Bush plans sharp cuts in HUD community efforts

[Kovanovich]

....We (the middle classes and above) want the benefits of a third world proletariate, then we certainly shouldn't complain when they set up camps next to our gated subdivsions, should we? Let the "free market" rule. Who cares about a few tenement fires and disease epidemics? We can somehow insulate ourselves in small enclaves, while getting them 99 cent pairs of blue jeans! We should also eliminate all border controls, because we need to impoverish our own working class. That'll bring back American manufacturing once our workers are payed Haitian level wages!!!

Now, now..that's more than 60 rants a minute Anyway, it's interesting that, all of a sudden, conservatives find government spending, so long as it is spent in Iraq, to be completely acceptable, even patriotic. But if spent in this country it is invariably waste....If you want to find real government waste, look to (for instance) the endless sprawl of Northern Virginia (and elsewhere), where the defense contractors are located in their gleaming office parks. At least they won't have to worry about the gravy train being brought to an end, if that's any comfort to you...Anyway, it was made perfectly clear during the campaign what would happen if the Republicans won, so we should hardly be surprised by any of this. The 2004 election was, after all, consequential...That's why both sides spent umpteen zillion dollars on it. It's hard to imagine how our cities could be worse off than they are (I have just returned from a trip home to Ohio), but we seem bound and determined to find out.

[jtmnkri]

Low-income housing, income support, economic development, and similar programs should be funded and managed at the state level. So I am fine with a smaller federal role. Why can't the states simply fund and manage the programs?

[OfficialPlanner]

Low-income housing, income support, economic development, and similar programs should be funded and managed at the state level. So I am fine with a smaller federal role. Why can't the states simply fund and manage the programs?

So what happens to the people directly affected by the HUD cuts? Do they now die in the streets or move on to more affordable housing options in other cities?

[Mr. Sturm]

That's not the real option "we" are being given though. The option chosen byt the scary nutcases in power is to dump billions to create "democracy" in a quagmre descending into utter chaos.

Or billions on a "missile defense" system that has never shown any progress at all towards even hitting a target emitting the electronic equivalent of "here I am hit me right here"-let alone real weaponry or a nuclear bomb carried in a suitcase.

Or doing sole source contracting. Now, even if Haliburton is "the best" at what they do (arguable, but let's grant that for the sake of this argument), even pro-Cheney people have to admit that the administration of these contracts has been laughably lax. Oh.... our Vice President's profits from the Big H are bing funelled into a trust fund, but we can still trust him, right?

This country wastes so much money on so many foolish military things that I find utterly laughable the idea that HUD is somehow the big part of our deficit. You wanna cut pork, let's be honest where the pork is.

I have been lurking here for a couple days and you're probably my favorite member so far, partially due to your excellent taste in music.

All of this almost makes you think the obscenely lopsided national debt creation by the Republican party has been intentional, in order to destroy social spending under the guise of "balancing the budget." Ah, it's probably just an added bonus of sucking in massive amounts of public funds to annihilate third world nations and then rebuild them using those public funds for private profit in the reconstructive efforts. As if that in itself wasn't reward enough!

But it's OK, screw everything else, we're going to Mars! At least this way our public funds can go into the research for technological breakthroughs that we can later buy from the corporations that the government hands the technology over to. If we're going to be "double taxed" we might as well get cool stuff like computers out of the deal. Well, the military is the same idea, so hey, things are looking fantastic right now!

[Cardinal]

I received this today and I don't think the International Economic Development Council will mind my posting it here - it is a good example of the value they provide as an organization.


Major Cuts in Economic Development Funding
Proposed in New Federal Budget


On February 3, 2005, Dr. David Sampson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development (EDA), announced proposed changes to federal economic and community development programs. As part of his 2006 budget proposal to Congress, President Bush’s Strengthening America's Communities Initiative would substantially prune and consolidate eighteen existing community and economic development programs into one $3.71 billion unified grant-making program administered by the Commerce Department.

In a conference call with national leaders last week, Dr. Sampson indicated the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviewed federal economic development programs and found many did not “sufficiently demonstrate their measurable impact on economic and community development.” The goals of this new proposal are to simplify access to economic development funding, set consistent eligibility criteria, and establish better accountability standards.

Among the programs the White House proposes to consolidate, HUD’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is the largest (view the list of programs). In FY 2005, CDBG received $4.1 billion. If the Administration’s funding level of $3.71 billion is adopted by Congress, CDBG allocations would decrease substantially. According to Dr. Sampson, during the weeks ahead, more information will become available on the Commerce Department Web site.

Though the President’s budget is only the first step in a long process, this proposal, if enacted, would significantly change federal economic development policy, programs and funding. IEDC will closely monitor this proposed legislation and alert you to its progress.

Dr. Sampson will provide more information on this initiative at IEDC’s Economic Development Summit, March 14 -16 in Washington, D.C. Please visit us online to register.

[el Guapo]

In 2003, the housing wage in Massachusetts was $22.40 to afford a two-bedroom unit paying no more than 30% of your income. A person earning the State's minimum wage of $6.75 an hour cannot afford an apartment if they work 100 hours a week!!! Now think about a single mother that needs daycare!!! There is a major crises here. Working people are going homeless!!!

Then do what I did and move. How about funding the department of Moving Vans? I'll bet you somewhere some idiot law student is trying to prove that you have Constitutional right to live in a place you can't afford.

[michaelskis]

Now I am worried. Although I know that I support many of the president’s decisions, this one does not sit well with me. If it does get eliminated, there is good chance, that I am going to have to justify as to why I should not get laid off.

*namely there is another position in the office that was created, and fully funded by CDBG, but the project got dropped, so they split the funding between three people (1/3) each, to justify keeping the money. The person who has that job said that they are only doing this till they finish their book, and then they are gone. They have no experience in planning or GIS. Needless to say, one of three things will happen, I won’t have to worry about it, I will have to fight for my job, or I will deliver pizza’s, do construction, and load UPS trucks, and search like a man person for a new job.

Lets hope that it is number 1.

[Bear Up North]

Too early in this ball game for this Bear to finalize an opinion. Living with a somewhat Libertarian head attached to this ole' body my first impulse is to applaud what appears to be "consolidation".

That's a key word in the business world today. If my company and your company are making similar products, and just making ends-meet (in a world economy), why not consolidate our efforts? Sure, that means a stack of people get canned, such as the multiple HR folks, multiple engineers, multiple whatevers. A layer or two (2) of people go away, reducing costs. Hard fact but it works. (And that, my friends, is one of the reasons that productivity in this here country continues to climb.)

Applying this to planners or HUD admin folks or whatevers makes sense, on the surface.

But, shedding the Libertarian coat, in the "long run", is more effective planning going to provide better numbers? If a downtown planner and a suburban planner are working on separate projects will the elimination of one (1) of them ultimately serve the people?

Next point: My company pays low wages to those who are just starting. A fork lift driver in the warehouse, using very-sophisticated narrow-aisle radio-controlled technology (not your daddy's fork lift!), is going to start around $9.50. If he/she is there for about a dozen years he/she will be over $12. Not a lot of money in this day and age.

Our company knows where we stand in the area.....much lower than many. We have made our decision, based on our cost needs, and we stick to it. (We do have a very nice benefit package.....although many of our newer employees see no need for these things.....they want more bucks.) Every employee at my company knows.....we make it clear.....that we are what we are. If they want to make more, go for it. Many do. Many leave and, trying out less-friendly but better-paying workplaces, try to come back.

The Toledo area has some of the lowest-cost housing, so our low pay scales are a better fit than a place like Boston or DC.

Finally, as others have hinted at in this thread, don't fret quite yet. Budgets were made to be changed. Protect your pork, so to speak, whether you are white, black, blue, red, lesbian, or gay.

(BTW.....I noticed significant Amtrak cuts on the proposed budget. This certainly affects the poor, also.)

Bear With A Red Pencil

[boiker]

If it goes through as listed, our code enforcement division will be decimated. All of our code enforcement officers are paid for by the CDBG funds. Half our department work in mod/low income areas and are 50% paid for by CDBG. Thankfully, mine is not. But that doesn' t mean that much of the burden may get shifted.

The Amtrack cuts are scarey. He's asking for a total elimination of the subsidy.

[Cardinal]

It seems to me that Doubya does not understand that there are many people who think the current economy is a good one. But Bush does not speak with these people. Insteado of looking for ways to improve our economy, he wants to cut the safety nets and the initiatives that grow economic opportunity.

CDBG is a very broad program. Its funding is used to construct municipal infrastructure, to fund economic development, to provide affordable housing, and generally fund other programs aimed at low and moderate income people. Currently funded at $4.1 billion, it is proposed to be lumped with dozens of other programs used to promote economic development, all of which will receive a total of $3.71 billion in funding. Many of the programs supporting economic development, housing, brownfield redevelopment, and similar activities will no longer exist. If you happen to be rich or live in a rich community (i.e., suburb) you may not notice. If you live in a city, you will.

[NHPlanner]

Then do what I did and move. How about funding the department of Moving Vans? I'll be you somewhere some idiot law student is trying to prove that you have Constitutional right to live in a place you can't afford.

Then they should move to Tennessee or Kansas. Life is full of choices, these people are the victims of their choices. Period.

You and Chet are definitely drinking the same Kool-Aid on this issue.

I'm sorry.....if retail and small service oriented development is something we want in communities, we need to be able to provide affordable housing. Period. Whatever part of the country.

[Rumpy Tunanator]

Then do what I did and move. How about funding the department of Moving Vans? I'll be you somewhere some idiot law student is trying to prove that you have Constitutional right to live in a place you can't afford.

Then who is going to sweep and mop the floors, clean the dishes, or flip the burgers?

[New2daGame]

You and Chet are definitely drinking the same Kool-Aid on this issue.

I'm sorry.....if retail and small service oriented development is something we want in communities, we need to be able to provide affordable housing. Period. Whatever part of the country.

Exactly! Some people just don't get it.

[iamme]

Then who is going to sweep and mop the floors, clean the dishes, or flip the burgers?

Immigrants silly, the kind that will be welcomed with Bush's guest worker program.

[jtmnkri]

So what happens to the people directly affected by the HUD cuts? Do they now die in the streets or move on to more affordable housing options in other cities?

President Bush has increased federal homelessness funding every year, a record 4 years running! Moreover, the group coordinating federal agencies' homelessness plan was dissolved by Clintion in 1994 only to be reorganized by Bush. Homelessness is a problem that should be addressed locally, not at the national level. Plus, more money doesn't automatically reduce homelessness - despite San Francisco's generous funding the city's homelessness problem has grown worse. However, I am for a housing safety net. I don't like Section 8 cuts.

[JNA]

Article from the AP Wire:

Bush Community Development Plan Criticized
By Genaro C. Armas, February 8, 2005, 10:24 PM EST

Highlight:
"The mayors group(U.S. Conference of Mayors), along with the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and several business organizations, urged Bush to leave the block grant program untouched."

With these groups lined up against it are they strong enough to change the vote on the budget?

[el Guapo]

Back to the Federal Moving Van Administration. I'm living where I am now because the place where I got 4 job offers (60 miles away from here) has a significantly higher priced housing stock. I looked around and found my max income, good quality of life, and medium priced housing I could afford. I didn't sit in the poverty I once had to contend with in my life. I didn't say, "I coulda gone to college." Instead, I made sacrifices; I worked hard, I DEFERED GRATIFICATION. I made a choice just like "economic man" that some of you might have heard mentioned in college Econ 101.

So, when I see one of my high school classmates who was just as smart as I was, who was exposed to opportunities to go to college, enlist in the military, or learn a trade, and this guy is stocking the vegetable bin at Wal-Mart, has seven kids with 3 “old ladies” and is paying 60% of his income to in child support I don’t think, “gosh I wish there was a government housing program for his families.” I think, “that dude made some bad decisions. I hope the democrats don’t win the next election because they will take my money under the threat of violence (IRS) to give about half of it to him. The other half of my extorted money will go to some government worker that services him and votes democratic because they have a vested interest in seeing these extraction/extortion programs continue.”

