wornoutnewark t1_izj5gm7 wrote
Reply to comment by Rainbowrobb in Application to Tear Down Century-Old Ironbound Row House for 11-Story Tower to Be Heard | Jersey Digs by calambre10
Another bad faith attack. If I am wrong tell me how I am wrong. You don’t!
The article you linked says that the building getting the abatement has mandated affordable units in them. You hide behind jargon; no idea what rubber stamping has to do with the crux of the original question.
How is an abatement given to a building that is mandated to take a loss of revenue by renting units below market not a subsidy?
How is a developers decision not to build in the north side NIMBY?
The only NIMBY I see here is you not wanting developers to build in the ironbound because you don’t want “hipsters” and “people who won’t cross McCarter highway” to live here.
Explain to me how the argument that to preserve its “uniqueness” the Ironbound, certain people should not be allowed or encouraged to live here differs from the argument made in the 60’s by segregationist who wanted to keep black peoples form moving into their suburban neighborhoods ?
Rainbowrobb t1_izkya8d wrote
I'm not hiding behind jargon lol. They stated there was a 20% requirement and I showed waivers are issued so not even half that number are always required. You're lack of understanding when Google is at your fingertips is not cause for me to break everything down to a Crayola level of understanding. I do that for the younger Newarkers, but I won't spend the energy for keyboard warriors without the motivation to gain the knowledge that's freely available.
There has been a lot of developing in the Ironbound and almost none in the North Ward, even though several houses continue to add blight and at least one has been vacant for nearly a decade. Plenty of space on their larger lots with access to public amenities. And the idea that I'm playing some NIMBY role is preposterous. I don't see a benefit to catering to upper middle class transplants who only want to use our comparably cheaper housing while they expect the sanitizing of their surroundings. New shiny buildings ≠ progress.
You're attempting you bring race into a conversation when my main motivating factor is to provide housing for those who are already here. I believe it is more important than trying to accommodate new residents in address-only.
I've actually gone to city meetings over the years with tenants united to fight for protections for current residents of Newark. If you had, you'd have known all I've said is accurate. Let alone my time in 2017-2019 with the Census Bureau walking nearly every street and talking to people all over this amazing city about how they live their lives. The obsession with wanting to be the next Jersey City, current residents be damned is tiring.
wornoutnewark t1_izl4jol wrote
Hahaha… this is hilarious. Just because you found something on google does not make it proof of anything. In the same way working as a census taker does not make you statistician.
You keep skirting around the fundamental question. Did the developments granted abatements give up units to the affordable housing mandate. Does not matter if it is 1% or 20%. If the mandate applies then the abatement is a subsidy. Pure and simple.
This is a free country, no one can force a developer to build where they don’t want to. In the same way no one can force you to live where you don’t want to. How are you not able to understand this? Why don’t you google it and try and find out how many development are ongoing in the North Ward. If you did you will know that there are plenty of developments in flight. Not high rise because zoning won’t allow it but plenty none the less. This argument is so inane that it boggles the mind that an adult would make it.
While you are on google look up what NIMBY means.🤣. You are the poster child for it. Demanding that developers build somewhere else is the definition of NIMBY according to google.
By your own admission you oppose the building of housing in your neighborhood solely on the basis of who might move in. That is pure bigotry. Which google defines as a hatred of people based on their membership of a particular group; in this case people who are upper middle class. It’s disturbing that you say it so plainly in your responses.
You clearly don’t understand the point I am making about race. I will break it down for you. In he 60’s racist in the suburbs used your precise arguments to justify making laws that made it impossible for blacks to buy property in the suburbs. The argument goes like this; allowing blacks to move into our neighborhoods will change the “character” of out communities therefore we need laws to keep them from moving in. Your argument essentially replaces the word black with the words white/ middle class.
Rainbowrobb t1_izl5rja wrote
I have never lived in the Ironbound. I've only lived in the North Ward, exactly where I've said I wanted more development. If you bothered to read what I typed, you'd know that. Everything you typed is therefore moot.
I also never claimed to be a statistician. I have an mpa and have worked at a NPO downtown for years. Keep beating the shit out of those straw men though 🤣🤣🤣. I hope you win.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments