Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(AZCentral)   Government gives $3 million grant to provide housing to deaf seniors, then decides that such housing is discriminatory and demands that 75% of the units must be occupied by non-deaf residents. You heard that correctly   (azcentral.com) divider line 45
    More: Stupid, Tempe, discrimination law, public housed, HUD, American Sign Language  
•       •       •

2117 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Oct 2013 at 1:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-31 11:58:15 AM  
Way to go, Anne Frank.  Couldn't make enough money off your stationary?
 
2013-10-31 12:20:14 PM  
I said, SUCH HOUSING IS DISCRIMINATORY.
 
2013-10-31 12:24:44 PM  
For example, there are flashing lights for the phone

Uh, I'm not sure they thought their cunning plan all the way through...
 
2013-10-31 12:56:40 PM  

show me: For example, there are flashing lights for the phone

Uh, I'm not sure they thought their cunning plan all the way through...


You know what a TTY phone is, right?
 
2013-10-31 12:58:54 PM  

show me: I said, SUCH HOUSING IS DISCRIMINATORY.


jaydeanhcr.files.wordpress.com

/oblig
 
2013-10-31 01:03:30 PM  

This is a late parrot: show me: For example, there are flashing lights for the phone

Uh, I'm not sure they thought their cunning plan all the way through...

You know what a TTY phone is, right?


Why yes, yes I do, but the article didn't mention them.
 
2013-10-31 01:15:38 PM  
"I successfully steered grant money towards Deaf Housing!"

That's the only statement that matters, actual implementation is secondary.
 
2013-10-31 01:15:48 PM  
But that means that the money is just going to "seniors" with no specific subgroup made more pitiful by a particular ailment. That's terrible.
 
2013-10-31 01:16:55 PM  
WHAT?
 
2013-10-31 01:17:48 PM  
I want a boobies. It's halloween aren't we due for an epic slutty costume thread?
 
2013-10-31 01:17:59 PM  
Today Kids, we learn what the definition of a Double Standard is.

Definition: American Government
 
2013-10-31 01:18:52 PM  
You don't say...Emilia Earhart needed government assistance?
 
2013-10-31 01:19:57 PM  
Sigh language for "Hello?! Hello?!! Who the hell is this?!"

www.wired.com
 
2013-10-31 01:21:33 PM  
they want 75 percent of Apache ASL Trails' residents to be seniors who are not deaf or hearing-impaired.

Good luck finding even one senior who isn't hearing-impaired.
 
2013-10-31 01:21:35 PM  
Arizona puts a policy in place that doesn't abide by federal laws? That's shocking.
 
2013-10-31 01:22:41 PM  
So building homes just for seniors isn't discriminatory?   What's next, 75% of these units have to be occupied by youths?

/Not being snarky, just wondering where the line is drawn
 
2013-10-31 01:26:24 PM  

This is a late parrot: show me: For example, there are flashing lights for the phone

Uh, I'm not sure they thought their cunning plan all the way through...

You know what a TTY phone is, right?


Yes, its an antiquated and very expensive system meant to give deaf people the illusion that they have normal phone service.

It has been replaced in normal non-public housing situations by a magical device called a cellphone with voice to text via sms. And the internet. You may or may not be familiar with these new fangled inventions.
 
2013-10-31 01:26:32 PM  
The non-deaf are a protected group? Huh.
 
2013-10-31 01:26:58 PM  
if they are taking suggestions i have a few neighbors i would like to volunteer..it would work out for everyone
 
2013-10-31 01:27:57 PM  
I'm guessing they guessed wrong.

On the other hand, who are these non-deaf non-seniors? And did the Government really decide this was discrimination or did somebody drop a flea in somebody's ear to get the senior's residence turned into housing for regular people who don't have any special needs?

It makes some sense, perhaps, to provide regular rental units along with subsidized units. This helps integrate a housing complex into the community, stops some of the NIMBIES in their tracks, and may even raise money to pay for the subsidies. On the other hand, even when this is required, it can be a sham and a fraud.

I read recently a Fark headline about a luxury building that was built with some lower-cost housing (by lower-cost, I mean MERE rich rather than really quite sincerely rich people). But they put the entrance for the MERE rich on a different side of the building from the entrance for the super-rich so the super-rich wouldn't have to see poor people, by which I mean the upper middle classes or even lower upper classes.

Now that ain't charitable. Rich people benefiting from new luxury housing at the expense of people who can only afford "luxury" housing is not doing anybody but the very rich and their builders any great good.

On the other hand, I am in favour of a mix of housing in every urban community. I think society is better for the rich, the middle classes, and the poor having to brush shoulders. SEGREGATION IS SOCIAL DEATH.

Or at least something like raising trees in a greenhouse--it weakens the trees to not be exposed to the buffeting of winds and the changes of humidity and temperature that are typical of natural landscapes.

I like those European cities where all of the housing looks more or less equally luxurious and costly, and where all of the little shops tend to be good little shops, if somewhat costly. People walk in streets like those. They don't need or want cars unless they are very rich and then they can afford parking. They eat better and dress better and behave better.

I like that.

But it can be exploited, warped and twisted into something destructive and evil all the same. So I don't know whether to clap or boo unless I get more facts.

Not all ghettos are full of poor people. Some are for the very rich and some for the merely prosperous. I don't like 'em, no sir.
 
2013-10-31 01:28:03 PM  
You know.....in a free market where seniors who receive benefits are able to take those benefits anywhere and spend them on housing they like.....

They would all be in cheap condos in florida near noise polllution where non-hearing impaired people dont want to live, so that they can get more for their money.
 
2013-10-31 01:29:33 PM  

show me: This is a late parrot: show me: For example, there are flashing lights for the phone

Uh, I'm not sure they thought their cunning plan all the way through...

You know what a TTY phone is, right?

Why yes, yes I do, but the article didn't mention them.


Could be TTY, could be Captel, which you can do with a regular phone.  So the physical devise doesn't matter.
 
2013-10-31 01:32:00 PM  
The "controversy" is that bootstrappy Arizona isn't getting federal funds for its local project. fark off and secede already.

"WHAR FEDERAL MONEY? WHAR?!"
 
2013-10-31 01:34:02 PM  
I did some consulting at chicken processing plants once, and was told that they were fined by regulators for blood on the floor and ordered to mop the offending section of floor every fifteen minutes, and later they were fined by regulators for the slip hazard of a constantly wet floor, and told to stop mopping the offending section of floor so often.

/but... but... but...
//so getting a kick...
 
2013-10-31 01:34:18 PM  
Thanks, Obama!
 
2013-10-31 01:37:20 PM  

brantgoose: I'm guessing they guessed wrong.

On the other hand, who are these non-deaf non-seniors? And did the Government really decide this was discrimination or did somebody drop a flea in somebody's ear to get the senior's residence turned into housing for regular people who don't have any special needs?

It makes some sense, perhaps, to provide regular rental units along with subsidized units. This helps integrate a housing complex into the community, stops some of the NIMBIES in their tracks, and may even raise money to pay for the subsidies. On the other hand, even when this is required, it can be a sham and a fraud.

I read recently a Fark headline about a luxury building that was built with some lower-cost housing (by lower-cost, I mean MERE rich rather than really quite sincerely rich people). But they put the entrance for the MERE rich on a different side of the building from the entrance for the super-rich so the super-rich wouldn't have to see poor people, by which I mean the upper middle classes or even lower upper classes.

Now that ain't charitable. Rich people benefiting from new luxury housing at the expense of people who can only afford "luxury" housing is not doing anybody but the very rich and their builders any great good.

On the other hand, I am in favour of a mix of housing in every urban community. I think society is better for the rich, the middle classes, and the poor having to brush shoulders. SEGREGATION IS SOCIAL DEATH.

Or at least something like raising trees in a greenhouse--it weakens the trees to not be exposed to the buffeting of winds and the changes of humidity and temperature that are typical of natural landscapes.

I like those European cities where all of the housing looks more or less equally luxurious and costly, and where all of the little shops tend to be good little shops, if somewhat costly. People walk in streets like those. They don't need or want cars unless they are very rich and then they can afford parking. They eat better ...


