Wednesday, November 05, 2014

You dance with who brought ya'

This headline and byline caught my eye yesterday

Why Middle-Class Americans Can't Afford to Live in Liberal Cities

Blue America has a problem: Even after adjusting for income, left-leaning metros tend to have worse income inequality and less affordable housing.

You can read the article here but let me give you the Cliff notes on the article.

This is what liberalism creates in our cities and it's probably not so much that middle income families can't afford to live there but that they won't.

Most middle class families want to live in class communities with decent schools, low crime and good employment opportunities; all things liberals won't deliver since it pinches all of their constituents.

So this is what you get.

On April 2, 2014, a protester in Oakland, California, mounted a Yahoo bus, climbed to the front of the roof, and vomited onto the top of the windshield.

If not the year's most persuasive act of dissent, it was certainly one of the most memorable demonstrations in the Bay Area, where residents have marched, blockaded, and retched in protest of San Francisco's economic inequality and unaffordable housing. The city's gaps—between rich and poor, between housing need and housing supply—have been duly catalogued. Even among American tech hubs, San Francisco stands alone with both the most expensive real estate and the fewest new construction permits per unit since 1990.

But San Francisco's problem is bigger than San Francisco. Across the country, rich, dense cities are struggling with affordable housing, to the considerable anguish of their middle class families.
Among the 100 largest U.S. metros, 63 percent of homes are "within reach" for a middle-class family, according to Trulia. But among the 20 richest U.S. metros, just 47 percent of homes are affordable, including a national low of 14 percent in San Francisco. The firm defined "within reach" as a for-sale home with a total monthly payment (including mortgage and taxes) less than 31 percent of the metro's median household income.

Who wants to deal with that shit?

I've said it before, San Fransisco spends millions upon millions of dollars on their homeless. My Redville enclave of Maineville OH doesn't spend a penny. Who has the homeless problem? 

Think of it in a retail marketing realm. If you want to increase sales of Mountain Dew to young people do you spend your resources advertising on TCM and Fox News or do you spend money on MTV and maybe an internet campaign?

Liberals want to go to dinner parties held by the uber rich while maintaining the facade of helping the poor. Is it any wonder that's what their cities look like?

Ask Maxine Waters

No comments: