing makes adjacent property values go up or down.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

OMG!  Mike you are not this stupid so why do post this nonsense?

Put aside your prejudices and stereotypes, and ask Google if subsidized housing makes adjacent property values go up or down.

LOL.  Great idea, because you can't put anything on the internet that isn't true.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Put aside your prejudices and stereotypes, and ask Google if subsidized housing makes adjacent property values go up or down.

LOL.  Great idea, because you can't put anything on the internet that isn't true.

Find one result from any university educated economist that says the property values definitively go down. I couldn't.  Can you?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

LOL.  Great idea, because you can't put anything on the internet that isn't true.

Find one result from any university educated economist that says the property values definitively go down. I couldn't.  Can you?

Think.  All other things being equal, would you rather buy a house next to a housing project, or not next to a housing project?  It's just common sense.

---

Find one result from any university educated economist that says the property values definitively go down. I couldn't.  Can you?

Think.  All other things being equal, would you rather buy a house next to a housing project, or not next to a housing project?  It's just common sense.

Think. Is common sense always true? All other things being equal, I would rather live reasonably close to my family, in a place where my commute to work and my commute to the grocery store were a short and painless as possible.  As would most people. My property values have been through the roof, nearly doubling in the last 10 years, despite the fact that I live next to a pretty ugly trailer park.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

LOL.  Great idea, because you can't put anything on the internet that isn't true.

Find one result from any university educated economist that says the property values definitively go down. I couldn't.  Can you?

It is virtually impossible to prove or disprove any specific trigger (other than changing interest rates) as the "definitive" cause of a fluctuation in property values.  It's not a controlled lab experiment and there are always multiple factors and variables affecting the market.  You, likewise, cannot produce definitive evidence that values will rise (as you claim).  

As Marty pointed out, some things are just common sense.  It's easier to market property in a nice neighborhood, than it is in a not-so-nice neighborhood.  If you're still skeptical, ask any real estate professional.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Think.  All other things being equal, would you rather buy a house next to a housing project, or not next to a housing project?  It's just common sense.

Think. Is common sense always true? All other things being equal, I would rather live reasonably close to my family, in a place where my commute to work and my commute to the grocery store were a short and painless as possible.  As would most people. My property values have been through the roof, nearly doubling in the last 10 years, despite the fact that I live next to a pretty ugly trailer park.

You're dodging the question.

All other things being equal, meaning two homes, both equally close to your family, both equally close to the grocery store and your place of work, but one is next to a housing project and the other is in a nicer neighborhood, which one do you pick?

---

Do quick search for subsidized housing and property values and everything that pops up is results about affordable housing potentially helping areas increase in value. But to me, that’s a little deceptive. Affordable housing and subsidized housing are not necessarily the same things. Having properties with reasonable rents in any area is helpful. If the government has to pay part of your rent every month, then it’s not really affordable on its own.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Think. Is common sense always true? All other things being equal, I would rather live reasonably close to my family, in a place where my commute to work and my commute to the grocery store were a short and painless as possible.  As would most people. My property values have been through the roof, nearly doubling in the last 10 years, despite the fact that I live next to a pretty ugly trailer park.

You're dodging the question.

All other things being equal, meaning two homes, both equally close to your family, both equally close to the grocery store and your place of work, but one is next to a housing project and the other is in a nicer neighborhood, which one do you pick?

The real estate market never presents anyone with that type of choice. It just doesn't work like that.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Do quick search for subsidized housing and property values and everything that pops up is results about affordable housing potentially helping areas increase in value. But to me, that’s a little deceptive. Affordable housing and subsidized housing are not necessarily the same things. Having properties with reasonable rents in any area is helpful. If the government has to pay part of your rent every month, then it’s not really affordable on its own.

Exactly.  Subsidizing rents can create perverse incentives. Rent can be subsidized almost anywhere, it is up to the individual landlord to participate in section 8 or not. 
It is much better when the initial creation of an affordable housing unit is incentivized or subsidized. If the government or a charity spends any money, they do so on a one-time basis, rather than ongoing. Eventually, the property might float back to a market rate, but creating more units, increasing supply, helps the high density, low square foot, low amenity sector of the housing market stay affordable.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You're dodging the question.

All other things being equal, meaning two homes, both equally close to your family, both equally close to the grocery store and your place of work, but one is next to a housing project and the other is in a nicer neighborhood, which one do you pick?

The real estate market never presents anyone with that type of choice. It just doesn't work like that.

You are incorrect.  The real estate market works exactly like that and presents such choices every day.  It's quite common in the industry to describe a house as being in the "nicer" part of the development or the "better" end of the street.  The diminishing characteristic can be any number of things, a housing project, commercial properties, a busy street, etc.

View of the ocean=good, view of the landfill=not so good.
Nice golf course bordering your back yard=good, slaughterhouse bordering your back yard=not so good.
Do you understand now?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

The real estate market never presents anyone with that type of choice. It just doesn't work like that.

You are incorrect.  The real estate market works exactly like that and presents such choices every day.  It's quite common in the industry to describe a house as being in the "nicer" part of the development or the "better" end of the street.  The diminishing characteristic can be any number of things, a housing project, commercial properties, a busy street, etc.

View of the ocean=good, view of the landfill=not so good.
Nice golf course bordering your back yard=good, slaughterhouse bordering your back yard=not so good.
Do you understand now?

I understand perfectly. You just compared low income people to dead bleeding animals. It's disgusting and you should be ashamed.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Just because it hurts your feelings doesn't make it less of reality... not that they are they same thing, but that it creates the impression of less value. You know that, but your losing that part of the argument and instead of acknowledging it and moving on, you're attempting to claim the moral high ground.

---

The real estate market never presents anyone with that type of choice. It just doesn't work like that.

You are incorrect.  The real estate market works exactly like that and presents such choices every day.  It's quite common in the industry to describe a house as being in the "nicer" part of the development or the "better" end of the street.  The diminishing characteristic can be any number of things, a housing project, commercial properties, a busy street, etc.

View of the ocean=good, view of the landfill=not so good.
Nice golf course bordering your back yard=good, slaughterhouse bordering your back yard=not so good.
Do you understand now?

Let me give you a nicer answer.  Those kind of choices might be presented when a subdivision is initially developed, but in an established subdivision, with established residents who are concerned about their property values, there are rarely ever two interchangeable units on the market at the same time.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.