You should try being poor in europe sometime. Those romantic notions you have about walking to get your daily groceries and enjoying a coffee along the way at a corner cafe while chatting with your friends in the arts community are just that.....notions. When you have no job and no money, high energy prices, high food prices, and are confined to your local neighborhood by the limitations of public transportation (intercity tickets can be expensive and require reservations on many popular routes) you might have a different view of how awesome it all is. Or do you think that Muslim French and norweigian youth are out rioting and burning cars from an over abundance of joie de vie? (?)
 
2013-10-31 01:38:28 PM  
Why would anyone with normal hearing *want* to live in a complex full of people who watch tv with the volume maxed out?
 
2013-10-31 01:50:34 PM  
It's funny. The only parts of other languages I pick up is cussing.

ASL has some great ones surprisingly.
 
2013-10-31 01:53:26 PM  
So does this mean that government will now also have to be 75% comprised of people who have an above-average IQ, or does this policy only relate to housing?
 
2013-10-31 01:54:45 PM  

blazemongr: Why would anyone with normal hearing *want* to live in a complex full of people who watch tv with the volume maxed out?


So every night at 6:30, you'll hear "WHEEL...OF...FORTUNE!"
 
2013-10-31 01:55:41 PM  

mokinokaro: So building homes just for seniors isn't discriminatory?   What's next, 75% of these units have to be occupied by youths?

/Not being snarky, just wondering where the line is drawn


In the US, you're legally allowed to discriminate against the young but not the old.

/Bet you can't guess which of those two groups votes.
 
2013-10-31 01:56:21 PM  
I'd love to live in a seniors complex. I'm tall so the high toilet is comfortable. I'm lazy so no stairs is a plus. They sometimes even provide a cute nurse to wash and feed me.
 
MrT
2013-10-31 02:03:02 PM  

archichris: Or do you think that Muslim French and norweigian youth are out rioting and burning cars from an over abundance of joie de vie? (?)


The burning of cars in France has been exaggerated: most of them are Citroens that caught fire during normal operation.
 
2013-10-31 02:31:55 PM  

mokinokaro: So building homes just for seniors isn't discriminatory?   What's next, 75% of these units have to be occupied by youths?

/Not being snarky, just wondering where the line is drawn


It's about time to end "senior housing" anyway.  It IS discriminatory, there's no valid reason for any community to be allowed to exclude people for being under 55.

And yes, a housing complex to isolate the deaf is most certainly discriminatory and illegal, and should be.
 
2013-10-31 02:35:45 PM  
They could have avoided having to mandate only deaf people living there by building it under the takeoff path of the airport.
 
2013-10-31 02:42:06 PM  

mokinokaro: So building homes just for seniors isn't discriminatory?   What's next, 75% of these units have to be occupied by youths?

/Not being snarky, just wondering where the line is drawn


Was about to make the exact same comment. By now, it should be obvious that any program that affects only a certain group is by it's very nature discriminatory of those outside the group. And saying that 75% of the residents must not be impaired turns the discrimination back on the group that was meant to benefit in the first place.
 
2013-10-31 02:46:00 PM  

archichris: brantgoose: I'm guessing they guessed wrong.

On the other hand, who are these non-deaf non-seniors? And did the Government really decide this was discrimination or did somebody drop a flea in somebody's ear to get the senior's residence turned into housing for regular people who don't have any special needs?

It makes some sense, perhaps, to provide regular rental units along with subsidized units. This helps integrate a housing complex into the community, stops some of the NIMBIES in their tracks, and may even raise money to pay for the subsidies. On the other hand, even when this is required, it can be a sham and a fraud.

I read recently a Fark headline about a luxury building that was built with some lower-cost housing (by lower-cost, I mean MERE rich rather than really quite sincerely rich people). But they put the entrance for the MERE rich on a different side of the building from the entrance for the super-rich so the super-rich wouldn't have to see poor people, by which I mean the upper middle classes or even lower upper classes.

Now that ain't charitable. Rich people benefiting from new luxury housing at the expense of people who can only afford "luxury" housing is not doing anybody but the very rich and their builders any great good.

On the other hand, I am in favour of a mix of housing in every urban community. I think society is better for the rich, the middle classes, and the poor having to brush shoulders. SEGREGATION IS SOCIAL DEATH.

Or at least something like raising trees in a greenhouse--it weakens the trees to not be exposed to the buffeting of winds and the changes of humidity and temperature that are typical of natural landscapes.

I like those European cities where all of the housing looks more or less equally luxurious and costly, and where all of the little shops tend to be good little shops, if somewhat costly. People walk in streets like those. They don't need or want cars unless they are very rich and then they can afford parking. They eat better ...

You should try being poor in europe sometime. Those romantic notions you have about walking to get your daily groceries and enjoying a coffee along the way at a corner cafe while chatting with your friends in the arts community are just that.....notions. When you have no job and no money, high energy prices, high food prices, and are confined to your local neighborhood by the limitations of public transportation (intercity tickets can be expensive and require reservations on many popular routes) you might have a different view of how awesome it all is. Or do you think that Muslim French and norweigian youth are out rioting and burning cars from an over abundance of joie de vie? (?)


I live in Europe and I walk to get my groceries. I don't see why other people here couldn't. There literally is no house that is more than 1.5 kilometer away from a supermarket. I have never heard of reserving a spot on public transport and being locked to the neighbourhood is for idiots who won't buy a bike. I can live on €80 euros a month for food (bread, meat, vegetables, potatoes, rice etc) and those energy prices aren't all that bad.

Remember, people in the US working 40 hours making minimum wage are on foodstamps, people on minimum wage here make enough money to live a reasonable life working only 36 hours a week. They won't be taking many international vacations, but they do get 4 weeks off (paid) on top of the national holidays.
 
2013-10-31 02:52:38 PM  

DarkVader: mokinokaro: So building homes just for seniors isn't discriminatory?   What's next, 75% of these units have to be occupied by youths?

/Not being snarky, just wondering where the line is drawn

It's about time to end "senior housing" anyway.  It IS discriminatory, there's no valid reason for any community to be allowed to exclude people for being under 55.


As people age, they stop being able to work and thus need subsidized places to live.
 
2013-10-31 03:00:16 PM  

blazemongr: Why would anyone with normal hearing *want* to live in a complex full of people who watch tv with the volume maxed out?


THIS - the farting, vocalizations of some (e.g. having sex) would make me not want to live there - plus the ' non-accepting of hearing folks that Deaf culture he seems to have.

YMMV, however.
 
2013-10-31 03:06:47 PM  
eh, f*ck the deaf. They're dicks.
 
2013-10-31 04:04:58 PM  
www.toptenz.net

...or should that be "WHAT R U DOIN ?!"
 
2013-10-31 05:24:46 PM  

kid_icarus: But that means that the money is just going to "seniors" with no specific subgroup made more pitiful by a particular ailment. That's terrible.


Wait.

Isn't limiting it to "seniors" discriminatory?

30% of the hearing-abled should be below the age of 45. And 12% should be midgets.

/I'm sure there's a formula somewhere
 
2013-10-31 10:42:44 PM  
When I was in grade school, I tried to pull a prank on an apartment complex of deaf people by playing ding dong ditch.  When that failed, I pulled the fire alarm, but that didn't work either.
 
2013-10-31 10:51:43 PM  

meanmutton: DarkVader: mokinokaro: So building homes just for seniors isn't discriminatory?   What's next, 75% of these units have to be occupied by youths?

/Not being snarky, just wondering where the line is drawn

It's about time to end "senior housing" anyway.  It IS discriminatory, there's no valid reason for any community to be allowed to exclude people for being under 55.

As people age, they stop being able to work and thus need subsidized places to live.


People unable to work need subsidized places to live no matter how old they are.  Try again.
 
2013-11-01 03:11:37 AM  

FoxEWolf: Today Kids, we learn what the definition of a Double Standard is.

Definition: American Government


Tag is for all the people who think Government is a monolithic entity existing only to make your life hell, with no boundaries between departments, let alone local, state, and Federal level.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report