🚀 go-pugleaf

In dc.biking wrob <wrob@erols.com> wrote:
> Kenneth Cornelius wrote:

<munch>

>> Then the ownership and everything else changed.  Most of the staff vanished.
>> The boilers went to hell.  Piss stains appeared on the walls and holes appeared
>> in the plaster.  The laundry rooms became a free kill zone.  My mother, of
>> course, was long gone the instant this started.  I retained a mild interest in
>> the place and one day I woke up to discover that my Clifton Terrace was just
>> about the most notorious slum in the city.

<munch>

> Barry, Cora, and the rest of the DC Govt now want to evict the
> subsidized Section 8 tenants and sell the building to a luxury housing
> developer. That's right, no affordability provisions involved.

My god... they're not letting people who piss on the walls and make holes in the
plaster stay when they try to pitch the place to folks who won't buy if they
see piss stains on the walls and holes in the plaster! How totally unfair!

Oddly enough, of all the places we rented before we bought, the landlord would
have evicted my ass had I (or any member of my family) started leaving piss stains
on the walls or making holes in the plaster. I guess I was just dealing with a
bunch of tight-assed stiffs.

I guess this is one of those things (like only living where you can afford to
live) that's fair when it's inflicted upon the middle class, but not when it's
proposed for the poor. (Someday, when you grow up, you'll realize that equality is
when everyone gets the same rights and obligations... Claiming the poor have some 
special rights is not doing them a favor.)

> When an apartment is in a bad neighborhood, it discriminates against
> the poor; 

Um, no. The folks who make holes in the plaster and urine stains on the walls
discriminate against the poor. Leave those of us who were taught at a very young
age how to properly use a toilet out of this...

> when you try and renovate affordable housing in an apartment
> complex 

... where the residents are trashing the place and expecting DC to fix it, that
happens to have a ... 

> with a good view, it's considered preposterous waste of the
> underlying value of the land, 

... as is any effort to keep these people housed anywhere that can't be
quickly cleaned by a quick hosing down ... 

> and hence an affront to the rich.

... and the middle class (who pay the vast majority of DC's tax dollars) along
with everyone else who pays taxes into the municiple pot.

> Most are not legitimately occupied because they are only technically available -
> DC got them condemned and never made them habitable in the first place!

Hmmm... I wonder if it's because the maintainance crews needed to handle this sort
of work are busily fighting a rear-guard action to try to keep already occupied
housing from being completely destroyed by the tenents from hell?