Jump to content

Norfolk Courts Complex Progress


vdogg

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 193
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Also, the architect listed for the design has some great looking buildings, including the Marine Corps museum off of 95 in Quantico. I love that building. Website here

Yeah, they're a great firm. They also designed the Denver International Airport which is AWESOME and other commercial buidlings in Denver. I hope I'm wrong by this statement but the massing structure doesn't look all that impressive. Too early to tell...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Norfolk City Council OK's New Courthouse Complex

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/07/norfolk-ci...rthouse-complex

Yeah I read. I hope it doesn't put too much on Norfolk's budget. The cost has gone up since they initiated the project...but this is very much needed. Those buildings are obselete and in need of repair. Are they building them on the same property?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I read. I hope it doesn't put too much on Norfolk's budget. The cost has gone up since they initiated the project...but this is very much needed. Those buildings are obselete and in need of repair. Are they building them on the same property?

Hopefully this new complex puts a dent in that horrible late 60s early 70s complex that includes the Norfolk City Hall. The sooner all of that trash comes down the better. Norfolk needs to find a way to consolidate and rebuild that whole area to open new land on Main St. and fix the blighted architecture that is City Hall, juvenile det, etc...(then move to knock down waterside and remove that hideous pedestrian bridge...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully this new complex puts a dent in that horrible late 60s early 70s complex that includes the Norfolk City Hall. The sooner all of that trash comes down the better. Norfolk needs to find a way to consolidate and rebuild that whole area to open new land on Main St. and fix the blighted architecture that is City Hall, juvenile det, etc...(then move to knock down waterside and remove that hideous pedestrian bridge...)

I agree on everything but the pedestrian bridge. That bridge is not that bad. Too bad the city was forced to do this though. I would rather them have been able to do it on their on schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

It's good for Norfolk to get more green space and to honor a significant historical event and people in the cities history.

And...ah, the infamous Snyder Lot strikes again.

I think green space is a great idea, and it commemorates something that is specifically Norfolk; the "lost class" and the "norfolk 17." My only concern is that the park is going to become a haven for poor people to sleep in and make it unpleasant like the small park by TCC's campus. Norfolk better have a plan for that. Maybe removing Tidewater Gardens will do something to fix this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/01/new-park-h...#comment-690859

Interesting, they just painted in a midrise building where that parking lot is!

I think it looks great tho, and compliments its surrounding well.

That rendering is from the Downtown 2020 Update, which was released in November, so you can blame Urban Design Associates for inventing a building that does not exist today.

http://www.norfolk.gov/Planning/PDFFiles/D...r_Plan_2020.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think green space is a great idea, and it commemorates something that is specifically Norfolk; the "lost class" and the "norfolk 17." My only concern is that the park is going to become a haven for poor people to sleep in and make it unpleasant like the small park by TCC's campus. Norfolk better have a plan for that. Maybe removing Tidewater Gardens will do something to fix this...

ugh, personal pet peeve on how cities view their homeless. Lets push them elsewhere to deal with the problem doesnt fix the problem. We have much of the same problems here and I am still kind of pissed at out "sit and lay" ordinance, which gives police permission to harass the homeless instead of dealing with the issue why they are homeless in the first place.

Though on another note, I really like this new layout for the city hall area. I will always have a soft spot for that ugly city hall tower....though I wouldnt be appose to it taking on a good renovation to bring it up to better design standards. But it was always such an icon tower for me whenever I drove into downtown from VB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ugh, personal pet peeve on how cities view their homeless. Lets push them elsewhere to deal with the problem doesnt fix the problem. We have much of the same problems here and I am still kind of pissed at out "sit and lay" ordinance, which gives police permission to harass the homeless instead of dealing with the issue why they are homeless in the first place.

Though on another note, I really like this new layout for the city hall area. I will always have a soft spot for that ugly city hall tower....though I wouldnt be appose to it taking on a good renovation to bring it up to better design standards. But it was always such an icon tower for me whenever I drove into downtown from VB.

