Jump to content

St. Paul's Quadrant (Phase 2-Under Construction)


Aughie

Recommended Posts

Is this fair to others that work hard for a living and pay their taxes? Probably not, but everyone should know the world isnt fair because if it were, we would live in a socialism world where no one made more or less than anyone else and we all had the same things available to us all...now that would be fair....but that isnt our world, now is it.

Having a "world where no one made more or less than anyone else and we all had the same things available to us all" is not fair at all, because not everyone puts forth the same effort, yet they all make the same. That is the major drawback of socialism - it rewards laziness and penalizes initiative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I work with a guy who's in Tidewater Gardens everyday visiting his son and his baby's mother. In his opinion: "tear it all down and build condos"

I was surprised to see such lack of empathy, but in his mind the welfare folks are simply going to school the city if they allocate living arrangements for them in SPQ. Now, I can see his frustration...he says all he sees is drugs and violence. But the demographic can be split up into segments. There's a nonprofit organization (For Kids) which remodeled an old tenament on 38th street in order to reunite poor mothers with their children in foster care. This is one demographic which is currently served by welfare.

Their are others like elderly folks, single working mothers, blue-collar night workers, students, and yes drug dealers and killers. The best thing to do in my mind... is to decentralize the whole project. Take the demographics which have been good/obedient and allow them housing vouchers in the new SPQ. The others will be spread throughout the city. If they have prior convictions set them up in poorer neighborhoods as far away from schools as possible...b/c anywhere else would be political suicide. But they must be scattered, and most importantly create a zero tolerance policy, if they are convicted again they will be cut off completely and left to fend for themselves. I'm talking about criminals here, not the elderly or hard working public housing folks. They should not be treated the same or with special care. In other words, if they are abusing the system...they should see a day coming where the benefits will be ending. Feel free to call me an insensitive freak, but I don't think this is too extreme or unreasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a "world where no one made more or less than anyone else and we all had the same things available to us all" is not fair at all, because not everyone puts forth the same effort, yet they all make the same. That is the major drawback of socialism - it rewards laziness and penalizes initiative.

Actually to get further into a true socialist idea, there would have to be an obligation on everyone's part to contribute to the system equally so that they all will be getting their equal part of the system...but we are really getting into a fictional philosophy with this...though I always get a kick out of thinking about it and reading science fiction books that touch on things like this.

I work with a guy who's in Tidewater Gardens everyday visiting his son and his baby's mother. In his opinion: "tear it all down and build condos"

I was surprised to see such lack of empathy, but in his mind the welfare folks are simply going to school the city if they allocate living arrangements for them in SPQ. Now, I can see his frustration...he says all he sees is drugs and violence. But the demographic can be split up into segments. There's a nonprofit organization (For Kids) which remodeled an old tenament on 38th street in order to reunite poor mothers with their children in foster care. This is one demographic which is currently served by welfare.

Their are others like elderly folks, single working mothers, blue-collar night workers, students, and yes drug dealers and killers. The best thing to do in my mind... is to decentralize the whole project. Take the demographics which have been good/obedient and allow them housing vouchers in the new SPQ. The others will be spread throughout the city. If they have prior convictions set them up in poorer neighborhoods as far away from schools as possible...b/c anywhere else would be political suicide. But they must be scattered, and most importantly create a zero tolerance policy, if they are convicted again they will be cut off completely and left to fend for themselves. I'm talking about criminals here, not the elderly or hard working public housing folks. They should not be treated the same or with special care. In other words, if they are abusing the system...they should see a day coming where the benefits will be ending. Feel free to call me an insensitive freak, but I don't think this is too extreme or unreasonable.

I would say you were being far from insensitive with this kind of thinking...as I pointed out that low income house is a social service which like any service there should be rules and regulations that come with it that do not really apply to other forms of life. When you look at it that way, it should make more sense on why this should be apart of SPQ. You pointed out there is a huge mix of people that classify as low income, and they should not be grouped together as one. It is important to think of them as what they are, individual people. Thus if one is in need of government aid, then they should play by the rules that are given to them, but with this kind of renovation, they would get a reward out of it by living in a community that is an improvement on their personal condition and creates a healthy environment for them to take pride in themselves and to strive for better things in their life while weeding out those who break the rules.

Edited by urbanlife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a "world where no one made more or less than anyone else and we all had the same things available to us all" is not fair at all, because not everyone puts forth the same effort, yet they all make the same. That is the major drawback of socialism - it rewards laziness and penalizes initiative.

Exactly! I'm in a union and see lazy worthless people making way too much money for what they put in!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...