Meanwhile that dude spent his 20’s partying and having a good time. I spent my 20’s in Basic Training, AIT, a war, and 7 years of college. I mortgaged my life to pay for college. When my “old lady” went nuts I raised my offspring myself and made sacrifices and taught my values while my next door neighbors partied and their kids lost their teeth in fights, and on the diet the parents provided. When my kid needed medical care I paid the hospital cash because I didn’t have health insurance and even though we qualified I didn’t go on the Dole. I saw my neighbors live an easy life with money coming in from the government and they crapped up their things and would have crapped up mine if I allowed it. They acted poor.

I spent my 20’s pissing in a cup for Uncle Sam to prove I was worthy of the job. I spent my 20’s watching were I spread my seed because, even though I wanted more kids, I knew I couldn’t afford them. He spent his 20’s humping any thing that would pass out and enjoying a nice blunt on weekends. Some of his women got pregnant and some of his employers fired him for failing a piss test. I spent my 30’s working my way up the chain and putting in non-compensated hours so that I could rise in my chosen filed. He did his forty hours and went home and did his own thing. I did my forty, then some more, was on call on weekends and evenings and acted responsibly. I studied for the AICP on my own time. I didn’t bounce checks, punch out my neighbor, buy a bass boat, go to Las Vegas, or call in sick when the fishing was good. Sorry, I don’t feel sorry for him. He chose his life. I chose mine.

Back to the static poor. You don't have a RIGHT to live in Aspen or Lower Manhattan. If you are an employer and you want to run a Dominos Pizza in Aspen or Lower Manhattan you need to pay a wage that attracts people who cannot afford to live where they work into your shop. Thus, you end up charging the people in Aspen or Lower Manhattan more for their pizza pie. This is the freaking' Circle of Life our friends at Disney have mentioned in film.

Now, quite the opposite is true. If you are living in Tribune Kansas and the only place that is hiring is the Tribune Coop Grain Elevator and their jobs are very Hobbsean in nature (Nasty, brutish and short) and they pay minimum wage then you might consider immigrating to Garden City, Dodge or Liberal where you can find work. If you are real ambitious you might even go to college and move to Wichita. Heck, there really is nothing keeping you from going to Harvard if you want it bad enough. But you are not going to be able to rent a house in these new towns for $200 a month like you can in Tribune. Hopefully your public school education granted you the ability to look at these factors and make the decision that is right for you.

Thus, let me state for all to hear once more: Life's a bitch. Life isn’t fair. Some people are born rich through no fault of their own. Some are born poor. Some are born black and some white. We all start from different places. It’s a changing economic landscape. No one is guaranteed anything. (Well, except for Social Security and my people are working on screwing old people out of it and diverting those funds to Halliburton as we speak. ) Got it?

Ultimately it comes down to this, if you are 18 years old, have average intelligence, don't have any one of the 10,000 medical syndromes which makes you unable to support yourself, and you don't have a place to live it is your own damn fault. It is not something we need to cry and whine about. I've been poor. I've been middle class. I've hung out with the poor. They suck. I don't recommend their company at all. Here's the one that’s really going to hurt. 90% of the American poor are poor by choice. That is because of a series of bad decisions.

el "Ronald Wilson Reagan" Guapo

PS – Just got back from India a few weeks ago. Calcutta to be exact. It has a reputation for poverty. I saw poverty, but I was far impressed by the fact that it was the most capitalistic experience in my life. Everyone there was hustling and providing outstanding customer service. Everyone was working and people, not the government, were taking care of the poor. And boy did they have a “poor” problem. We’ll they’ve reduced the numbers and percentages of their poor far more quickly than we have. The Great Society has produced a permanent underclass in the land of milk and honey. In India, everyone I saw except those gubament bureaucrats that had a job for life, were working at something. Their government workers were just as slothful as the lady I met in the Washington DC office of HUD. She had a job for life and it showed. I’m fairly sure this whole capitalism thing is working. Let’s help the “deserving” poor and face the fact that some folks need a little tough economics lesson to motivate them to succeed.

