T1B

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Ingse Bodil wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote: They see potential in the neighborhood, take historical rehab grants from the state and try to make something of the buildings and the neighborhood that the shiftless never could?

Why are the grants and assistance given to outsiders and not those who already live there?
That's not shiftlessness, that's being strategically pushed out and made invisible.

projection on your part
So long as the property isn't flipped, if its old enough you can completely rehab the place with some low interest loans or even grants. Problem is, most people in the neighborhood can't borrow the money to get materials to work on the property, or they just want to add on to the back for Roneesha's third kid.

Again, that's not shiftlessness. Not being able to borrow for a loan (or qualify for a grant) is not the same as not wanting the grant/loan in the first place. Adding an addition to one's home is life, and irrelevant. If the place needs to be rehabbed, why not put current residents first, and make the extra effort to rehab through current residents instead of actively seeking to change the makeup of a neighborhood to get rid of 'undesireables' whose only sin is not being associated with having a lot of money?

People who own their shit and are allowed to upgrade and keep up their shit are more likely to keep their shit up than people who are systematically denied assistance.

Keep the outside, remove the heart that made the outside what it was in the first place: how disney.

The outsiders usually have interest in bringing up the property value. The current residents aren't usually worried with such stuff and the city knows it.

Current residents don't qualify, as you say, to get the funds to bring up the property value the way a city apparently wants it to be brought up. Their very presence may be the 'decrease in property value', no matter how they work at keeping what they can up. Who was it who spoke of 'blockbusters', back at .net? and the real estate agents who use them? Well, instead of moving one blockbuster in, you have a neighborhood of blockbusters to move out.

If the residents had the money and the means to qualify for those grants and loans the city would care more about what the residents desire, right?

Prove them otherwise. If those whose rents are brought up are forced out, that's their economic burden. Other folks who stay can benefit from a better neighborhood with schools that have more money to spend on the kids.

People with money already can afford to spend on kids, no matter where they go. It's those who can't afford it who need the assistance.

You do say 'rents' however, instead of 'property'. That changes things. Why would a slumlord benefit from not caring about his or her (or their) property? Is it the renter's fault that the slumlord they're paying money to doesn't want to take advantage of those loans and grants that they (the slumlord) is presumed to be able to take advantage of?

Do renters have the same rights as property owners?

Kind of like

Absolutely nothing like.

Gentrification doesn't help everyone.

It isn't gentrification. Double-check your definition.[/quote]

Ingse Bodil wrote:Again, that's not shiftlessness. Not being able to borrow for a loan (or qualify for a grant) is not the same as not wanting the grant/loan in the first place.

If they wanted that, they should have lived their life in a manner which would lend itself to not being hounded by collection calls. Otherwise, I'm sure they could take the property and apply for the exact same loans. Question is, do they want to? Are they willing to follow the guidelines of the loans?

If the place needs to be rehabbed, why not put current residents first, and make the extra effort to rehab through current residents instead of actively seeking to change the makeup of a neighborhood to get rid of 'undesireables' whose only sin is not being associated with having a lot of money?

The person that puts forth the effort first is always the person that ends up with the prize. If the neighborhood puts forth the effort, it gets the prize. If someone beats them to the punch, the homes get bought out, rehabbed and rents are raised beyond their capabilities. "Neighborhood" is not often a legal term.

remove the heart that made the outside what it was in the first place: how disney.

Projection. "Neighborhood" sentiment ain't helping the tax base. When it comes to owning property, it is illegal to deny a person ownership on the basis of "neighborhood".

Current residents don't qualify, as you say, to get the funds to bring up the property value the way a city apparently wants it to be brought up. Their very presence may be the 'decrease in property value', no matter how they work at keeping what they can up.

Current residents shitting on the property are what led financial prospectors to the place initially.

Who was it who spoke of 'blockbusters', back at .net?

I could give a shit.

Well, instead of moving one blockbuster in, you have a neighborhood of blockbusters to move out.

Two separate things. See if you can separate race from every argument, Rev. Jesse.

It's those who can't afford it who need the assistance.

Poor people only need enough assistance to keep them from venturing into my higher class neighborhood and shooting my family. Keep them placated to the point where they don't riot for lack of anything to lose.

Why would a slumlord benefit from not caring about his or her (or their) property?

Don't know many slumlords, do ya?

Ingse Bodil wrote: Again, that's not shiftlessness. Not being able to borrow for a loan (or qualify for a grant) is not the same as not wanting the grant/loan in the first place. Adding an addition to one's home is life, and irrelevant. If the place needs to be rehabbed, why not put current residents first

It's my hope that maybe within my lifetime, Nogs will understand why we have problems with race relations in this country.

Reread what you wrote, tard.

You now want Whitey to pay you to let your house become run down.

Unfuckingbelievable. A fine bit of nogology if I've ever heard one.

"I haven't mowed my lawn in 4 years...you owe me, white man...'we' were slaves 140 years ago, you know."


"I didn't fix a $0.50 faucet washer 8 years ago, and now there's a hole in my floor. You owe me bigtime for that, White People. Oh, and btw-'we' were slaves 140 years ago."

"I was too busy watching Oprah and waiting on the mailman to either fix the leak in my roof OR teach my 14 kids not to shoot at people, which means that White People owe me money. 'We' were slaves 140 years ago, you know."


Nogology 101. Preach "equality" at least every 5 minutes, but whatever you do, you should NEVER actually believe in it, and make sure you follow all the "equality" rants with references to "our word."

back on the topic at hand

those are some scary looking boobies
hit them with a safety pin and ol' Pammy woould fly all over the room...


just saying


By the way...several years ago I saw Pamela and Tommy Lee out on Balboa Island...In real life she is one scary looking creature.

I always get a hard-on for intravenious drug users....no, really. Find yoursekf a junky, and you know it's some prime snatch, always.

Pam Anderson got used up fast. Wow...

Dinsdale wrote:prime snatch

redundant

Donder wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:prime snatch

redundant

RackX

quacker backer wrote:back on the topic at hand

those are some scary looking boobies
hit them with a safety pin and ol' Pammy woould fly all over the room...


just saying


By the way...several years ago I saw Pamela and Tommy Lee out on Balboa Island...In real life she is one scary looking creature.

i believe it. she's using her hair to hide her face, her extensions are a mess anyway, and that's way too much makeup.


That's so much makeup, her face has taken on a putty consistency. Redden her nose and she could be Rudolph. Give her some pearls, darken the mystic tan and add some hooves and she could be Clarisse.



I want the girl on the left back.

I don't. On the left is a girl. On the right is a woman, an exceptionally hot one.

pron wrote:I don't. On the left is a girl. On the right is a woman, an exceptionally hot one.

The girl on the left is real. She's sweet. You could just sweep her up and take her home. And she's got an awesome smile. The hair sucks, but everyone's hair sucked in the 80s. She's workable.

The piece of plastic on the right is not real. She's photoshopped (no amount of sticking her ass out behind her and thrusting her chest forward will give her the manipulated shape that's in that photo. To make matters more ludicrous, compare this manipulated shape with the manipulated shape that's in the photos which begin this thread. Unreal. And the worse part is that chick on the right would be too fat (!) for whoever touched up the first photos.

Horrible. Absolutely horrible. The chick on the right is not real. The chick in the photos which begin this thread are not real.

The young woman on the left, she's real. I miss her.

quacker backer wrote:By the way...several years ago I saw Pamela and Tommy Lee out on Balboa Island...In real life she is one scary looking creature.

I would have to think that Tommy would be the scarier looking of the two. By far.