🚀 go-pugleaf

In dc.biking Kenneth Cornelius <kencorn@radix.net> wrote:
> Eternal Nay-sayer wrote:

>> But I also strongly belive that if people with money want to move into a
>> neighborhood that historically has never had a welfare presence, because
>> it's a neighborhood that is populated entirely by people who can afford
>> to be there, they should have the right (both as affected property owners
>> and as tax-paying voters) to not have their tax dollars used to subsidize
>> the people they're trying to escape from imported into their
>> neighborhood.

> I think you may be confusing your criterion for judging who is a good
> neighbor. You are using money alone, and it don't work that way.  If
> that's really your way of thinking, then I don't want you for a neighbor.

You're absolutely, positively right. Money has nothing to do with being a
good neighbor. 

However, you usually don't get to choose your neighbors before you
move. It's all pot luck. If you really, seriously don't like your
neighbors, just absolutely can't tolerate them, the only thing you can
really (reasonably) do is move, or encourage them to do so. And once you
get into pricy real estate, regardless of how obnoxious the neighbors are,
they usually keep the street-visible parts of their property looking good,
which means you can probably unload your house for about what you paid for 
it and go elsewhere.

For a contrast, take a drive by a public housing project (sometime when the
mayor isn't scheduled for a photo op), and look at how well maintained the
property there is. Remember, this upkeep is a combination of the residents
and the periodic intervention of a public works crew... Do you really want
a unit or two of that transported into your neighborhood, where the
public works crews will visit far less frequently? Even the strong
supporters of scattered site housing acknowledge that a very careful
selection process is needed for chosing people to be relocated into
scattered site housing (especially housing in more affluent areas). 

Looking at the extreme, meticulous caution that DC has historically taken
when undertaking public projects, and the fact that there's nothing that
can be done if this fascinating little social experiment doesn't work out
for the best, I'd really rather not have this game of financial Russian
roulette going on in my neighborhood. 

What right do I have to say this? I own a home here. If the neighborhood
goes bad, I'm left owning a property I no longer want to occupy and can't
afford to sell. We're talking about my home here, where I and my family 
live, that may someday probably be the biggest chunk of our estate
to be left to our kids. If you want to offer me assurances (in some 
legal sense) that the neighborhood isn't going to end up with one totally 
trashed eyesore, I'm willing to listen, but to the best of my knowledge,
no such promise has ever been offered beyond "Our utterly meaningless
study predicts that there won't be a problem". 

If you want to play this game in your neighborhood, and other neighborhood
homeowners support you, fine. Build scattered site housing in your
neighborhood. But leave my neighborhood out of it.

> I cannot say that I ever moved to escape my neighbors 

Then I suspect you may be lucky.

In the few years I've been living here, I have not heard a single
gunshot. Hearing sirens is uncommon enough that people actually look to see
what's going on. Nobody tags houses, the worst crime that happens here
seems to be petty theft or hit-and-run car accidents involving parked 
cars. I have not seen anyone selling drugs, I have seen no used needles or
empty liquor bottles on the ground in the park, and I have never seen a DC
vice unit conducting a sting here. 

I may not have moved here to escape specific neighbors, but I definately
moved to escape a neighborhood.