| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun, Jan 31 2010, 8:30 am EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
 |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | Why would any american who has worked hard to afford their home feel they should have tax payer money fund homes for others to buy that are new with new appliances at severly discounted prices? I took a tour of the CHA homes when they did an open house at the last round. They are cheaper and nicer than any home I ever bought. I joked that perhaps I should take a job making less money so I could buy this home. Remember, you could buy in and then progress up the salary scale to a much higher salary, but no law forces you to leave. So you could make 150K and live in these homes.
I am not opposed to civic groups like CHA, Habitat, etc... buying land and providing homes. I am opposed to me having to do it with my tax dollars.
To me American is working hard and benefiting from the hard work. So I question how these COAH homes as this one poster says are American. |
You're soooooooo American........ And so Christiannnnnnnnn........... and so unaware of your privilege in this great country of ours -- and so right wing - AND SO DAMN SELFISH and yes I work hard to live and own a house in Cranbury and sent my children to our wonderful schools ....and I'm worried about what kind of housing there will be in the 130 COAH development and whether they'll open up Ryan Road and whether the mix of ownership and rental will be right and all the rest
Thank God for Social Security for our old folks and SSI and Medicaid for our disabled children and Food Stamps for all the people who can’t find work...And yes housing for those who have not yet made it.... And thank God for all the politicians who had the guts to pass these measures and the folks (my parents) who voted them in for passing this wonderful safety net
That’s America -- you jerks -- foretold in our great religions Don’t make government evil because you are selfish. Our government is us -- and as far as I can see, most of us don’t want and won’t vote for poor houses or charity like it existed in the 19th ceentury |
I posted this, and I assure you I am not right wing. I am just not socialist. I truly am independent, voted Obama, Clinton, W the first time and Christie. A Great American mix of voting.
So let me get this straight. You want the housing, but you worry about opening Ryan Rd and what kind of housing will go in? If you're supporting COAH and the massive obligation, then why in the world would you be concerned about the road opening (shouldn't these people have equal rights?) or types (aren't these people deserving under your philosophy).
You're a flamer as I can tell because you're calling us out for being honest and saying it is unamerican for towns to have to pay for more than 20% of their town to be COAH homes (this is even more when one considers Sec. 8 in Staybridge suites does not count). Yet you then make a statement about isolating them and worry about their type.
I have no issue with these people as individuals. In order to move into COAH you have to have a job and be earning a living. I have issue with the fact that there is no right to homeownership in towns and the government telling me that I have to take away from things like my childs college savings or the furnace I need to replace in order to pay more taxes for people to move into a home they would not be otherwise able to afford. I'd love to live on Cubberly or Silvers and not in my old 1950's home in need of major work. Yet, I see no govt help for me and my family. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Just My Two Cents
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Jan 31 2010, 1:07 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
I find it interesting that the discussion turns to what is being American all about. If you asked my grand mother or inlaws who immigrated legally from Germany and Poland you just might agree. They all had sponsors that made sure they had a place to stay, helped them get a job, and food if needed. A roof over the head was not home ownership, but a rental apartment.
It was the Freedoms that America offered. With hard work and perseverance they would be able to have the American Dream – to them – to own a home is a symbol of prosperity. They were not given a home or even governmentally subsided. They scrimped and saved to eventually own their home in areas that were settled with people with similar backgrounds. It’s where they felt comfortable. Their children went to public school and some even went to polish school on weekends to learn more about their culture and language. These same children learned by their parents example and ALL managed to go to college and eventually to purchase their own homes.
I am all for helping people to “give them a leg up” and applaud those who want to give every dime they have to the social welfare of others. However, this is not the norm. When these social agendas start to affect the wellbeing of your own family; you need to say uncle - Enough is too much. NJ already has programs in place that includes food stamps, Medicaid, a bevy of other medical programs, rental assistance programs, all sorts of housing assistance available thru the NJ of Community Affairs. Just look at the listing at http://www.njar.com/about_njar/hof/horg/state.html .
Correct me if I’m wrong; I do not see any homeless people running around Cranbury or even our surrounding areas. If there are, let’s help find them a place ASAP. But, COAH is not about homelessness. It about the legal right to live where you want; no matter what the cost. If you cannot afford it; the town in which you desire to live must make it possible. This all started a legal Supreme Court issue not a social issue that has blossomed to where we are today. The state has no money to ever afford this - what is now called the workforce home ownership program. This legal burden now falls on the local government which means higher property taxes. This is why NJ has the highest property taxes in the Country (and this is a huge country). What has this accomplished: Higher rents needed, which increases the cost of living in NJ. These increases are a driving force that compels a company to look at their overhead and forces them to downsize their workforce and/or flee the state. Even the workforce that would be living in the proposed homes find it hard to make ends meet.
The change in our concept of home ownership did not start in NJ but has trickled down to us from the Federal Government. This is what has led us into this terrible financial bind. Old habits are hard to break. Homeownership is not a right but had been and should still be an American Dream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Jan 31 2010, 3:18 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
My mother to this day, in the house I grew up in, does not have air conditioning, central heat, a dish washer, a garbage disposal, double pane windows, an enclosed garage or covered parking area, and numerous other amenities the tax payers are required to pay for in these COAH homes.
Why exactly is the money best spent providing thousands of luxury homes for subsidized ownership, that can then be sold at fair market value, instead of more basic apartments for many more people? And why when these more basic homes come up on the regular market are they considered inadequate to purchase to use for COAH homes even though they were adequate for tax payers who had to subsidize the COAH homes? The State apparently believes “low income” assistance means helping people attain a higher standard of living than many not on assistance, rather than just helping them get on their feet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Jan 31 2010, 3:28 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
| Quote: | | The State apparently believes “low income” assistance means helping people attain a higher standard of living than many not on assistance, rather than just helping them get on their feet. |
You got it right - it's all about redistribution of income, not about "helping" people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
publius
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Feb 1 2010, 2:58 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
| I say that if WE have to pay for homes, WE should be able to say who may live in OUR homes. Like local people............librarians, teachers police, firefighters etc. Not some Yahoo from 30 miles away working in a warehouse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Feb 1 2010, 5:10 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
| publius wrote: | | I say that if WE have to pay for homes, WE should be able to say who may live in OUR homes. Like local people............librarians, teachers police, firefighters etc. Not some Yahoo from 30 miles away working in a warehouse. |
Strangely, you have stumbled on to more of the original intent of the Mt. Laurel decision. The original case involved children of long time residents who were only able to find substandard housing to remain in the town they were raised in (converted chicken coops etc.) The town condemned these units and tore them down forcing the occupants to move out of town (there was also a possible racist component in the condemnation).
The point being the original legal decision was about trying to keep long time residents in a community facing rapidly increasing property values. Further court decisions and questionable legislative fixes took this concept to the extreme we see today. Again, my gripe is we have taken 35 years spent millions on legal fees and have built (as a state) very little affordable housing.
It is time to scrap the current method which has failed liberals, conservatives, towns and the state and try again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Feb 1 2010, 8:28 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | My mother to this day, in the house I grew up in, does not have air conditioning, central heat, a dish washer, a garbage disposal, double pane windows, an enclosed garage or covered parking area, and numerous other amenities the tax payers are required to pay for in these COAH homes.
Why exactly is the money best spent providing thousands of luxury homes for subsidized ownership, that can then be sold at fair market value, instead of more basic apartments for many more people? And why when these more basic homes come up on the regular market are they considered inadequate to purchase to use for COAH homes even though they were adequate for tax payers who had to subsidize the COAH homes? The State apparently believes “low income” assistance means helping people attain a higher standard of living than many not on assistance, rather than just helping them get on their feet. |
It’s that bad old "state" again doing all these terrible things to the citizens of new Jersey.
Let's see if I get this right. Mt Laurel 1 in 1975 - a unanimous decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court with both Democrat and Republican justices, appointed by both Democrat and Republican NJ governors
Mt Laurel 2 in 1983 - a unanimous decision by a very different NJ Supreme Court by both Democrat and Republican justices, appointed by both Democrat and Republican NJ governors which led to the legislation creating COAH passed by the New Jersey legislature.
It seems that democracy does create the "state" most people want and believe in - you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Feb 1 2010, 8:50 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | My mother to this day, in the house I grew up in, does not have air conditioning, central heat, a dish washer, a garbage disposal, double pane windows, an enclosed garage or covered parking area, and numerous other amenities the tax payers are required to pay for in these COAH homes.
Why exactly is the money best spent providing thousands of luxury homes for subsidized ownership, that can then be sold at fair market value, instead of more basic apartments for many more people? And why when these more basic homes come up on the regular market are they considered inadequate to purchase to use for COAH homes even though they were adequate for tax payers who had to subsidize the COAH homes? The State apparently believes “low income” assistance means helping people attain a higher standard of living than many not on assistance, rather than just helping them get on their feet. |
It’s that bad old "state" again doing all these terrible things to the citizens of new Jersey.
Let's see if I get this right. Mt Laurel 1 in 1975 - a unanimous decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court with both Democrat and Republican justices, appointed by both Democrat and Republican NJ governors
Mt Laurel 2 in 1983 - a unanimous decision by a very different NJ Supreme Court by both Democrat and Republican justices, appointed by both Democrat and Republican NJ governors which led to the legislation creating COAH passed by the New Jersey legislature.
It seems that democracy does create the "state" most people want and believe in - you think? |
It is not the "bad old state", it is simply the COAH legislation was a bad piece of legislation. Intead of the state stepping up and taking care of its subsidized housing obligation, it produced a pro-developer law that greatly increased forced municipalities to pay money or be flooded with a huge amount of market rate housing. Who exactly does this benefit? Well developers who would like to break local zoning and the state who basically get to wash their hands of the entire task.
Now you can say that both democrats and republicans had a hand in this legislation. That doesn't mean it was a good law. What it means is the assembly bi-partisanly kicked the can down the road. Well we are at the end of that road and no closer to the goal than when we started. Time to try again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Feb 1 2010, 9:30 pm EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | My mother to this day, in the house I grew up in, does not have air conditioning, central heat, a dish washer, a garbage disposal, double pane windows, an enclosed garage or covered parking area, and numerous other amenities the tax payers are required to pay for in these COAH homes.
Why exactly is the money best spent providing thousands of luxury homes for subsidized ownership, that can then be sold at fair market value, instead of more basic apartments for many more people? And why when these more basic homes come up on the regular market are they considered inadequate to purchase to use for COAH homes even though they were adequate for tax payers who had to subsidize the COAH homes? The State apparently believes “low income” assistance means helping people attain a higher standard of living than many not on assistance, rather than just helping them get on their feet. |
It’s that bad old "state" again doing all these terrible things to the citizens of new Jersey.
Let's see if I get this right. Mt Laurel 1 in 1975 - a unanimous decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court with both Democrat and Republican justices, appointed by both Democrat and Republican NJ governors
Mt Laurel 2 in 1983 - a unanimous decision by a very different NJ Supreme Court by both Democrat and Republican justices, appointed by both Democrat and Republican NJ governors which led to the legislation creating COAH passed by the New Jersey legislature.
It seems that democracy does create the "state" most people want and believe in - you think? |
What's your point? It's not clear. This was never about Democrats or Republicans. This is about the inept state government that has already been dominated by developer interests, across the political spectrum, and prone to being bought and sold. It doesn't help that legislators are allowed to keep day jobs in organizations that themselves are political-interest groups. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
publius
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Feb 2 2010, 12:45 am EST Post subject: Re: STATE: Senate bill would kill COAH, bring back RCAs |
|
|
The developers and some state legislators are obviously in bed with each other (figuratively). The developers have money, they buy the right lawmakers, the lawmakers make the laws to help out the developers, and the ignorant taxpayer foots the bill for everyone involved.
The developers and their corporate warehouse tenants conspire to buy lawmakers so that laws can be made to have citizens subsidize low-paid warehouse workers. Instead of paying a living wage, they socialize the costs and privatize their profits.
Economists call it externalization.
See how it works now?
And you thought that the Sopranos were big crooks?
NJ Politics 101. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
