Quote:
Originally Posted by zrx299
That's picking winners and losers. Why do 25 "special" people out of 400 (for example) get subsidized rent while everyone else must pay full market rate? Who gets to decide these "winners"? What happens when the recipients of free/subsidized rent turn down opportunities to advance themselves because they will lose their housing benefits by now being over the "low income" threshold?
If the counter point is that those people are just simply "low income", then why are they low income? What obstacles need to be removed for them to better themselves? Just coasting through life largely free of responsibilities, expecting cheap housing and things to be given to you is the fantasyland of Millennials and hippies.
|
Cool. I'll let you talk to the mother of my little from Big Brothers Big Sisters who works two jobs to support her kids and you can tell her about fantastyland for millennials as she has to drive an extra 90 minutes round trip to work because they got priced out and had to move to Manor.
Low income isn't a disease and laziness is not the cause of it in the vast majority of cases. I grew up in a trailer park, and I promise the people who live there work every bit as hard as the people who live in Zilker.
There are people who for myriad reasons make less money. Some are personal, some are societal. And given that you are unlikely to solve "being poor" in an individuals lifetime it seems that the richest society in the history of Earth can probably afford to subsidize the rent to ensure that cities can support people of all socioeconomic status.