The EDL

[lewisnotmiller]

He sure didn't choose it as part of his personal investment portfolio. If we want to live in a healthy, happy society, we need to start thinking of housing differently.

Not quite what I meant. Economic considerations were well down the list of why I chose to live where I did. The fact that there was an actual community feeling were higher.

I am assuming he liked the location and wanted to be in touch with nature.

I agree we need to think of housing differently. But we need to plan our societies (as a whole) in a consistent manner, and have clear explanations as to what is being planned, rather than developers driving things, or politicians pushing barrows related to their next election opportunities.

 

[darkendless]

Ummm ... you are more or less demanding that it be unsolved, so I guess if folk like yourself have their way, it will remain 'unsolved'.

Better yet lets improve the position of one only to drag down the rest

Wow, $50K less. Much better to socially hammer people by herding thousands into ghettos with reduced services and social stigma, after all they deserve that because ... umm.. because ... errh ...because.
Sure it breeds crime and social division, but OMG ! you can't expect the genteel classes to tolerate being near the poor.

Only 50k

Lets slash 50k off your house (if you even own one, unlikely given your response) and see how you like it. The issue is that people work very hard and sacrifice a lot to afford houses in nicer areas. I do not consider it appropriate to make them suffer.

You don't solve problems by transferring it to people "who can afford it" because things aren't always as they seem.

It is 'simply the nature of the housing market' because that is the unofficial institutionalisation of social inequality. And that is how you want it to stay, right ?

Christ.

I'm not saying it should do anything. I'm just calling it how it is. Please do not infer anything from my comments because you're obviously not very good at it.

I think your position is now abundantly clear.

As is yours. Come back to me when you wake up in the real world.

 

[Alceste]

I'm amazed how much the bootstrap crowd whines when other demographics want to exercise their own bootstrap pulling inclinations. "ooh, what if I lose two dollars!!! What about me!!! Boo hoo!!!"

Seriously, give us a good reason to care about your personal investment portfolio or calm down.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm amazed how much the bootstrap crowd whines when other demographics want to exercise their own bootstrap pulling inclinations. "ooh, what if I lose two dollars!!! What about me!!! Boo hoo!!!"

Seriously, give us a good reason to care about your personal investment portfolio or calm down.

Actually, that's a pretty scattergun analogy. Can you clarify what you mean by 'bootstrap crowd'? Also, what is your take on what should be done, as opposed to what is.

 

[darkendless]

I'm amazed how much the bootstrap crowd whines when other demographics want to exercise their own bootstrap pulling inclinations. "ooh, what if I lose two dollars!!! What about me!!! Boo hoo!!!"

Seriously, give us a good reason to care about your personal investment portfolio or calm down.

we're not talking about $2 we're talking about a year's salary going down the toilet.

Unless you're going to be reasonable don't bother!

 

[Alceste]

Actually, that's a pretty scattergun analogy. Can you clarify what you mean by 'bootstrap crowd'? Also, what is your take on what should be done, as opposed to what is.

Economically mixed neighborhoods are reasonable. The fluctuating value of the homes of people who are fortunate enough to have them should not be an obstacle to intelligent urban planning that ensures people of all stripes have somewhere to live without herding the poor into ghettos. There is no guarantee that the value of your home will always rise. There never was. If you've made your house a key plank in your financial plan, you've implicitly accepted the risks in exchange for the hope of reward. That is how investing works.

 

[Horrorble]

we're not talking about $2 we're talking about a year's salary going down the toilet.

Unless you're going to be reasonable don't bother!

That's a years salary for you?

 

[Alceste]

we're not talking about $2 we're talking about a year's salary going down the toilet.

Unless you're going to be reasonable don't bother!

Reasonable? I'm not the one who thinks having a low income family move in next door is going to cost me a year's salary.

 

[darkendless]

Reasonable? I'm not the one who thinks having a low income family move in next door is going to cost me a year's salary.

Well the conversation is more about having state housing being spread out in higher socio-economic areas.

Do you think that won't bring house prices down?

 

[Alceste]

Well the conversation is more about having state housing being spread out in higher socio-economic areas.

Do you think that won't bring house prices down?

I don't see why it would, but I also don't care. Having a home of your own at all is an unimaginable luxury from my perspective, so fretting about how having poor neighbours might affect the value of your house just sounds childish to me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Economically mixed neighborhoods are reasonable. The fluctuating value of the homes of people who are fortunate enough to have them should not be an obstacle to intelligent urban planning that ensures people of all stripes have somewhere to live without herding the poor into ghettos. There is no guarantee that the value of your home will always rise. There never was. If you've made your house a key plank in your financial plan, you've implicitly accepted the risks in exchange for the hope of reward. That is how investing works.

Okay...still not sure what bootstrap crowd means to be honest.

Anyways. Couple of points.

1) I have no issue with economically-mixed neighbourhoods. My point is that to get from where we are to that point requires planning, and open community engagement.

2) I am in no way 'fortunate' to have a home, at least not in terms of life in Melbourne, 2013. You can argue I am fortunate on a world scale, and I'd agree. Fortunate I was born in a first world country, etc. Beyond that, it's a straight out misrepresentation of me, my position, where I've come from, and I completely reject it.

3) All financial planning has inherant risks and rewards. The stock-market, government bonds, and whatever else. If I shove my money in the bank, you can bet I'll take notice of the reserve bank rate changes (as my parents do with their super). If I invest in gold, I'd be watching that price, and probably have an opinion on any government policy that would impact on it. You can be sure I have a right to be interested in the property value of something I've worked my *** off for. If you're trying to push me as an oppressor of the poor, you're seriously barking up the wrong tree. If government policy is changing in relation to community housing, then it behooves me to be aware of the changes and the rationale behind them for various reasons.

------------------------------------------------

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the government has some pretty dubious links to developers. If government housing is being moved out to the burbs (and I live way out) then I want to know what is being done with the land that has been vacated. Is it being handed over to developers cheaply? From an economic point of view, it is important that the land is used effectively. To whit, it should include better quality community housing, correct? If it is being cleared for yuppy developments, whilst new ghettos are being created in the suburbs, then there are all sorts of reasons I should be protesting that.

I'm happy to discuss investment strategy in a separate thread, but until then, you really have no place telling me how I should or shouldn't invest. When I did have an investment property, I was a reasonable landlord. I don't own property now, apart from my family home, complete with mortgage based on prices I ensured were reasonable when considered alongside all development plans for the area. Things change, and prices fluctuate due to market forces. If prices are fluctuating due to a specific government policy, are you suggesting I have no right to be interested and concerned about that?

As I stated earlier, more than once, I believe, I would prefer more racial diversity where I live. IN terms of economic diversity, it's a little trickier, since there are always going to be poorer suburbs (like where I grew up), but we absolutely need to get rid of the massive blocks of community housing tenements, as it creates an environment in which it is very difficult to raise a family, etc.

However, you need to be fair about this. I am not displacing anyone, nor am I capping community housing. I am talking about effective planning of where it is situated, and open dialogue in terms of what the plan is. Are you really suggesting I don't have the rights to that?

 

[darkendless]

I don't see why it would, but I also don't care. Having a home of your own at all is an unimaginable luxury from my perspective, so fretting about how having poor neighbours might affect the value of your house just sounds childish to me.

Insisting that trying to maximise the value of a property people work so hard to obtain is childish seems unrealistic and far too theoretical for me.

 

[Alceste]

Insisting that trying to maximise the value of a property people work so hard to obtain is childish seems unrealistic and far too theoretical for me.

Everybody works hard. It's childish that you're more concerned about the value of your house than homelessness and poverty in your community. Children are selfish. They only care about their own needs and don't understand or consider the wider impact of their actions. They also feel entitled to rewards, and are obsessed with fairness. So yeah, I do see your single minded focus on the value of your house, to the exclusion of any other consideration, as childish.

 

[Assad91]

:clap

Everybody works hard. It's childish that you're more concerned about the value of your house than homelessness and poverty in your community. Children are selfish. They only care about their own needs and don't understand or consider the wider impact of their actions. They also feel entitled to rewards, and are obsessed with fairness. So yeah, I do see your single minded focus on the value of your house, to the exclusion of any other consideration, as childish.

:clap :clap :clap

 

[darkendless]

Everybody works hard. It's childish that you're more concerned about the value of your house than homelessness and poverty in your community. Children are selfish. They only care about their own needs and don't understand or consider the wider impact of their actions. They also feel entitled to rewards, and are obsessed with fairness. So yeah, I do see your single minded focus on the value of your house, to the exclusion of any other consideration, as childish.

No they don't. One of the big points of this thread is that a lot of people in state housing do not work. You seem to think they deserve houses with a bit of charm from what I can gather. Things must be verrrry different in Canada.

The whole point is to achieve fairness isn't it? If things were unfair there would be no state housing for the unemployed at all. It would be a case of "too bad, get a job or suffer." I don't know what you're getting at here.

You seem to think I don't care about unemployed dependents at all. I do and I don't have a problem with state housing as long as there are long term plans to remove the dependence on the state for this service. Fix interest loans and subsidies can work if the people utilising the service have a non-state supported income in the first place. I think people who rely on hand-outs should have their needs provided for and nothing more, especially when they do not work and live rent free. Such circumstances are a privilege and not a right when so many people work their fingers to the bone just to keep the lights on. You seem to not recognise this at all.

I find it hard to discuss these issues with people who ignore then concept of what it takes to build residential estates, especially when at the end of the day theres no income from providing free houses. I've discussed the points in another thread which were mostly ignored.

 

[Roadrider]

The EDL has members of many racial definitions and religions including Muslims and was proven in one of the videos I posted. If what Britons see on their tellies is a group of mostly White people making trouble it makes sense since the CIA world factbook approximates the number of whites living in the U.K. at ~%92 so yes it makes sense that they/you will see mostly white faces on your screen
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html

 

[Alceste]

No they don't. One of the big points of this thread is that a lot of people in state housing do not work. You seem to think they deserve houses with a bit of charm from what I can gather. Things must be verrrry different in Canada.

The whole point is to achieve fairness isn't it? If things were unfair there would be no state housing for the unemployed at all. It would be a case of "too bad, get a job or suffer." I don't know what you're getting at here.

You seem to think I don't care about unemployed dependents at all. I do and I don't have a problem with state housing as long as there are long term plans to remove the dependence on the state for this service. Fix interest loans and subsidies can work if the people utilising the service have a non-state supported income in the first place. I think people who rely on hand-outs should have their needs provided for and nothing more, especially when they do not work and live rent free. Such circumstances are a privilege and not a right when so many people work their fingers to the bone just to keep the lights on. You seem to not recognise this at all.

I find it hard to discuss these issues with people who ignore then concept of what it takes to build residential estates, especially when at the end of the day theres no income from providing free houses. I've discussed the points in another thread which were mostly ignored.

I think we're talking past each other. When you hear "affordable housing" you make a big leap to this one single scenario out of potentially infinite possible and actual scenarios. Specifically, the only possibility you see is the government purchasing vacant property and establishing newly built high density public housing exclusively for welfare recipients.

It's more than welfare recipients we are talking about right now. We are talking about everybody who can't afford a home of any kind, to rent or own. That's a large and growing demographic, largely composed of hard working young people and families. The number of people on benefits is tiny compared to the number of people who are working as hard as they possibly can and barely getting by because they are spending 60-70% of their income on housing. If you have kids these days in this part of the world, odds are they will not move out. Ever. It simply is not economically possible. Wages have declined and housing costs have tripled since I moved out at 17. Now, 20 years later, I've moved back in with family. I don't want to be here. I have no choice. I had five jobs last year, all part time. None paid more than $12 per hour, offered benefits, or even a full day of work. I still couldn't afford to rent a place, let alone buy one.

My story is not unusual at all. It's typical, becoming more so every year.

 

[Roadrider]

If you are unhappy about your current situation hopefully it will spur you on to achieve what it is you think you seek. My stance has always been that one should always be as comfortable in the boardroom as they are in the field with nothing, I am more comfortable in the field with nothing

 

[Alceste]

If you are unhappy about your current situation hopefully it will spur you on to achieve what it is you think you seek. My stance has always been that one should always be as comfortable in the boardroom as they are in the field with nothing, I am more comfortable in the field with nothing

I seek affordable housing.

 

[darkendless]

I think we're talking past each other. When you hear "affordable housing" you make a big leap to this one single scenario out of potentially infinite possible and actual scenarios. Specifically, the only possibility you see is the government purchasing vacant property and establishing newly built high density public housing exclusively for welfare recipients.

It's more than welfare recipients we are talking about right now. We are talking about everybody who can't afford a home of any kind, to rent or own. That's a large and growing demographic, largely composed of hard working young people and families. The number of people on benefits is tiny compared to the number of people who are working as hard as they possibly can and barely getting by because they are spending 60-70% of their income on housing. If you have kids these days in this part of the world, odds are they will not move out. Ever. It simply is not economically possible. Wages have declined and housing costs have tripled since I moved out at 17. Now, 20 years later, I've moved back in with family. I don't want to be here. I have no choice. I had five jobs last year, all part time. None paid more than $12 per hour, offered benefits, or even a full day of work. I still couldn't afford to rent a place, let alone buy one.

My story is not unusual at all. It's typical, becoming more so every year.

My concerns which i've expressed is with empty money for people on welfare. Low income earners are a different kettle of fish. We're some what fortunate at the moment (everyone except people who purchased property coming up to 2007) as house prices are staying low and interest rates are low which is allowing people who 7 years ago never stood a chance to enter the property market.

Also, we have large property developers mass producing hectares of land for housing estates. As a young professional I currently rent one. It's not the nicest and it's not spacious but it's home and it will do for now.

Low income earners would be better off it the government stopped handing them cash and fixed a home loan rate for them. Interest rates are low so there won't be a better time to do it and the government looks better in the process. People tend not to trust the government when all they do is throw $1000 at everyone when things are tough.