The public housing issue is one I've been meaning to really explore more for months, but haven't really the time, but I will say that I agree with you on VaRider about getting rid of Tidewater Gardens all together. It's a chokehold on the future urban development in Downtown Norfolk. I briefly just refreshed my memory on the SPQ Vision on Norfolk's web site and was quite impressed.

The city website says that a scheduled meeting is supposed to take place on Dec. 3 (this Thursday) for SPQ. Anyone heard any updates on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

So, the first week of March is over and we still haven't heard anything about the SPQ.

The last of the so-called meetings was supposedly March 4th.

I'm just anxious because this is the most important piece of land and I feel it needs to be used as wisely and as urban as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So, the first week of March is over and we still haven't heard anything about the SPQ.

The last of the so-called meetings was supposedly March 4th.

I'm just anxious because this is the most important piece of land and I feel it needs to be used as wisely and as urban as possible.

I thought this was officially on the back burner with the recession and all. Actually, I prefer it to be, making actions towards that now will just reflect the amount of money and vision available, so just do not do anything with it right now. We do not need another half venture and missed opportunity. NHRA should take this time to revisit some of their policies they have surrounding their projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

The article basically sounds like the city has received some money to help figure out how to raise more money to make this a reality and that we won't hear back from that until sometime this summer. From the sounds of it, there probably won't be any major moves forward until the city sells the parking lot that they own along St Paul to a private developer that actually builds something in line with their master plan. So from this, my guess would be there will be no real news on this until early Fall, the sale of the parking lot probably won't happen until next Spring or Summer if the economy starts turning around, which then it would probably sit a parking lot for another year as planning and designing happens, then there will be a period of 2-5 years worth of construction on that parking lot, and during that 2-5 years the city will probably begin construction on new projects within St Paul Quadrant to start making that a reality.

So we are looking at a 3-10 year timeline more than likely before seeing any real happening in St Paul Quadrant. That doesn't include any competition that VaBeach might bring with any future expansions to their downtown which will also probably be growing during that same time period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you conduct a survey about what to do with Waterside, and specifically ask for the public's input. You get more than 3,000 responses suggesting you what you should do, and you say you need more time?!

http://hamptonroads....-plan-waterside

Sorry...wrong thread. Will post this in the appropriate one. ;-)

Edited by BFG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ When the majority of them just sit around and collect welfare money without even TRYING to get a job and use that money on marijuana, crack, and 24 inch rims, then yes, I consider them cockroaches.

Well that is a generalization of people, and I doubt you know the life story of anyone that lives in these projects. Which wouldn't kill you to do a little bit of real research before deeming a person to be a cockroach. For starters, how do you know that the majority just sit around and collect welfare without trying to get a job? How do you know many of them don't have a job? Also is there an issue with working and welfare, could it be that if they were making over a certain amount of money that they would have to move out, but that amount is still way below the poverty level and they would simply end up being homeless instead? Often times that is a real issue.

In San Francisco (I don't remember the exact numbers off the top of my head) the city provides assisted housing like this to people who make less that 12K? a year (the annual amount is somewhere around that,) but if you make anything over that, then you are on your own, which anyone who has ever tried living in San Francisco making just over 12K a year either lives an hour away or is probably homeless. So the issue is not with people living on welfare without trying to get a job, it is having a welfare system with a distinct cut off point that is the deciding factor of having a home or being homeless. The system should be set up in a way that provides educational chances for people within poverty to get an education that could lead them to a higher paying job and to a better living environment, but for that to work efficiently, it would require the system to give smaller amounts in welfare the more you make and function more like a sliding scale rather than a strong line cut off system.

But the problem with that is everyone who would cry about that being "big government" when in actuality, that would be a proper way to help reduce poverty within a city and increase the education level of a city, which in turn would make a city much more attractive to higher paying companies that are looking for a well trained and educated workforce. Also as a bi-product it would also reduce the amount of crime and drug use because you would limit the number of people living in a world with little or no hope of ever getting out of.

So you can see why calling someone a "cockroach" does nothing to actually fix a problem and why I would take offense to calling someone that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that is a generalization of people, and I doubt you know the life story of anyone that lives in these projects. Which wouldn't kill you to do a little bit of real research before deeming a person to be a cockroach. For starters, how do you know that the majority just sit around and collect welfare without trying to get a job? How do you know many of them don't have a job? Also is there an issue with working and welfare, could it be that if they were making over a certain amount of money that they would have to move out, but that amount is still way below the poverty level and they would simply end up being homeless instead? Often times that is a real issue.

