The Poor Door (aka The 1% Solution)

[AthenaAwakened]

You have heard of the Poor House? Now meet "the poor door."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/extell-poor-door-_n_5606572.html

 

[Underseer]

You have heard of the Poor House? Now meet "the poor door."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/extell-poor-door-_n_5606572.html

Class warfare! OMG, stop persecuting rich people! Why do you hate our freedoms? [/conservolibertarian]

 

[RandomCoolzip]

You have heard of the Poor House? Now meet "the poor door."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/extell-poor-door-_n_5606572.html

Today's rich seem to be doing everything they can to prove Karl Marx right about capitalism. This can't possibly end well.

 

[fast]

The affordable housing plan was referred to as "mandatory." Plus, we're talking about places of residence.

 

[Jayjay]

I don't see what te problem is. Suppose instead of one building, there would have been two right next to each other, one for rich folks and another one mandated by the government for affordable housing. What's the issue if these happen to be physically located in the same building?

Not sure if the tax breaks are worth it, but clearly, having mixed neighbourhoods is better than shoving the poor people in their own ghettoes.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I don't see what te problem is.

You don't? You're pulling my leg (and you didn't even buy me dinner first.)

Suppose instead of one building,

but they are in one building.

there would have been two right next to each other, one for rich folks and another one mandated by the government for affordable housing.

Separate but equal?

What's the issue if these happen to be physically located in the same building?

what's the issue with everyone using the same door?

Not sure if the tax breaks are worth it, but clearly, having mixed neighbourhoods is better than shoving the poor people in their own ghettoes.

And working in the big house is better that working in the fields. What's your point?

 

[Petrel]

Who thinks it's a good idea to have people of vastly different economic circumstances live in the same building?
Or on the same street?
Having separate entrances is the very least thing wrong with this whole utterly artificial and unworkable scheme.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Who thinks it's a good idea to have people of vastly different economic circumstances live in the same building?
Or on the same street?
Having separate entrances is the very least thing wrong with this whole utterly artificial and unworkable scheme.

you do know that under Jim Crow that is how black neighborhoods were set up. Minority neighborhoods across the country throughout its history have crowded different classes into small spaces with those classes mashed up close to one another. And they didn't kill each other.

 

[Jayjay]

Suppose instead of one building,

but they are in one building.

there would have been two right next to each other, one for rich folks and another one mandated by the government for affordable housing.

Separate but equal?

What's the issue if these happen to be physically located in the same building?

what's the issue with everyone using the same door?

Presumably the other door grants access to amenities that are exclusive to the more expensive units.

As for "separate but equal" comment, I don't see how that is relevant or addresses the point. Would it make any difference if these were two physically different buildings?

Not sure if the tax breaks are worth it, but clearly, having mixed neighbourhoods is better than shoving the poor people in their own ghettoes.

And working in the big house is better that working in the fields. What's your point?

Ok, so tell me, what should the city do with affordable housing? Presumably, without the tax breaks and incentives, there would be poor people neighbourhoods and rich people neighbourhoods. Or should they demand that to qualify for the tax breaks, the affordable units have to be exactly similar to the more expensive ones?

 

[Valjean]

Will the restaurant areas and water fountains be segregated as well?

Perhaps jobs could be found for these poor people in-house. You'd then have the servant's quarters facing the street and the servant's and delivery entrance in back. If this works out maybe we could install some hidden stairways and corridors so the help could move about unobtrusively.

It could be a regular Downtown Abbey.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

but they are in one building.

there would have been two right next to each other, one for rich folks and another one mandated by the government for affordable housing.

Separate but equal?

What's the issue if these happen to be physically located in the same building?

what's the issue with everyone using the same door?

Presumably the other door grants access to amenities that are exclusive to the more expensive units.

As for "separate but equal" comment, I don't see how that is relevant or addresses the point. Would it make any difference if these were two physically different buildings?

Not sure if the tax breaks are worth it, but clearly, having mixed neighbourhoods is better than shoving the poor people in their own ghettoes.

And working in the big house is better that working in the fields. What's your point?

Ok, so tell me, what should the city do with affordable housing? Presumably, without the tax breaks and incentives, there would be poor people neighbourhoods and rich people neighbourhoods. Or should they demand that to qualify for the tax breaks, the affordable units have to be exactly similar to the more expensive ones?

I think the city is on the right track. It's hard to hurt people you know, or make decisions that effect people you know in a thoughtless manner. The wealthy, by and large, are not ammoral agents but they don't think about people they don't see, or see as people. Seeing a mother with her child has a very different affect on people than hearing about welfare queens and thug kids. Also overhearing a woman weep because her child has just been diagnosed with cancer kinda destroys the myth of the high society trophy wife who cares only about what she can buy.

 

[Celldweller]

Is Mitt Romney their landlord?

 

[laughing dog]

The separate entrances are an advantage for the lower income tenants. Now, the burglars will know which side to invade.

 

[Derec]

It could be a regular Downtown Abbey.

Seriously though, I don't see what the big deal is. Different price points, different amenities.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Not talking about who gets to live in the penthouse, but about the simple dignity of using the front door of the building in which one lives.

 

[fast]

Not talking about who gets to live in the penthouse, but about the simple dignity of using the front door of the building in which one lives.

Discount and dignity. Fair enough. If the rich are as rich as we think, then they can invite their friends elsewhere. The people who can't be tolerant are always on the run anyway.

 

[Jayjay]

The "rich door" is on the opposite side of the building from the affordable housing units, so using the other door is probably more convenient for those living in the subsidized section. I suppose they could make an entrance through the building so that tenants in the affordable housing segment could enter through the front door if they so wish.

 

[Trausti]

Not talking about who gets to live in the penthouse, but about the simple dignity of using the front door of the building in which one lives.

They do get to use their own front door.

“Even though the off-site housing portion of this building is attached physically to the rest of the building, the developer’s argument is that it is separate ‘off-site’ since it does not relate to the rest of the building, and therefore falls under the portion of the Zoning Resolution that requires a separate entrance

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/08/12/extells-40-riverside-to-include-poor-door-for-renters/

So it's two buildings in one.

40 Riverside faced significant controversy when the ‘poor door’ was reported, which will segregate the affordable units from market-rate apartments. 55 units will be leased to low-income tenants, which will have a separate entrance; though this was met with criticism, the anger is unfounded, as tenants in market-rate housing pay for luxury amenities. The idea that low-income tenants should be entitled to expensive luxury amenities completely negates the point of providing affordable housing.

http://newyorkyimby.com/2013/09/40-riverside-boulevard.html#

 

[ZiprHead]

It could be a regular Downtown Abbey.

Seriously though, I don't see what the big deal is. Different price points, different amenities.

I gotta go with Derek on this one.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The "rich door" is on the opposite side of the building from the affordable housing units, so using the other door is probably more convenient for those living in the subsidized section. I suppose they could make an entrance through the building so that tenants in the affordable housing segment could enter through the front door if they so wish.

not talking about forcing everyone to use the same door. I go into the back of my apartment complex because it is convenient to where I like to park. However I am not forbidden from going in the front. There are no signs directing me to go only in the back.

It may be hard for people who have never been directed to the back door to get it, and I don't mean being mistaken once or twice for "being the help," and it may be a small thing, but after a day of being reminded all day you are worth minimum wage and not one cent more, then having the choice of which door to use to go home taken from you, it's not such a small thing.