I think most people are justified in not looking upon their homeless favorably. It is not simply because they lack a home, but it is the reasons they lack them. Many are drunks and junkies (drugs) and harass hard working citizens for money on a daily basis. Some even become agressive as if you owe them some sort of debt when they beg, and make most people feel very uncomfortable. Many also choose not to work and better themselves, instead finding it easier to live on the streets than pull their lives together. Some may come from bad homes, some may have had disadvantages their whole lives, or some may simply choose the lifestyle they leave. However, that does not take away from the culture they have created for themselves and the stigmas that attach themselves to the homeless and public housing residents. There are plenty of agencies, soup kitchens, churches, missions, etc where they can go and try to find themselves and fix their lives.

As for Tidewater Gardens, being poor and living off the government and tax money does not justify or give them the right to live in downtown areas which are considered ideal places to live. Areas like tidewater gardens are in a prime location in where lower and upper middle class communities could develop themselves. If they are going to live off the governments good graces, then they should not have a say in where they live.

In NYC now there is a lot of resentment for the midtown public housing on the east river. It is in a prime realestate location, and it is occupied by low to no income residents and is a completely blighted eye soar. Project and public housing was originially meant for the lower middle class as a temporary living arrangement until they were able to afford their own places. Now people instead live there their whole lives with no intention of bettering themselves.

I work in Bedford Styvessant (2nd worse neighborhood in NYC outside of south bronx) as part of my graduate fellowship (structural engineering) and I always walked by a horribly blighted town house. Yet it war weird because it had a huge 15 foot iron gate around it. I couldn't understand why until one day I walked by and saw a corvette and a BMW sitting in the driveway. That just isn't right...

As for the city hall tower...MY GOD!!!! did you call that an iconic tower???? I look forward to seeing that tumble to the ground. My only regret is that I won't be the person to knock it down myself. Unfortunately, it will be standing for a while even after the courthouse is built. But when it does come down we should throw a UP part to celebrate removing that architectural cancer we call Norfolk City Hall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most people are justified in not looking upon their homeless favorably. Many also choose not to work and better themselves, instead finding it easier to live on the streets than pull their lives together.

As for Tidewater Gardens, being poor and living off the government and tax money does not justify or give them the right to live in downtown areas which are considered ideal places to live. Areas like tidewater gardens are in a prime location in where lower and upper middle class communities could develop themselves. If they are going to live off the governments good graces, then they should not have a say in where they live.

According to HUD, only 10% of homeless can be considered "chronically homeless" the other 90% are for the most part temporary. However, the ones which are generally more visable are usually chronically homeless. In America the high homeless rate can be linked the 50's era of deinstitutionalization, meaning many mental health clinics stopped housing the mentally ill long-term. This is why homelessness is not easily solved. Many are simply insane, and incapable of bettering themselves, or working. People tend to argue with these facts, many feel every man is born capable of working. Even though most mental disorders are developed not inherited. Approximately 1 in 200 Americans is homeless at one point in his/her lifetime.

  • The movement in the 1950s in state mental health systems to shift towards community-based treatment as opposed to long-term commitment in institutions. Many patients ultimately lost their rooms, didn't get proper community health support, and ended up in the streets.
  • Redevelopment and gentrification activities instituted by cities across the country through which low-income neighborhoods are declared blighted and demolished to make way for projects that generate higher property taxes and other revenue, creating a shortage of housing affordable to low-income working families, the elderly poor, and the disabled.
  • The failure of urban housing projects to provide safe, secure, and affordable housing to the poor.
  • The economic crises and "stagflation" of the 1980s, which caused high unemployment. Unlike European countries, US unemployment insurance does not allow unemployed insurance recipients to obtain job training/education while receiving benefits except under very limited situations.
  • The failure of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to provide effective mental health care and meaningful job training for many homeless veterans, particularly those of the Vietnam War. Many VA critics think homeless veterans are cycled through ineffective VA 12-step programs, restricting housing programs, and low skilled job training programs that actually keeps them cycling from program to program and back to living on the streets.
  • Foster home children are not given job training in school or at home. Without a means to make money, nearly half of foster children in the United States become homeless when they are released from foster care at age 18.
  • Natural disasters that destroy homes: hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc. Places of employment are often destroyed too, causing unemployment and transience.
  • People who have served time in prison, have abused drugs and alcohol, or have a history of mental illness find it difficult to impossible to find employment for years at a time because of the use of computer background checks by potential employers.

