HIMARS has been talking about reduced government involvement in housing. The people he’s arguing want the government to decide what can be built and where.

I shudder at the thought of having to live next to GD.

You don’t know how inflation works, do you.

Who said anything about government housing projects?

Oh that's right, you did.

Either it's a single family home with a government backed mortgage, or it's a government housing project, there's nothing in between...

They should be able to live where they can afford to live.  I lived in shit hole apartments had my car broken into numerous times apartment broken into twice dealt with ghetto hawks and drive bys (Lawton OK of all places) etc. I saved my money to buy a house and improve my situation.  

If you're so worried about it instead of trying to cram 400 Sq ft shit hole apartments that turn into a ghetto in less than 10 years into my neighborhood, how about you help your family get out of poverty?  

Where do you live?  You going to put subsidized/affordable housing in your backyard?  

Either they suffer, or the residents of the decent neighborhoods that get moved into with free rent suffer.

It used to be we had to pay all of these people's living expenses. Now we have to pay all of their living expenses for them to live next door to us. Every time they close a housing project and flush the residents into all the decent neighborhoods around it, the neighborhoods go completely to shit. The schools go completely to shit. Why is that a good thing?

You can destroy whole metro areas like that. Which makes good people keep moving further out.  See Memphis, TN and their history of closing project people and using Section 8 to infest good, middle-class neighborhoods with the former project dwellers, and their annexing of neighboring cities that turn to shit in a few years.

The "nice" areas of Memphis (which are really the parts outside of it that they haven't managed to invade yet change over the years as the formerly good alternatives get annexed and end up with crime, blight, and awful schools. Great fucking model.

So your argument is that making the cost of living higher is an appropriate public policy to be pursued by central planners, and poor people should live in places where the planners haven't been able to achieve their goals and housing remains affordable. Does that sum it up?



There's no data to back up the idea that small apartments turn into ghettos... but there is plenty backing up the idea that suburbs do.



If I could fit a small apartment building in my backyard I would absolutely do that. It's a great way to build wealth.

My mortgage is not government backed, your anger is misplaced.  If you don't like it take it up with the Fed, god knows they've certainly fucked up a lot of things.  

Why don't you post up your location?  I find that really interesting since you want to shove 'affordable denser' housing into everyone else's hood.  

My last little town knocked down 25+ year old apartments that were all section 8.  Crime dropped like a rock, so much so they closed down the police substation they had to put in nextdoor to deal with the calls.  In that town even in the nicer townhomes/condos/apartments property crimes and other petty shit were substantially higher than in the SFH portion of town.  The bottom line is denser developments are problematic at best and no one young or old wants them dumped into their backyard.  

I'd love to offer a developer, "you can have your zoning change, but you have to sell your house and reside in your new denser development for a minimum of 3 years"   Wonder how many takers we'd get?

Lastly I'm not against zoning changes I just don't want to be on the losing end of one, if it's going to negatively impact my investment the developer can offer to buy me out.  After all the developer is the one looking to enrich themselves by requesting the change why should it happen at my expense?  

Now I know you're 100% full of shit.  If thats the case NY Chicago LA etc would all be bastions of peace and tranquility.  

What was the last guys name combat_jack or something that preached the same bullshit you're pimping....best of luck with your hood rats.  

CLICK....ignore and unsubscribe.

@2tired2run you don’t have a conforming mortgage? Your bank is holding the note and didn’t sell it to the GSEs?

I’d live in anything I would build. Beats the shit out of living in a suburb.

Personally I think new suburban housing residents should have to pay an extra fee to the farmers for fucking up their program.

New York City has a fairly low crime rate btw. But it’s expensive to live there, you have to make more money than it would cost to own a suburban home in Texas.

The majority of mortgages are government backed and securitized.



The highest crime rates aren't even in residential areas, they are in commercial areas... adding housing, even apartments, lowers the crime rate.  




I think that's a great idea.

I would build this condo building:



The guy that built this one lived there for the rest of his life.



Obviously you've never seen a map of homicide rates by county.

Two of the top three counties are rural, FWIW.

If I misinterpreted what you wrote, apologies.  That said, I'm against government backed mortgages too.

Something to consider for those crying about apartments or other affordable housing near you.  There's definitely some benefits politically.   Kids that grow up in shit neighborhoods do a fucking ton more crime because they are surrounded by poor kids with no supervision.  If affordable housing is BALANCED in ingle family neighborhoods you might have a slight bit of crime but the good environment will actually benefit most of the poor kids.  Having a majority of good influence kids around them leads to them being good kids and good adults.  

I'm not against mf housing as long as it is spread out.   A ton of this happened in the Phoenix metro cities which sprawls rapidly.  We have big apartment complexes mixed in single family home areas and crime remains low in those areas and they don't turn into ghettos.


Things only go to shit when you get too dense in an area.  When they start leveling all the single family homes and making more and more mf complexes per block it's time to think about moving because it will certainly go to shit. In places where they seem to have one apartment complex per square miles the neighborhoods haven't gone to shit. My block included

As I've said before, I think public policy should encourage small, owner occupied apartment buildings all over the place.

The owner would obviously be on site and have to deal with their tenants.

That would solve a lot of complaints.

From the first stoplight I come to when I head to town, I think there are seven apartment complexes (varying from moderate size to large) within walking distance, and two more under construction.  One of the largest homeless camps in the Nashville area is also a short walk from that intersection (almost centrally located among those apartment complexes), and Nashville's 'sidewalks and bike lanes everywhere' policy makes it easier to walk from one to the other.  15 years ago, I think there were only two moderate sized apartment complexes within walking distance of that intersection.  Can't say I've seen an improvement in the safety of the area.

"Eyes on the street" is a thing that has been observed since mid century. Most cities are safer than suburbs, downtown's safer than the exurbs, etc.. When your backyard is the street and the people who live there, you become aware of the comings, going, and usual and unusual activity within it. This level of scrutiny comes naturally to most urban neighborhoods and its a critical factor in why urban crime is so low compared to suburbs and exurbs. Suburban "neighborhood watches" are an artificial, pale imitation in comparison.

I live in an apartment building with 4 units and my neighbors and I will bring in packages as a manner of course.

Does affordable housing (government subsidized housing) increase crime? Lets google and find out!


In a summary of three large scale studies from three different institutions, no evidence was found that new affordable housing projects raise crime. This is largely due to the modern model of low income housing, which more closely integrate low income people with people of different income levels.

https://www.13wmaz.com/article/news/local/verify/verify-does-affordable-housing-bring-more-crime/93-560002876

A lot of subsidized housing is ultimately inhabited by old people. Old people commit crimes at a low rate.

They want single family for themselves and family, but NOT for you.


YOU must sacrifice for the good of humanity, but not them.  

Fuck Commies!!

lets get the RESET started

No one in the thread said you shouldn’t be able to buy a single family house if you can afford it.