Condo developers build separate entrances for lower income residents

Yeah, the "lower income" residents should have access to everything that the other residents have and pay less.

I'm sure the cheaper apartments are smaller and obviously they are less expensive. And as we all know, with apartments you get what you pay for. You can't expect a developer to offer all the top shelf amenities to the tenants who pay less in rent. It's simple ypu pay less, you get less. You can't expect to pay a fraction of the price and still get all those top shelf perks.
 
plansb said:
Yeah, the "lower income" residents should have access to everything that the other residents have and pay less.

I'm sure the cheaper apartments are smaller and obviously they are less expensive. And as we all know, with apartments you get what you pay for. You can't expect a developer to offer all the top shelf amenities to the tenants who pay less in rent. It's simple ypu pay less, you get less. You can't expect to pay a fraction of the price and still get all those top shelf perks.
Click to expand...
Well if that's the case then you can't expect to get tax credits to treat people as second class.
 
plansb said:
Yeah, the "lower income" residents should have access to everything that the other residents have and pay less.

I'm sure the cheaper apartments are smaller and obviously they are less expensive. And as we all know, with apartments you get what you pay for. You can't expect a developer to offer all the top shelf amenities to the tenants who pay less in rent. It's simple ypu pay less, you get less. You can't expect to pay a fraction of the price and still get all those top shelf perks.
Click to expand...

They aren't being offered the option to pay more to use these amenities though.
 
It's beyond pathetic that people feel the need to distance themselves from their fellow citizen because of their socioeconomic standing.

So the **** what if your premium New York river view loft is in the same building as low-income folk? Why can't you just park your 8-series in the parking lot, go the hell home, fire up that 72" flatscreen and sip on that $300 decanter of single-malt, thereby minding your own ******* business? Does it really burn your soul to share elevators, plumbing and air with those below your tax bracket?

If it were me, I'm pretty sure I'd be able to simply appreciate my much higher overall quality of life without going "eww, coupon-users, get them away from me." Like, come on.

It can't be that they're afraid of crime, noise, or filth as I'd imagine these public assistance folk are thoroughly screened, filtered, and maybe even power-washed beforehand plus if it's anything like the public housing I know of, their ***** will be out on the street with the first slip-up.

Besides, even coming to that conclusion makes a number of unsavory assumptions about the nature of the less fortunate.

Public officials actually allowed this to happen after the developer received public funds to help build it. How does this not fly directly in the face of the intent and spirit of a low-income housing subsidy?

...and people think classes don't officially exist in this country.
laugh.gif
 
Last edited:
Some people don't get it at all. You are a second class citizen. The developers have literally said this themselves. This is the issue the poor door raises and why people should be looking at this harder. Steezy should go back to eating his own product because outside of that you know zilch.
 
The "lower income" renters aren't even "poor" though. It's just a building with two different set ups for two different prices. There are the high end, expensive, high square footage ones and when you pay for one of them you get the big grand lobby, the nice pool, etc. etc. and then there are the more affordable units that are smaller with less amenities I.e., small lobby, maybe not a pool, etc etc. the affordable units are probably on the opposite side of the building anyways, I doubt the smaller apartments are scattered amongst the penthouses. This is basically two buildings in one building. One fancy. One more affordable.

I really don't see what the big deal is.
 
Section 8 is usually followed by the gradual decay of a neighborhood.

The majority of These poor people chose to get pregnant at an early age or dropped out of high school.

Political correctness will be the death of us all
 
Last edited:
Truth-Serum said:
Section 8 is usually followed by the gradual decay of a neighborhood.

The majority of These poor people chose to get pregnant at an early age or dropped out of high school.

Political correctness will be the death of us all
Click to expand...
This is definitely not true dude.

Lots of people go to college and end up with debt, so you aren't balling right out of college and it'll take a while to start stacking. There are a million other ways people end up poor, not just because of getting pregnant. Last I checked too, guys couldn't get pregnant and not all guys get chicks pregnant in HS.

This is just your idea. Not even a great one in my opinion.
 
At all places you have to pay more for more amenities. I can't believe you guys don't know that. To busy worried about how you look to others going through the back instead of making your self better
 
Condo v Plane, bad anology. Ones a permenant living situation the other is a service. Real property v property interest.


It's not about looks, it's the idea in America we don't have two classes of citizens, everyone who rightfully belongs in a building should be free to move about it. It's more akin to a hotel, but same problem real property v property interest.


Now condo v renter is different. Can't gather if that is the debate.
 
a55a5in11 said:
At all places you have to pay more for more amenities. I can't believe you guys don't know that. To busy worried about how you look to others going through the back instead of making your self better
Click to expand...
Yeah because someone paying $1800 for low income housing in NYC needs to make themselves better.
 
am1x90xnike said:
Condo v Plane, bad anology. Ones a permenant living situation the other is a service. Real property v property interest.


It's not about looks, it's the idea in America we don't have two classes of citizens, everyone who rightfully belongs in a building should be free to move about it. It's more akin to a hotel, but same problem real property v property interest.


Now condo v renter is different. Can't gather if that is the debate.
Click to expand...

It's not uncommon for hotels to have VIP entrances and check-ins. Also to have elevators where a VIP room key is needed to access certain floors
 
Stop with the piss poor analogies. These developers are taking tax breaks and government subsidies. If you don't want to treat the poor or less well off as equal then don't take the government money or tax breaks. Simple.
 
Fact of the matter is you guys sound dumb because nobody is forced to move into this building. Dudes no what the deal is when they sign up to live there. End of story. If you don't like the rules go live somewhere else
 
Dudes on here want everyone to be equal but the fact is, there's always going to be someone eating at the top and always going to be people at the bottom of the ladder.
 
Rell826 said:
Some people don't get it at all. You are a second class citizen. The developers have literally said this themselves. This is the issue the poor door raises and why people should be looking at this harder. Steezy should go back to eating his own product because outside of that you know zilch.
Click to expand...

Shhhh...

They can't hear you fam. It's not apart of their conditioning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

crumps brother
What’s your move? Ordering on fast food apps
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
wayniac211
wayniac211
therealest1
Puma x PlayStation
Replies
3
Views
370
therealest1
therealest1
verbal kint
Dressing Better on a Budget - Where are parents shopping for their stylish teens without dropping a bag?
Replies
0
Views
526
verbal kint
verbal kint
therealest1
Nike LeBron 22 - Monopoly slated for September 28, 2024
3 4 5
Replies
123
Views
15K
jacktown83
jacktown83
therealest1
Off-White Basketball Sneaker
Replies
1
Views
485
picasso swerve
picasso swerve

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom