If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Ric Romero reports that rich people buy houses in different neighborhoods than poor people   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 39
    More: Obvious, poor people, Americans, income families, affluent, demographic trends, metropolitan areas by population, Pew Research Center, McMansions  
•       •       •

2902 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Aug 2012 at 2:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-23 01:01:10 AM
Ctrl-F: "Gentrification"

Huh. No hits. Probably because it flies in the face of this article.
 
2012-08-23 01:42:55 AM
They may live in different neighborhoods, but the rich do buy houses in poorer neighborhoods

/so they can collect rent on substandard housing
 
2012-08-23 02:00:43 AM
Poor people "buy" houses.

How quaint.
 
2012-08-23 02:41:03 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: They may live in different neighborhoods, but the rich do buy houses in poorer neighborhoods

/so they can collect rent on substandard housing


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

/ihalf the problems would be resolved if landlords lived in the cities in which they owned rentals.
//absentee landlord means you're screwed
 
2012-08-23 02:43:33 AM
Romero is my hero.
 
2012-08-23 02:46:57 AM
It's "Ric," Subdumbassmitterstupidheimenmoronster.
 
2012-08-23 02:48:39 AM
FTH - Rick Romero reports that rich people buy houses in different neighborhoods than poor people


I think the point was more that there's increasingly nothing in between. It's certainly true in my city. There used to be "good" neighborhoods across the city. The folks in them weren't well-to-do, but they were considered good working-middle class neighborhoods.

Increasingly however, as the well-to-do all gravitate to one or two neighborhoods in the "best" school district, practically everything else is coming to be regarded as a horribly low-rent Hoovervilles with shiatty schools and the property values are dropping sharply.

I'm in one of the few 'middlin' areas, and the city's well-heeled are trying their damndest to kill it too, by shipping a boatload of housing project residents to an apartment complex in this area.
 
2012-08-23 02:49:40 AM
Holy fark.
i wondered where they lived!


/Not the poor people.
 
2012-08-23 02:55:32 AM
The rising phenomenon of segregation by income - at a time when segregation by race is on the decline - may have implications for communities and politics.

White Flight takes money, yo.
 
2012-08-23 02:57:44 AM
Round these parts, sidewalks tell the difference. Those with them equals bad area. Those without is where one wants to live.
 
2012-08-23 03:08:38 AM
That is one of the many incentives to earning wealth, you no longer have to live amongst the poor.
 
2012-08-23 03:08:48 AM
Actually, that was Carol Morello, not Ric Romero.

I can see how you'd be confused, since you probably live in a gilded neighborhood, richmitter.
 
2012-08-23 03:14:33 AM

God-is-a-Taco: The rising phenomenon of segregation by income - at a time when segregation by race is on the decline - may have implications for communities and politics.

White Flight takes money, yo.


Would this be Disaffirmative action?
 
2012-08-23 03:19:12 AM
I bought my first home in April. It's in a quiet, lower middle class area. It's certainlly not a forever home, but the area is safe and I think it will be attractive to young families when it comes time to sell with several schools and parks in walking distance.

I had to move back to my home town to buy it, though. Houses, even the crappiest fixer-upper, cost at least twice as much where I used to live. The bubble is reinflating in New Zealand. Households generally have to have two incomes to service mortgages in larger NZ cities. I have a better job than I used to, but I miss the friends I made where I used to live.
 
2012-08-23 03:24:01 AM

robohobo: Round these parts, sidewalks tell the difference. Those with them equals bad area. Those without is where one wants to live.


Never noticed that before. It is a subtle sociological phenomenon.

- Older neighborhoods have sidewalks, sidewalks aren't "in style" anymore, and older neighborhoods are poor.
- Poor people have to walk more.
- Perhaps wealthy developments aren't as eager to have a public thoroughfare run through their yard.
 
2012-08-23 03:31:40 AM

impaler: robohobo: Round these parts, sidewalks tell the difference. Those with them equals bad area. Those without is where one wants to live.

Never noticed that before. It is a subtle sociological phenomenon.

- Older neighborhoods have sidewalks, sidewalks aren't "in style" anymore, and older neighborhoods are poor.
- Poor people have to walk more.
- Perhaps wealthy developments aren't as eager to have a public thoroughfare run through their yard.


It's very specifically to keep out-of-neighborhood foot traffic from, well, walking through. A lot of us still jog, or run, or go on evening walks, and it's generally in the street, since we're in something of a nook, and have low speed limits. Also there are children, and most of us have pets, so everyone watches how they drive.

Unfortunately, there are still somewhat local bus lines.
 
2012-08-23 04:10:58 AM

robohobo: It's very specifically to keep out-of-neighborhood foot traffic from, well, walking through. A lot of us still jog, or run, or go on evening walks, and it's generally in the street, since we're in something of a nook,


Ah yes. The cul de sac. The suburban phenomenon of making one think that traffic is limited in front of one's house, only to increase your commute time. That means it's safe to walk on the street! No sidewalks needed.

Of course the traffic in residential neighborhoods is pretty much limited to those that live in the neighborhood, so no amount of dead ends will reduce the traffic - unless you happen to live at the very end of the dead end.
 