America: Home of the richest poor in the world. The poor also have a hell of a Political Action Committee. Its called the Democratic party, which has an vested interest in keeping the poor poor. Talk about your vicious circle of life.

[Man With a Plan]

These cuts are not only an attack on working class people; they are an attack on the planning profession!!! I would like to write my elected officials urging them not to approve this attack. Does anyone have any advice? I have never authored a letter urging an elected official to vote a certain way. Also, I would like to write to newspapers urging officials and residents to prevent this possible tragedy. Every day we work hard to improve our communities. Any damage to our profession would have unthinkable impacts on our quality of life.

Article from the AP Wire:

Bush Community Development Plan Criticized
By Genaro C. Armas, February 8, 2005, 10:24 PM EST

Highlight:
"The mayors group(U.S. Conference of Mayors), along with the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and several business organizations, urged Bush to leave the block grant program untouched."

With these groups lined up against it are they strong enough to change the vote on the budget?

[Rumpy Tunanator]

Back to the static poor. You don't have a RIGHT to live in Aspen or Lower Manhattan. If you are an employer and you want to run a Dominos Pizza in Aspen or Lower Manhattan you need to pay a wage that attracts people who cannot afford to live where they work into your shop. Thus, you end up charging the people in Aspen or Lower Manhattan more for their pizza pie. This is the freaking' Circle of Life our friends at Disney have mentioned in film.

Should we then buy everybody a one-way ticket to Kansas?

[el Guapo]

Should we then buy everybody a one-way ticket to Kansas?

If they speak Spanish the curent federal policy is already a clear yes. And do I blame them, No.

[iamme]

[QUOTE=el Guapo]
Ultimately it comes down to this, if you are 18 years old, have average intelligence, don't have any one of the 10,000 medical syndromes which makes you unable to support yourself, and you don't have a place to live it is your own damn fault. It is not something we need to cry and whine about. I've been poor. I've been middle class. I've hung out with the poor. They suck. I don't recommend their company at all. Here's the one that’s really going to hurt. 90% of the American poor are poor by choice. That is because of a series of bad decisions.

el "Ronald Wilson Reagan" Guapo
[QUOTE=el Guapo]

I agree, because everyone across the land who is on the dole for public housing is but 18 years old, with a strong back, and is content with their lot.

PS – Just got back from India a few weeks ago. Calcutta to be exact. It has a reputation for poverty. I saw poverty, but I was far impressed by the fact that it was the most capitalistic experience in my life. Everyone there was hustling and providing outstanding customer service. Everyone was working and people, not the government, were taking care of the poor. And boy did they have a “poor” problem. We’ll they’ve reduced the numbers and percentages of their poor far more quickly than we have. The Great Society has produced a permanent underclass in the land of milk and honey. In India, everyone I saw except those gubament bureaucrats that had a job for life, were working at something. Their government workers were just as slothful as the lady I met in the Washington DC office of HUD. She had a job for life and it showed. I’m fairly sure this whole capitalism thing is working. Let’s help the “deserving” poor and face the fact that some folks need a little tough economics lesson to motivate them to succeed.

As far as reducing poverty, it's like if you're severly obese and you finally get serious about losing weight. The first fifty pounds flies off, it's every pound after that you have to work for.

[Seabishop]

Back to the Federal Moving Van Administration. I'm living where I am now because the place where I got 4 job offers (60 miles away from here) has a significantly higher priced housing stock. I looked around and found my max income, good quality of life, and medium priced housing I could afford. I didn't sit in the poverty I once had to contend with in my life. I didn't say, "I coulda gone to college." Instead, I made sacrifices; I worked hard, I DEFERED GRATIFICATION. I made a choice just like "economic man" that some of you might have heard mentioned in college Econ 101. . . .

[/b]

Well, I can't respond to everything, but. . .

Most sane people are frustrated by people who insist on making stupid decisions and remaining in the gutter - God knows I know lots of them. But aren't liberals supposed to be the "elitist" ones thumbing their noses at the poor? What about the people with genuine need? They're not all welfare queens, drunken rednecks, and other stereotypes.

Our cities are places where immigrants come for a better life. To them living in the Bronx IS a smart decision compared to the 3rd world countries they came from. Everyone thinks their own grandparents were a model of entreprenureal know-how but current immigrants lazily wash ashore for the dole. Ethnic neighborhoods and family ties were charming in hindsight, but now people think "why do all those Puerto Ricans live together?"

I personally don't care about the effect on employment in the planning or community development field as much as the effects on the constituents. In an ideal world there wouldn't be much of a need for social workers or community development people.

As far a moving - there are reasons why small town Kansas is cheaper than Boston or NYC. . .jobs being the main one. What good would it do for the poor to flock to areas without jobs and housing to support them? Poor people have actual family values too and can't just leave grandma in her paid off home, while they chase affordable rent in Idaho. And yes, there is a real affordable housing problem when only the wealthy can afford market rate homes. I don't want to see government become a permanent solution, but something's got to be done.

As far as India, I'd like to see policies that promote more small businesses and less reliance on the government too because I am a bit of a conservative at heart, but I've been getting the feeling that the White House has been looking a little too fondly at 3rd world ecomonic models. If the government had some idea of how the working class would be helped through charity rather than government I'd be all for it but no such luck. I don't see how the working poor can't see most of these cuts as a big F-you by the president.

In short, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Despite all that, I'd still vote for you if you ran for office.

[michaelskis]

90% of the American poor are poor by choice. That is because of a series of bad decisions.

I don’t think that they are poor by choice, or the choices that they made. It is because of the choices that they didn’t make. I agree with just about everything that you said above, but I don’t agree with one aspect of this consolidation, the cutting of funding for cities for development and operations. True, my City is better off than most, but there is still the risk of job cuts if this funding is eliminated. There will on the other hand be increased funding for home ownership for low/mod residents and first time buyers. But that is part of the problem.

Most of the poor people I know are lazy and scared. THERE… I FINALLY SAID IT. They want more than they can afford, but they don’t want to work for it. Dave Ramsey has said several times that there is a great place to go when you’re broke. TO WORK. There are always jobs available loading UPS trucks, delivering pizzas, or a multitude of other things to do while taking classes or learning to do what you want to. What gets me is some of these people who get government funding for a new house, are driving a car much nicer than mine, and living in a place much nicer than mine, but I don’t qualify. Maybe these people should buckle down, sell the 2005 Ford f-250, and buy a $1,000 beater, sell the house that is out of their price range, and move into an apartment, and work 3 jobs to get out of debt, save up an emergency fund, then go to school, and pay cash for that. Then get a job, and start buying things again, but with cash. NO credit cards, no loans, that way if they do get laid off, it does not matter too much.

But people need to live within their means.

I am only worried about if I get laid of, it will put my progress to where I want to be on hold a little bit, or it will jump start my progress. Either way, I will be better than just ok.

[Man With a Plan]

When I stated that these cuts are an attack on our profession, I meant that the quality of life for all Americans was at risk- not just planners lol.

These cuts are not only an attack on working class people; they are an attack on the planning profession!!! Any damage to our profession would have unthinkable impacts on our quality of life.

[boilerplater]

This is one area where I think the country could be doing a better job and on many points I actually agree with E G. Its interesting to see what has inluenced his beliefs regarding it. I too have known people like that and cringed at how I was economizing trying to stay healthy so I can work, and deferring gratification while they spend carelessly and develop bad habits that effect their health. I lived in a cheap apartment in a very un-hip area and had few local friends. But I was able to save up enough to qualify for a mortgage. The permanent underclass is indeed a problem. The system does need to be fixed to provide incentives to get out of the system.

That being said, I wish HUD had some kind of "excellence in design" program like the GSA does for gov't buildings. Maybe they do, I'm not one to know. But most public housing I see being built now still leaves me uninspired. Its not Pruitt-Igoe or Cabrini Green, but they still look sterile and cheap. Yeah, I know, by definition it is supposed to be cheap, but its depressing to see so many places that look that way, uglifying our cities. I wish they had more economic incentives for the private sector to innovate and produce better housing. So much of what is built now is just not meant to last. Will there be even more of a housing shortage in the future as the homes of the late 20th century fall into disrepair?