wornoutnewark

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.

0

wornoutnewark t1_izj5gm7 wrote

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 ?

0

wornoutnewark t1_ixls6bx wrote

Generic post like this come of as both ignorant and lazy. What specifically are you wanting to learn? Crime is, for the most part localized. Even in the safest cities, there are neighborhoods where there is more crime. If your criteria for deciding whether or not to take up this internship is the avg crime rate; then the decision is done and this post redundant. Look elsewhere.

If however you want to know how safe you can expect to be, assuming you lived and worked here; start by providing information on where you will work, what hours, where do you plan to live, how do you plan to commute, age, gender, size, visible tattoos indicating gang affiliation and so on. Information that will actually help the members on this board give you intelligent and useful feedback.

PS> perhaps the mods can add a sticky with a list of standard information that is mandatory for posts like this.

16