2012-08-23 04:29:30 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: They may live in different neighborhoods, but the rich do buy houses in poorer neighborhoods

/so they can collect rent on substandard housing


How did you learn about my business plan???
 
2012-08-23 04:30:12 AM

impaler: robohobo: It's very specifically to keep out-of-neighborhood foot traffic from, well, walking through. A lot of us still jog, or run, or go on evening walks, and it's generally in the street, since we're in something of a nook,

Ah yes. The cul de sac. The suburban phenomenon of making one think that traffic is limited in front of one's house, only to increase your commute time. That means it's safe to walk on the street! No sidewalks needed.

Of course the traffic in residential neighborhoods is pretty much limited to those that live in the neighborhood, so no amount of dead ends will reduce the traffic - unless you happen to live at the very end of the dead end.


Nono, not a cul de sac, though there are a few. What I term a neighborhood is several square blocks. But there's no reason for outside traffic to come through, except for people using it to cut through, and they usually find themselves with a hefty ticket, since most of them decide they can speed through without anyone noticing. We notice.

I suspect our lack of sidewalks is originally due to it being, well, Kansas, and old Kansas at that. It works, though.
 
2012-08-23 05:23:31 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Actually, that was Carol Morello, not Ric Romero.


Doesn't have to be Ric himself, it just has to be obvious
 
2012-08-23 05:33:45 AM

robohobo: Round these parts, sidewalks tell the difference. Those with them equals bad area. Those without is where one wants to live.


Strange. Around here the nice neighborhoods have sidewalks the not so much don't.
 
2012-08-23 05:43:34 AM

mopar1956: robohobo: Round these parts, sidewalks tell the difference. Those with them equals bad area. Those without is where one wants to live.

Strange. Around here the nice neighborhoods have sidewalks the not so much don't.


It's the same where I live but that's got more to do with the fact that the areas without side walks being the burbs out away from the city.
 
2012-08-23 08:32:10 AM
Good Good my plan is working perfectly. Get all the rich in one place then put fencing around them YES YES! Just like that! Good. Now they're easier to spot, track and bring down when we get hungry. Because when we poor can't afford food, we'll have to EAT THE RICH.

Now to silence that meddling idiot reporter
 
2012-08-23 08:53:24 AM
I have lived in much poorer neighborhoods than appropriate for my income, and I have to say there are positive benefits. Yes, there is the hazard of crime (I arrived home from work one day to the sight of a gunfight between neighbors a few houses away from mine) but some simple countermeasures are enough to balance the day-to-day dangers.

It's nice paying $220 a month for rent. Being the richest guy on the block also makes you popular with the women. Admittedly, these are all of the skanky, drug-abusing, welfare mom type, and they'll make a mess in the kitchen and leave crab lice in your mattress, but you'll have your pick. Being sober, clean, and punctual with rent will make you positively angelic in the landlord's eyes, which you can cultivate into a profitable and convenient relationship (dude on your doorstep begging you to ride shotgun through his troubles for $25/hr). Of course the police are never around, but the good thing about that is that the police are never around. I killed a dog in the parking lot in clear view of five houses, chucked it in the trash, and the sole response was a patrol car roll-by two hours later.

My best friend lives in a generic suburban development surrounded by techie types. It looks like a pain in the ass. I'll take the inner city.
 
2012-08-23 08:58:48 AM
"If people with most of the money and wealth live separately from everyone else, there's going to be less investment in the neighborhoods where the middle class and the poor live," he said.

That's by design, if you aren't on the Forbes 500 you aren't really worthy of consideration in this country. And the really stupid vote with the really rich because they'll protects us being Job Creators and all when nothing could be further from the truth. And then they create further division and on and on.

Marcintosh: Good Good my plan is working perfectly. Get all the rich in one place then put fencing around them YES YES! Just like that! Good. Now they're easier to spot, track and bring down when we get hungry. Because when we poor can't afford food, we'll have to EAT THE RICH.

Now to silence that meddling idiot reporter


This plan has merit. Kind of like Cheney and the quail.
 
2012-08-23 08:59:02 AM

technicolor-misfit: I'm in one of the few 'middlin' areas, and the city's well-heeled are trying their damndest to kill it too, by shipping a boatload of housing project residents to an apartment complex in this area.


This is by design, and it's Section 8 that is used to do this. Inquire as to whether any nearby apartments near you are Section 8, and if they are, like Chris Rock advises, RUN!

Any time housing projects are torn down, because they were turned into trash heaps by the people living there, the current methodology is to split them up by putting them in Section 8 housing over a much broader area, rather than concentrating them in one ghetto/slum. The problem is, that just tends to turn that much wider area into an even bigger ghetto with the usual crime, trash, etc.

It's fun to listen to those people with the flowery excuses and pollyanna-ish expectations that by putting these people in 'good' neighborhoods, that they will somehow magically turn into good, respectful neighbors themselves. Doesn't happen in the real world. RUN!
 
2012-08-23 09:48:08 AM
We have the same problem in Westchester county, NY. The federal courts want us to put affordable housing in mainly white areas. The problem is that there are no jobs, sidewalks, public transportation or any reasonable stores for non-rich people in these areas. Nor are there sewers or water in areas like Bedford Village ( home of Martha Stewart ).

Land prices are somewhat expensive also - $699,000 for a 2.27 acre lot. With no services. And possibly no paved road. Yeah, put some section 8 housing there.
 
2012-08-23 10:10:05 AM

robohobo: Unfortunately, there are still somewhat local bus lines.


Huh? We have two cars and I still happily take the bus to work, to go downtown or to a hockey game because it's just plain practical.
 
2012-08-23 10:11:46 AM
Rising income inequality has led to a growing number of Americans clustering in neighborhoods in which most residents are like them, either similarly affluent or similarly low-income, according to a new study detailing the increasing isolation of the richest and the poorest.

i1136.photobucket.com

Say WHAT? THAT'S AMAZING!
 
2012-08-23 10:18:39 AM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: MaudlinMutantMollusk: They may live in different neighborhoods, but the rich do buy houses in poorer neighborhoods

/so they can collect rent on substandard housing

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

/ihalf most of the problems would be resolved if landlords lived in the cities neighborhoods in which they owned rentals.
//absentee landlord means you're screwed


If landlords had to deal with the crap their tenants did, you can bet for damn sure that the properties they rented would be up to standard.

images2.makefive.com
/hot
 
xcv
2012-08-23 10:19:08 AM

Biser: We have the same problem in Westchester county, NY. The federal courts want us to put affordable housing in mainly white areas. The problem is that there are no jobs, sidewalks, public transportation or any reasonable stores for non-rich people in these areas. Nor are there sewers or water in areas like Bedford Village ( home of Martha Stewart ).

Land prices are somewhat expensive also - $699,000 for a 2.27 acre lot. With no services. And possibly no paved road. Yeah, put some section 8 housing there.


Not exclusive to wealthy areas either, the city wanted to put a halfway house in Greenpoint and the residents said 'no way, we already over a dozen waste transfer and storage facilities'
 
2012-08-23 10:34:45 AM
If you own a horse, you feed it and shelter it, but you don't LIVE with it. You keep it in a barn preferable some distance from your residence.

The same goes for the poor. The rich pay for their needs, shelter them and provide them services like police and fire departments. Why should they have to live with them as well. Isn't it enough that we force them to foot the bill? Or do you insist on allowing the poor acces to them to rob/assault them more conveniently?

Next thing you'll be demanding the poor have access to the same colleges and social networking opportunities as well.
 
2012-08-23 10:39:51 AM
Aww, isn't that cute. Subby doesn't know what "increasing" means. Must be public school syndrome.
 
2012-08-23 10:41:48 AM

Tricky Chicken: Next thing you'll be demanding the poor have access to the same colleges and social networking opportunities as well.


Hells yeah! Let's make everything free. And then make everyone pay for it. And by everyone I mean just the rich. And by free I mean free as in information wants to be free, not free of cost.
 
2012-08-23 01:14:51 PM
Ric
Wil

Fark has a few well loved memes of its own - please don't Fark them up.
 
2012-08-23 03:21:58 PM

xcv: Biser: We have the same problem in Westchester county, NY. The federal courts want us to put affordable housing in mainly white areas. The problem is that there are no jobs, sidewalks, public transportation or any reasonable stores for non-rich people in these areas. Nor are there sewers or water in areas like Bedford Village ( home of Martha Stewart ).

Land prices are somewhat expensive also - $699,000 for a 2.27 acre lot. With no services. And possibly no paved road. Yeah, put some section 8 housing there.

Not exclusive to wealthy areas either, the city wanted to put a halfway house in Greenpoint and the residents said 'no way, we already over a dozen waste transfer and storage facilities'


Another Greenpoint Farker?
 
xcv
2012-08-23 04:13:32 PM

Julieahni: xcv: Biser: We have the same problem in Westchester county, NY. The federal courts want us to put affordable housing in mainly white areas. The problem is that there are no jobs, sidewalks, public transportation or any reasonable stores for non-rich people in these areas. Nor are there sewers or water in areas like Bedford Village ( home of Martha Stewart ).

Land prices are somewhat expensive also - $699,000 for a 2.27 acre lot. With no services. And possibly no paved road. Yeah, put some section 8 housing there.

Not exclusive to wealthy areas either, the city wanted to put a halfway house in Greenpoint and the residents said 'no way, we already over a dozen waste transfer and storage facilities'

Another Greenpoint Farker?


Fraid not, grew up in Astoria and LIC
 
2012-08-23 11:07:23 PM
Did Woodward and Bernstein come back to the WaPo? This is some pretty awesome reporting.
 
2012-08-24 12:27:46 PM
FARK needs a ROMERO tag. Could maybe get some dougle usage during the coming Zombie Apoacypse (as a George Romero tag).

Not just neighborhoods within a given city, but moving out to "the burbs". But that's not really "the rich", not the 1% class of wealthy. As to MaudlinMutantMollusk, why would a 1%er bother renting to the poor - then one is stuck trying to collect rent from them, and they tend to be "bohemians".
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report