"Pay the poor to move" is a misrepresentation. My position is that it should be DC policy to target a level of poverty well below what we have now. That doesn't mean we pay people to move. It means we build housing for more middle class residents. In other words, the denominator gets larger. And we don't see it as a policy failing if our demographics start to look more like the suburbs (still with more poverty, but not 13% sub-$10k to the suburbs' 5%.)

As far as Penn Quarter goes, obviously a "host of government policies led to the development of Penn Quarter". But I don't think it's unreasonable to ask--if that's the singular example of DC government catering to "the affluent"--that you actually give specifics if you're going to argue that that development took place in favor of the rich at the expense of the poor.

My understanding of how development took place in Penn Quarter is pretty sketchy, but this seems like a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Avenue_National_Historic_Site#Rejuvenation

But I am curious: If the redevelopment of Penn Quarter is an example of DC's kowtowing to "affluent people", what would be a counter-factual of how that area could have developed to the benefit of middle-class people? All we seem to be talking about is the very poor and "the affluent".

Anonymous wrote:But really if "did not stop developers from building housing in Penn Quarter" is the best example of "DC policies targeting affluent people" you can come up with, it may be time to refine the argument.

I was distracted while writing my previous message and didn't notice this one until after posting it. But, if this your understanding of how development took place in Penn Quarter, it is no use talking to you about it further. So, good night. Go back to your plan to pay the poor to move. I'm sure that will work out well for you.

Anonymous wrote:
Could you be a bit more specific? I'm sure we can both agree "the development of Penn Quarter" is not a "government policy". It seems to me that the high prices of close-in housing is an indicator that that housing is incredibly desirable. Is "allowing people to buy property and build houses" the policy we're talking about? Even if that's the case, does having a bunch of millionaires move into the city (instead of MD or VA), live in an area which previously there was no residential housing at all, and pay DC income tax is an unambiguously bad thing for poor District residents.

No, I am not going to be more specific. You know as well as I do that a host of government policies led to the development of Penn Quarter. I said that the government implemented policies aimed at attracting the affluent. You questioned that and wanted an example. I've given you an example.

Since you don't seem satisfied with my ideas for addressing the less advantaged in DC, why don't you say more about how you plan to lower that population by getting them to move to Maryland and Virginia? Obviously, nobody is going to given $2,000 a month to move to another jurisdiction. So, tell me how you plan to get them to move and how that proposal will not play directly into the hands of Barry, Bonds, Orange and the rest?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think I have any reasonable expectation to be able to still afford to live in DC when I retire - that's realistic. I will likely move to a more affordable community when I retire. I've had to move several times in order to find jobs, in order to find affordable places to live, et cetera. Why would anyone else have such expectations of things never changing and always being able to live wherever you want?
And, ex-offenders reflects another set of very poor life choices. Yet it's everyone else who ends up paying the price for their irresponsibility. How is that fair or equitable?

Perhaps you should offer classes to citizens to teach them how to be as reasonable and realistic as you are. You could include calculations on people's earning power and match it with communities other than DC where they would be better off.

Basic common sense and basic math. How much do you have coming in each month, how much has to go out for rent, food, bills each month. If you can't make ends meet, find a way to either reduce the expense (like somewhere with cheaper rent) and/or try and make more money. It's not rocket science, it's what most regular folks have to do. But of course, basic math and common sense seem to be what are lacking in the first place.

You sound like one of those chuckleheads who is astonished that anyone could be malnourished in the US. After all, one just needs to buy a 50 lb sack of dried beans, and a 50 lb sack of rice, and a 5 gallon jug of oil. That will meet all of your dietary needs for the year!

But really if "did not stop developers from building housing in Penn Quarter" is the best example of "DC policies targeting affluent people" you can come up with, it may be time to refine the argument.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think you're making a strategic retreat from your earlier assertion that there have been all sorts of policies explicitly targeting "affluent people". I can think of lots of initiatives that might appeal to households making from $50k and up (the much ruminated bike lanes & dog parks). Still wracking my brain for all these policies that DC has implemented with an eye toward pleasing "affluent people". I'm starting to think your construct "affluent people" may simply translate to "anyone above the poverty line".

One example of government policies aimed at the affluent is the development of Penn Quarter. This was a particular favorite of Tony Williams who may have had himself in mind when he got the idea. Currently condos in Penn Quarter for over half a million for two bedrooms. Zillow lists two condos for just about $300,000 (strangely not telling how many bedrooms, so I'm assuming it's one). Several are close to a million or even more. I think you'll agree that you have to be affluent to afford these prices.

Could you be a bit more specific? I'm sure we can both agree "the development of Penn Quarter" is not a "government policy". It seems to me that the high prices of close-in housing is an indicator that that housing is incredibly desirable. Is "allowing people to buy property and build houses" the policy we're talking about? Even if that's the case, does having a bunch of millionaires move into the city (instead of MD or VA), live in an area which previously there was no residential housing at all, and pay DC income tax is an unambiguously bad thing for poor District residents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think I have any reasonable expectation to be able to still afford to live in DC when I retire - that's realistic. I will likely move to a more affordable community when I retire. I've had to move several times in order to find jobs, in order to find affordable places to live, et cetera. Why would anyone else have such expectations of things never changing and always being able to live wherever you want?
And, ex-offenders reflects another set of very poor life choices. Yet it's everyone else who ends up paying the price for their irresponsibility. How is that fair or equitable?

Perhaps you should offer classes to citizens to teach them how to be as reasonable and realistic as you are. You could include calculations on people's earning power and match it with communities other than DC where they would be better off.

Basic common sense and basic math. How much do you have coming in each month, how much has to go out for rent, food, bills each month. If you can't make ends meet, find a way to either reduce the expense (like somewhere with cheaper rent) and/or try and make more money. It's not rocket science, it's what most regular folks have to do. But of course, basic math and common sense seem to be what are lacking in the first place.

But what's been argued here is that some people don't have the sense to know when they should get out of town to make way for people who can better afford live here. Thus the need for basic classes. Perhaps at the end of the course, the teacher could offer to rent a U-haul to anyone willing to leave on the spot.

Funny how a Rhee thread managed to morph into a charter thread, as though Rhee had anything to do with it. Seems to me DC charters go back to the 1990s, well before Rhee came along.

Always trying to equate and conflate, but always failing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think I have any reasonable expectation to be able to still afford to live in DC when I retire - that's realistic. I will likely move to a more affordable community when I retire. I've had to move several times in order to find jobs, in order to find affordable places to live, et cetera. Why would anyone else have such expectations of things never changing and always being able to live wherever you want?
And, ex-offenders reflects another set of very poor life choices. Yet it's everyone else who ends up paying the price for their irresponsibility. How is that fair or equitable?

Perhaps you should offer classes to citizens to teach them how to be as reasonable and realistic as you are. You could include calculations on people's earning power and match it with communities other than DC where they would be better off.

Basic common sense and basic math. How much do you have coming in each month, how much has to go out for rent, food, bills each month. If you can't make ends meet, find a way to either reduce the expense (like somewhere with cheaper rent) and/or try and make more money. It's not rocket science, it's what most regular folks have to do. But of course, basic math and common sense seem to be what are lacking in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:
I think you're making a strategic retreat from your earlier assertion that there have been all sorts of policies explicitly targeting "affluent people". I can think of lots of initiatives that might appeal to households making from $50k and up (the much ruminated bike lanes & dog parks). Still wracking my brain for all these policies that DC has implemented with an eye toward pleasing "affluent people". I'm starting to think your construct "affluent people" may simply translate to "anyone above the poverty line".

One example of government policies aimed at the affluent is the development of Penn Quarter. This was a particular favorite of Tony Williams who may have had himself in mind when he got the idea. Currently condos in Penn Quarter for over half a million for two bedrooms. Zillow lists two condos for just about $300,000 (strangely not telling how many bedrooms, so I'm assuming it's one). Several are close to a million or even more. I think you'll agree that you have to be affluent to afford these prices.

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think I have any reasonable expectation to be able to still afford to live in DC when I retire - that's realistic. I will likely move to a more affordable community when I retire. I've had to move several times in order to find jobs, in order to find affordable places to live, et cetera. Why would anyone else have such expectations of things never changing and always being able to live wherever you want?
And, ex-offenders reflects another set of very poor life choices. Yet it's everyone else who ends up paying the price for their irresponsibility. How is that fair or equitable?

Perhaps you should offer classes to citizens to teach them how to be as reasonable and realistic as you are. You could include calculations on people's earning power and match it with communities other than DC where they would be better off.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jsteel wrote:

"The city didn't just magically become more attractive to affluent folks. It became that way because the government actively pursued policies to increase the attractiveness of the city to that demographic."

Examples please.

Just to be clear, I ask for examples because I'm not sure you'll be able to find any examples of the city implementing policies to appeal to "affluent folks". As opposed to middle-class residents.

Socio-economic classes are a difficult topic on DCUM where $250,000 is considered middle class. So, I could give examples and then we would probably debate the economic standing of the demographic that they attracted. But, I think you would agree that government policies attracted groups who on average were more affluent than the existing population. Perhaps you don't consider them affluent, but their lesser off neighbors certainly do.

I think you're making a strategic retreat from your earlier assertion that there have been all sorts of policies explicitly targeting "affluent people". I can think of lots of initiatives that might appeal to households making from $50k and up (the much ruminated bike lanes & dog parks). Still wracking my brain for all these policies that DC has implemented with an eye toward pleasing "affluent people". I'm starting to think your construct "affluent people" may simply translate to "anyone above the poverty line".

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, non-poor people turn down higher paying jobs for a whole host of reasons, BUT THEY WORK, PAY THEIR TAXES AND CARRY THEIR OWN WEIGHT. Frankly, it's downright OFFENSIVE if someone who otherwise should be perfectly capable of working and affording to pay their own pay is instead relying on the rest of us to subsidize their choices and lifestyle while the rest of us then have to work even harder and pay even more in taxes just because they "don't want to".

It is interesting that you equate "poor" with "not working". In fact, two relatively large groups of the poor are the working poor -- those who work but whose salaries are not sufficient to cover the cost of living -- and the elderly, who in many if not most cases, worked at one time.

DC has a significant number of members of a third group -- ex-offenders, who have a very difficult time finding a job. These individuals are willing and able to work, but can't get a job once they check the box on an application asking if they've ever had a criminal conviction.

I don't think I have any reasonable expectation to be able to still afford to live in DC when I retire - that's realistic. I will likely move to a more affordable community when I retire. I've had to move several times in order to find jobs, in order to find affordable places to live, et cetera. Why would anyone else have such expectations of things never changing and always being able to live wherever you want?
And, ex-offenders reflects another set of very poor life choices. Yet it's everyone else who ends up paying the price for their irresponsibility. How is that fair or equitable?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jsteel wrote:

"The city didn't just magically become more attractive to affluent folks. It became that way because the government actively pursued policies to increase the attractiveness of the city to that demographic."

Examples please.

Just to be clear, I ask for examples because I'm not sure you'll be able to find any examples of the city implementing policies to appeal to "affluent folks". As opposed to middle-class residents.

Socio-economic classes are a difficult topic on DCUM where $250,000 is considered middle class. So, I could give examples and then we would probably debate the economic standing of the demographic that they attracted. But, I think you would agree that government policies attracted groups who on average were more affluent than the existing population. Perhaps you don't consider them affluent, but their lesser off neighbors certainly do.

Anonymous wrote:Jsteel wrote:

"The city didn't just magically become more attractive to affluent folks. It became that way because the government actively pursued policies to increase the attractiveness of the city to that demographic."

Examples please.

Just to be clear, I ask for examples because I'm not sure you'll be able to find any examples of the city implementing policies to appeal to "affluent folks". As opposed to middle-class residents.