Health-concerns.

  • 22% are considered to have serious mental illnesses, or are disabled.
  • 30% have substance abuse problems.
  • 3% report having HIV/AIDS.
  • 26% report acute health problems other than HIV/AIDS such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, or sexually transmitted infections.
  • 46% report chronic health conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or cancer.
  • 55% report having no health insurance (compared to 16% of general population).
  • 58% report having trouble getting enough food to eat.

Duration

  • 80% of those who experience homelessness do so for less than 3 weeks. They typically have more personal, social, or economic resources to draw upon.
  • 10% are homeless for up to two months. They cite lack of available or affordable housing as responsible for the delay.
  • 10% are so called "chronic" and remain without housing for extended periods of time on a frequent basis. They typically struggle with mental illness, substance abuse, or both.

In my opinion, if you truly wish to help the homeless...do not provide them with money. Which can be used to feed an addiction. Provide your time, if you are so lead to. Or direct one to a nearby shelter or hospital. Our Norfolk shelters are well equipt to provide the basic needs of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thank you for the stats, I didnt have the time to look those up to post and I always hate quoting fake numbers. By simply moving homeless away from areas so that they can be redeveloped for better use is like shooting at someone with a gun so that they dont continue violent acts. When the issues are addressed and dealt with why someone becomes and stays homeless, then only will the problem begin to fix. Also, I do agree about the issues with Tidewater Garden, projects like those are nothing more than forced ghettos. If a city truly wishes to reduce blighted areas, then there needs to be a decentralization of poverty areas which require low and affordable income housing spread throughout all neighborhoods.

As for calling Nofolk's City Hall iconic, I stand by that statement, not because it is a good design, far from it, but spending my entire childhood growing up in that region, it was a building that stood at the front of the skyline when driving in from VB. We all have things from our past that are sentimental to us, this one is mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thank you for the stats, I didnt have the time to look those up to post and I always hate quoting fake numbers. By simply moving homeless away from areas so that they can be redeveloped for better use is like shooting at someone with a gun so that they dont continue violent acts. When the issues are addressed and dealt with why someone becomes and stays homeless, then only will the problem begin to fix. Also, I do agree about the issues with Tidewater Garden, projects like those are nothing more than forced ghettos. If a city truly wishes to reduce blighted areas, then there needs to be a decentralization of poverty areas which require low and affordable income housing spread throughout all neighborhoods.

As for calling Nofolk's City Hall iconic, I stand by that statement, not because it is a good design, far from it, but spending my entire childhood growing up in that region, it was a building that stood at the front of the skyline when driving in from VB. We all have things from our past that are sentimental to us, this one is mine.

Well, by decentralizing the low income and poor populations and spreading them throughout the city, you are essentially dooming the city once again to middle class flight and another potential call for urban renewal. The majority of the middle class would prefer to live among fellow middle class or upper middle class residents. There are serious safety and trust concerns when lower income residents are intermixed with the middle class. Sometimes this is unjustifed, sometimes it's not. Some lower income residents want to better themselves and work 20 hours a day, however there are plenty who would rather steal and do drugs. Why would anyone take a risk and move into an area where there is a significant concentration of lower income residents? I cannot imagine businesses wanting to move their office space around lower income areas either.

Now, I guess another way of implementing decentralized project housing would be to force developers to build lower income units mixed with the rest of their units. However, that in of itself is completely unfair to the developer who is trying to turn a profit and the middle and higher income residents who pay large sums to live in the same place as a low income tenent who is paying less than half the same price. If you want a sure fire way to lousy architecture, force a developer to give up on some profit for the sake of lower income residents. The first one to take one for the team will surely be the project design.

Look at most European cities today. The lower income, blighted housing, "ghettos", whatever you want to call them are all pushed to the outskirts of the city. They are moved away from the centralized downtown which is considered the ideal and safe place to live. Norfolk can and should do that exact same thing. Gentrification is also a big reason NYC cleaned itself up in the early 90s (and Giuliani arresting the homeless and the mafia). Now Norfolk does not have the huge demand for high end housing like NYC did, but to clean up its image will go a long way to change that.

If things like moving Tidewater Gardens away from downtown and stopping the homeless from sleeping in parks at night are not implemented, then Norfolk will never escape the stigma it has and will always struggle to bring in residents.

As for City Hall, I understand nostalgia, but could you really choose a more hideous building to remind you of your childhood in the area :P ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, by decentralizing the low income and poor populations and spreading them throughout the city, you are essentially dooming the city once again to middle class flight and another potential call for urban renewal. The majority of the middle class would prefer to live among fellow middle class or upper middle class residents. There are serious safety and trust concerns when lower income residents are intermixed with the middle class. Sometimes this is unjustifed, sometimes it's not. Some lower income residents want to better themselves and work 20 hours a day, however there are plenty who would rather steal and do drugs. Why would anyone take a risk and move into an area where there is a significant concentration of lower income residents? I cannot imagine businesses wanting to move their office space around lower income areas either.

Now, I guess another way of implementing decentralized project housing would be to force developers to build lower income units mixed with the rest of their units. However, that in of itself is completely unfair to the developer who is trying to turn a profit and the middle and higher income residents who pay large sums to live in the same place as a low income tenent who is paying less than half the same price. If you want a sure fire way to lousy architecture, force a developer to give up on some profit for the sake of lower income residents. The first one to take one for the team will surely be the project design.

Look at most European cities today. The lower income, blighted housing, "ghettos", whatever you want to call them are all pushed to the outskirts of the city. They are moved away from the centralized downtown which is considered the ideal and safe place to live. Norfolk can and should do that exact same thing. Gentrification is also a big reason NYC cleaned itself up in the early 90s (and Giuliani arresting the homeless and the mafia). Now Norfolk does not have the huge demand for high end housing like NYC did, but to clean up its image will go a long way to change that.

If things like moving Tidewater Gardens away from downtown and stopping the homeless from sleeping in parks at night are not implemented, then Norfolk will never escape the stigma it has and will always struggle to bring in residents.

As for City Hall, I understand nostalgia, but could you really choose a more hideous building to remind you of your childhood in the area :P ?

I needed to take some time to think about how to respond to this because I dont wish to come off attacking in any way when I am trying to make a point.

First I will start with a question, where would you propose moving Tidewater Garden? And how would that deal with the current state of the area?

Also you make reference to europe and the push of poverty to the outskirts of the city....that is not exactly the case, but is definitely a common way of live for many cities outside of the US...often times, poverty is pushed to areas such as hillsides where services such as running water are hard to come by.

Now, I am just guessing, but bases solely off your responses, I am to guess that I have had many years more than you researching topics such as this one, which if you are wondering, I have spent at least the last 7 years studying this topic.

Here is a link to an article that goes more indepth about decentralization of poverty that will help you understand the point I am making.

Decentralization

What happened in NYC and is going on with their low income housing is a much different thing that in itself would take me even longer to go into for what has happened there, where they currently are, and what should happen in the future.

Also you bring up a point about adding low income housing to new developer projects...that actually is a practiced thing that happens across the world. In reference, Vancouver BC, a developer cannot build their without including low income housing to their projects. So by saying it wont work, I have a hard time buying into that because I have seen it work time and time again. Also this would have very little effect on the overall design of the architecture.

As for nostalgia, I grew up in a massive suburban city, Virginia Beach, that I was more than happy to move away from for a much more urban and better designed city of Portland...the look of something is not as important as the memory...I remember sliding down Mt Trashmore when there was a couple inches on the hill, so for many memories like that, I am quite fond of that mountain of trash...I hope that helps a bit on why I say what I say about the City Hall building.

Also, if you area at all curious to know more about these topics, feel free to ask me anything. These are massive issues that have no simple single answer for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I needed to take some time to think about how to respond to this because I dont wish to come off attacking in any way when I am trying to make a point.

First I will start with a question, where would you propose moving Tidewater Garden? And how would that deal with the current state of the area?

Also you make reference to europe and the push of poverty to the outskirts of the city....that is not exactly the case, but is definitely a common way of live for many cities outside of the US...often times, poverty is pushed to areas such as hillsides where services such as running water are hard to come by.

Now, I am just guessing, but bases solely off your responses, I am to guess that I have had many years more than you researching topics such as this one, which if you are wondering, I have spent at least the last 7 years studying this topic.

Here is a link to an article that goes more indepth about decentralization of poverty that will help you understand the point I am making.

Decentralization

What happened in NYC and is going on with their low income housing is a much different thing that in itself would take me even longer to go into for what has happened there, where they currently are, and what should happen in the future.

Also you bring up a point about adding low income housing to new developer projects...that actually is a practiced thing that happens across the world. In reference, Vancouver BC, a developer cannot build their without including low income housing to their projects. So by saying it wont work, I have a hard time buying into that because I have seen it work time and time again. Also this would have very little effect on the overall design of the architecture.

As for nostalgia, I grew up in a massive suburban city, Virginia Beach, that I was more than happy to move away from for a much more urban and better designed city of Portland...the look of something is not as important as the memory...I remember sliding down Mt Trashmore when there was a couple inches on the hill, so for many memories like that, I am quite fond of that mountain of trash...I hope that helps a bit on why I say what I say about the City Hall building.

Also, if you area at all curious to know more about these topics, feel free to ask me anything. These are massive issues that have no simple single answer for.

Well, first, I will conceit you most likely have done much more research on the topic than I have. Most of my comments come from what I experience here in NYC and the conflicts that arise daily, but I don't have the indepth knowledge of years of research.

As for the file, I skimmed it briefly, and there are some very good points in there, mainly the decentralization as it applies to the government and politics. Those are points that I thought were pretty much out of the realm of our conversation, as I was more refering to decentralization as a physical phenomenon (i.e. elimintating public housing and dispersing the lower income vs. keeping the poor in the projects). On a social level, I really don't have much input since it is beyond my knowledge, so I guess I'll just stick to the idea of dispursing the lower income housing as a physical means of decentralizing the poor.

In NYC right now, there is church in Harlem that has become one of the largest developers in the area. It gained government money and prominence among the community as a development group that cared for the citizens, and promised almost 30% low income housing per project. As it stands now, its new development I believe is a 169 unit apartment complext with 20 low income units.

Furthermore, the church is currently being sued by many of the lower income residents in the apartments they run, with claims of neglegence such as fixing toilets, heating vents, etc. I know I am talking about this church in broad generalizations, but the article is on the wirednewyork.com forums, so I'll go look for and see if I can find it.

Now, bringing all of this back to Norfolk, lets even assume Norfolk were to have lower income housing in each of its new projects. Because of the attitude of the area, I just don't see this being profitable. Remember, Norfolk is contending with bringing people out of the suburbs which are considered safe and ideal to live, and trying to convince them that in reality, a downtown area is the safe and more ideal place to live. In this area especially, I think Norfolk would have a hard time selling this with lower income residential units mixed in. Now, that's not to say the attitude won't change, but I can't see this happening here right now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soon enough Tidewater Gardens will be forced out. This is inevitable and will be a welcome move for many who wish to see a greater downtown. As far as displacement goes, I would suggest a spread out mixed method. Housing vochers for the elderly would help the city control where they go, plus the elderly would not be a threat entering a new "not-subsidized" neighborhood. I would suggest somewhere in the broad creek area. As for the rest, I would suggest parts of the east end of park place/church st. There are many abandoned apt building/tenaments which the city could fix up rather than building new.

The key is to not reposition too many into one particular place. I also favor mixed-use subsidized housing as opposed to jamming them all in together...which creates an isolated "welfare-culture" where the individual see little examples of betterment. However I really dislike public-subsidized housing completely. I think that no Cable should be installed. And lots of forced programs should be implemented like Race to GED programs that are linked with welfare and food stamp collection. Also, planned parenthood should be required in order to receive foodstamps or checks. This would force prenatal vitamin care and many other important needs addressed. But if public housing must be built, I do agree mixed-use, mixed-income is better. It paints a clear path out for children being raised in that situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soon enough Tidewater Gardens will be forced out. This is inevitable and will be a welcome move for many who wish to see a greater downtown. As far as displacement goes, I would suggest a spread out mixed method. Housing vochers for the elderly would help the city control where they go, plus the elderly would not be a threat entering a new "not-subsidized" neighborhood. I would suggest somewhere in the broad creek area. As for the rest, I would suggest parts of the east end of park place/church st. There are many abandoned apt building/tenaments which the city could fix up rather than building new.

The key is to not reposition too many into one particular place. I also favor mixed-use subsidized housing as opposed to jamming them all in together...which creates an isolated "welfare-culture" where the individual see little examples of betterment. However I really dislike public-subsidized housing completely. I think that no Cable should be installed. And lots of forced programs should be implemented like Race to GED programs that are linked with welfare and food stamp collection. Also, planned parenthood should be required in order to receive foodstamps or checks. This would force prenatal vitamin care and many other important needs addressed. But if public housing must be built, I do agree mixed-use, mixed-income is better. It paints a clear path out for children being raised in that situation.

See, now you are onto something. By creating programs that are designed to target lower class and help them better themselves, stay healthy, and reduce unneeded pregnancies...plus along this idea, if the city were to implicate landbanks which purchase land in rundown areas, build new homes and sell them to people who qualify as low incomes would also help improve the quality of life in neighborhoods. The key with landbanks is that the home owner just owns the home and not the land and if they ever choose to sell and upgrade their home, a portion of their profit goes to the landbank.

There are so many things Norfolk could be doing to help move in a forward direction because the current state of low income housing is unacceptable.

So is there a timeline with this new courts building? I assume with light rail going through that site that it has to be coming up soon. Also with the city hall building, this would be a perfect time to do a renovation on that building to bring it up to date with the rest of the complex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, now you are onto something. By creating programs that are designed to target lower class and help them better themselves, stay healthy, and reduce unneeded pregnancies...plus along this idea, if the city were to implicate landbanks which purchase land in rundown areas, build new homes and sell them to people who qualify as low incomes would also help improve the quality of life in neighborhoods. The key with landbanks is that the home owner just owns the home and not the land and if they ever choose to sell and upgrade their home, a portion of their profit goes to the landbank.

There are so many things Norfolk could be doing to help move in a forward direction because the current state of low income housing is unacceptable.

So is there a timeline with this new courts building? I assume with light rail going through that site that it has to be coming up soon. Also with the city hall building, this would be a perfect time to do a renovation on that building to bring it up to date with the rest of the complex.

So everyone agrees with getting rid of Tidewater Gardens and helping the homeless. I think the government in Norfolk would agree with that as well...

Most likely though, they are just going to build another version of Tidewater Gardens further away from downtown, though something like a landbank is a good idea. In areas like ocean view, I could seen Norfolk implementing something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, now you are onto something. By creating programs that are designed to target lower class and help them better themselves, stay healthy, and reduce unneeded pregnancies...plus along this idea, if the city were to implicate landbanks which purchase land in rundown areas, build new homes and sell them to people who qualify as low incomes would also help improve the quality of life in neighborhoods. The key with landbanks is that the home owner just owns the home and not the land and if they ever choose to sell and upgrade their home, a portion of their profit goes to the landbank.

There are so many things Norfolk could be doing to help move in a forward direction because the current state of low income housing is unacceptable.

So is there a timeline with this new courts building? I assume with light rail going through that site that it has to be coming up soon. Also with the city hall building, this would be a perfect time to do a renovation on that building to bring it up to date with the rest of the complex.

The programs you speak of are now currently in rotation, the problem is the lower income/poor do not use them. I think this is a fundamental issue with government or maybe its by design! The unfortunate reality is that some people do not care if they are poor, on welfare, or section 8. Some have the ability to do better (these are the ones who seek out the programs you talk about), and some believe that is how life is. They have no concept of life, and the government aids in that. The government aids in it because they feel as though they can throw a couple of programs at the problem or give them something free and they think it will maintain or go away. WE KNOW IT NEVER GOES AWAY, but why?

Maybe, for those of you who speculate or make rules from a far assist in the madness.

How do you fix the problem? Government control! Government needs to spend more time and more money controlling the money and the livelihood they feel the need to control.........Welfare, in essence is a good idea. It helps balance the unfairness of our economy. Section 8, also good, it is meant to inspire people to do better in life by allowing them to live amongst others who are doing well. But you have to have control with in your programs. For instance, you can not let people live in public housing for free and have cable, cell phones, and goochi. You can not allow a person who lives on welfare to work 20 hours a week and who has an 6 page employment record. What does that inspire? It inspires people to do what they have always done, abuse the system. You can push a certain group of people anywhere, the same results will happen.

I say, keep section 8, keep welfare, but make it responsible. If you are going to allow section 8, make sure their kids are doing well in school, their property is clean and tighty, and that they work and have a consistent work ethic. The checks and balances in these current cases are retro. I believe the government roll in that respect is to "help", but only if they help themselves, that includes leaving people outback if you have to. One thing you can't do is think for a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

much of the issue that people have with welfare programs is that they living in high concentration poverty, thus is why decentralization is a good idea. Plus when this is done, smaller government groups can then be created to deal with each neighborhood specifically thus giving people a common face to deal with.

I am for the removal of Tidewater Gardens, but there still needs to be a number of low income that would be apart of that redevelopment so it isnt just the pushing them into another neighborhood. As with homelessness...which I dont remember there being that much of that downtown when I was living there, but that was also years ago. Providing programs and temporary housing for those that are homeless....as well as programs for those that are not mentally well....(a big issue we have in Portland due to the closures of mental health hospitals).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/05/norfolk-co...over-courthouse

The economy, rising debt and a long list of needs, including deteriorating schools, are why Whibley and others have gotten cold feet. Estimates place the courthouse project at $108 million, and the cost will likely increase, Williams said.

Despite the price, Mayor Paul Fraim said his colleagues' concerns are coming too late.

"We've promised the judges we would do this project, and they've been very patient," he said. "We have committed $38 million to the project. Now is not the time to back off.

"Building a courthouse is not something anyone wants to do. But it's something we have to do."

The Circuit, General District and Juvenile and Domestic Relations courts facilities are half a century old, overcrowded and dangerous. Victims, witnesses, judges and defendants all mix in common areas.

Meanwhile, council members have been moved by pleas from school division employees about the condition of schools. Whibley said the city needs to identify a "dedicated source of funding" for school construction.

The city is limited in what it can borrow for new projects because hundreds of millions of dollars are going to light rail, a cruise ship terminal, two recreation centers, the renovation of Town Point Park, a library in Ocean View and a planned downtown library and downtown convention center.

Site work on the project's first phase, a seven -story complex to house the General District and Circuit courts on St. Paul's Boulevard, is scheduled to begin in the winter.

The new Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, which would not open until 2014, would be built on the site of the current General District Court. The Circuit Court building site would be freed up for private development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will this project require knocking down part of the entire city hall campus? I know the city hall building itself will still be standing, but will the rest of the office campus come down?

I know this is going to strain the city, but from some initial renderings of the courthouse, it looks like it will be a nice addition to downtown architecture. It will be especially better than what the current city hall campus gives us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • 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.