In San Francisco (I don't remember the exact numbers off the top of my head) the city provides assisted housing like this to people who make less that 12K? a year (the annual amount is somewhere around that,) but if you make anything over that, then you are on your own, which anyone who has ever tried living in San Francisco making just over 12K a year either lives an hour away or is probably homeless. So the issue is not with people living on welfare without trying to get a job, it is having a welfare system with a distinct cut off point that is the deciding factor of having a home or being homeless. The system should be set up in a way that provides educational chances for people within poverty to get an education that could lead them to a higher paying job and to a better living environment, but for that to work efficiently, it would require the system to give smaller amounts in welfare the more you make and function more like a sliding scale rather than a strong line cut off system.

But the problem with that is everyone who would cry about that being "big government" when in actuality, that would be a proper way to help reduce poverty within a city and increase the education level of a city, which in turn would make a city much more attractive to higher paying companies that are looking for a well trained and educated workforce. Also as a bi-product it would also reduce the amount of crime and drug use because you would limit the number of people living in a world with little or no hope of ever getting out of.

So you can see why calling someone a "cockroach" does nothing to actually fix a problem and why I would take offense to calling someone that.

I'm a big supporter of what Charlotte is doing. They put are beginning to put time limits on how long people can stay in public housing with the (correct) assertion that the limit will encourage residents to find work/further their education/get married to economically support a family etc. For residents trying extremely hard and following a certain program the city offers, they get access to better (yet still temporary) housing. Delaware is also trying to implement a policy like this and "graduates" of this program are very successful. It just shows that many times, poverty and homelessness is not the fault of the individual, but at the same time it is not the fault of the "system" (or those who "own the means of production").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like usual, Norfolk will probably just sit on this and let the cockroaches continue to live on welfare and tarnish the prime real estate that is next to downtown.

People who make statements as seen above are sad to me.. They make no attempt.. or even care.. to find out what is the true situation. I have many issues with how Public housing is run and was built in the first place, but these ridiculous generalizations are not helpful and smack of ignorance.

The above writer probably knows nothing of people with chronic health condition who wait for years to get into public housing because there medical expenses and condition prevent them form doing thing the average person would consider basic. This includes an intelligent young woman I met who was forced down this path due to sever epilepsy. She was doing everything "right" but was in this position.

If this is not your situation count yourself blessed...not enlightened.

Edited by Case
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In most cases, many people who actually comment about public housing in Norfolk have never set foot in them. For sure, I know of two on this forum, me and usermel. I usually get taken back when I see and hear comments like that because I know the people who make those statements are at most taking a perspective that is not rightfully gained. Now, I’m not saying that there are not abusers of the public housing system, in fact, I say most abuse the system, its like the plaque that regenerates itself year after year after year. Thus, I tend to aim my frustrations at what is breeding the problem, NHRA. For many like me, I would love to see it harder to gain and sustain public housing benefits. I know for a fact and know of many people whose mother and grandmother grew up in public housing. This is unacceptable but under the current laws, we must entertain these cycles even if we know they are present. As long as NHRA makes it easy for someone to obtain these benefits, it will continue to happen. This is why I’m so sideways about the new broadcreek developments and its rules. For broadcreek, those who are there via public housing are required to sustain employment; however, it is NOT a requirement of older public housing (source: pilot) residents. That is a fundamental problem; can’t you see how that hurts that areas imagine? They are perceived as lazy people because the rules do not align with the prospects. Throw in a bunch of misguided rules by NHRA and BAM you have Norfolk public housing 101. Even with all that, it gives no person a right to call them such names. Instead of providing a point, you just caused a controversy. Not sure you care or others who may agree, but on this forum for the most part, we try and keep those kinds of comments to a minimum because all it takes is a simple question: “have you ever step foot in the public housing?” Or do you simply cruise by like 99% of the people on this forum and form your opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In most cases, many people who actually comment about public housing in Norfolk have never set foot in them. For sure, I know of two on this forum, me and usermel. I usually get taken back when I see and hear comments like that because I know the people who make those statements are at most taking a perspective that is not rightfully gained. Now, I’m not saying that there are not abusers of the public housing system, in fact, I say most abuse the system, its like the plaque that regenerates itself year after year after year. Thus, I tend to aim my frustrations at what is breeding the problem, NHRA. For many like me, I would love to see it harder to gain and sustain public housing benefits. I know for a fact and know of many people whose mother and grandmother grew up in public housing. This is unacceptable but under the current laws, we must entertain these cycles even if we know they are present. As long as NHRA makes it easy for someone to obtain these benefits, it will continue to happen. This is why I’m so sideways about the new broadcreek developments and its rules. For broadcreek, those who are there via public housing are required to sustain employment; however, it is NOT a requirement of older public housing (source: pilot) residents. That is a fundamental problem; can’t you see how that hurts that areas imagine? They are perceived as lazy people because the rules do not align with the prospects. Throw in a bunch of misguided rules by NHRA and BAM you have Norfolk public housing 101. Even with all that, it gives no person a right to call them such names. Instead of providing a point, you just caused a controversy. Not sure you care or others who may agree, but on this forum for the most part, we try and keep those kinds of comments to a minimum because all it takes is a simple question: “have you ever step foot in the public housing?” Or do you simply cruise by like 99% of the people on this forum and form your opinion?

I pointed out the major issue with this already, but the biggest issue with public housing is when there isn't a program in place to help people move off of public assistance, instead it is a hard line that if you are below this line you get help, if you are above this line you do not, therefore if you are below that line, there is no real incentive to work to get above that line. But the problem with having a sliding scale to help people get off of assistant living requires big government involvement because it requires to have enough people helping people that is using this aid. The reason why people abuse the system is because there isn't enough people to even keep track of everyone within the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pointed out the major issue with this already, but the biggest issue with public housing is when there isn't a program in place to help people move off of public assistance, instead it is a hard line that if you are below this line you get help, if you are above this line you do not, therefore if you are below that line, there is no real incentive to work to get above that line. But the problem with having a sliding scale to help people get off of assistant living requires big government involvement because it requires to have enough people helping people that is using this aid. The reason why people abuse the system is because there isn't enough people to even keep track of everyone within the system.

Yes, that maybe true, but what exactly are those programs? I've seen career centers pop up throughout Norfolk; another one was recently built on campostella rd near the mcdonalds. They have one huge one in wards corner, another in Norview and I'm sure there are others. Too bad we can not see how successful they are if at all. We can't expect that they take advantage of these services; some did not choose to take advantage of free schooling. So although I understand your point, there is however a real need for a hardline cut off at some point. When that point should be is debatable.

I would support a lot of options, for instance dropping people off services and let them help themselves for a while and give other people an opportunity to take advantage of the system (in a positive way). Then let them back on if available in the future.

You also make a good point about it not being enough people to keep track of everyone, I too agree. That's why I've always said more money should be put into these programs to support the true nature. Not less money, more money because we know having more educated, healthy people leads to a more educated and prosperous city. I think someone mentioned a few years ago (you urban I believe) that it does not serve the city well to have a lot of people on the streets; it drives up crime, etc.... I do not know any Norfolk social workers, but I have met a few portsmouth social workers and what they tell me is nothing short of nuttz. First, she stated that 70% percent of the residents are on some form of public assistance (that is madness). Two, the way they try to handle cases is a two fold problem. For the social workers who are really trying to make a difference (as she states), they are held down by the system because the system makes them do certain things even if they have reviewed their cases. The other thing she stated was in her office; many social workers try and find ways to get families more money. As she states, instead of encouraging them to get off the system, they try to get them to stay on the system as if they are doing them some kind of favor. Now, that was P-Town, I understand that, but I've heard the same things second handily in Norfolk all my life. I just tend not to rank it as fact because I did actually hear it from the horse’s mouth. In this case, I have.

Long story short, you will always hear me say this.....People who obtain public housing should NEVER have a say so to what the city will do with housing. At a minimum, I require them to relocate them appropriately, but never have a say so. I do think the public housing around DT should be torn down but I like urban's suggestion about public housing integration. But that has more to do with building up DT in a way that supports all incomes.

If one thing is for sure in our DT, there is NO LOVE for middle class citizens, it is truly one extreme to the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

One part, I believe they do not have the right minds on the city council. Considering the size of Norfolk in general, some hard decisions have to be made about maintaining Norfolk's urban dominance. One, is it a real priority for them? It is a question most people do not have a real answer to. The problem with most public housing area's are is that the codes and rules are soooooooooooooo low and substandard; the area can't help but be mowed over by certain types.

I sympathize with the poor, unlike most people, however, I do believe in running a tight ship to keep people honest. The city of Norfolk seems to have done the opposite. For instance, broadcreek, has different rules than the older public housing. Why exactly? Why is retaining a job a must in new housing vs old?

So they are reluctant to do anything. It is easy to say the recession keeps this from moving forward, but we were talking about this years before the recession hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.