WallaceWatch t1_j0hrwez wrote
Is the article saying KRJ wanted the building to be 100% affordable at 30% the median income!?!? Gotta learn politics is the art of the compromise....perhaps the hard way
KaiDaiz t1_j0hshyq wrote
Wouldn't of matter if it was 100% affordable. She didn't want any more non blacks moving into her district. That was the main reason why she killed it. She preferred the least # of units built in a futile attempt to delay the changing demographics of her area.
Wowzlul t1_j0iktcb wrote
That was just a pretext, a requirement that couldn't practicably be fulfilled. She doesn't want anyone who doesn't already live there moving to the neighborhood. It's classic nativism dressed up in new language.
DadBodofanAmerican t1_j0mr21d wrote
Because new voters might not be as maleable as the ones who elected her. Can't risk the same old Harlem machine politicians losing power.
Wowzlul t1_j0mriq3 wrote
It's bizarre to witness nyc's transformation from "diverse global migrant city of the world" to "first in time first in right"
George4Mayor86 t1_j0i3115 wrote
She got exactly what she wanted. The goal was never more affordable housing, it was no housing at all.
leg_day t1_j0junji wrote
> 100% affordable at 30% the median income
Insanity. That's called public housing. The city is welcome to build more of it if that is the best route to alleviating the housing crisis.
Shreddersaurusrex t1_j0uean2 wrote
Federal law prevents it
leg_day t1_j0v5iv5 wrote
Who would have standing to actually prevent a city or state from doing this? Who would be materially and irreparably harmed by public housing that they could challenge it under federal law?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments