Media Blackout After Trump Launches Urban Council To Invest $100 Billion in Black Com

I heard about it, and I don't even have cable. You get emails from these places you say don't report, Volscrock.
 
Kacper said:
Much better to leave affordable housing for the poor where it is. You do realize that all these war on the poor programs do is cause some other neighborhood to go downhill dontcha?
Click to expand...

I don't what blight means to you, but I'm talking about homes that are boarded up. Nobody but crackheads are living in them.
 
volsrock said:
Media Blackout After Trump Launches Urban Council To Invest $100 Billion in Black Communities

For instance, you basically had to actively search to find any mention of the Opportunity and Revitalization Council, a $100 billion initiative to deliver growth in urban communities.

“With the creation of today’s council, the resources of the whole federal government will be leveraged to rebuild low-income and impoverished neighborhoods that have been ignored by Washington in years past,” the president said at a Wednesday event in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, where an executive order establishing the council was signed.

“Our goal is to ensure that America’s great new prosperity is broadly shared by all of our citizens. Our country is doing better than ever, economically, and we’re able to do that.”

The council will be led by Ben Carson, head of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/m...ost&fbclid=IwAR2GoRt1L2ct1uYkWF4GMonyjBchaObj


Trump has done more for Black Americans than any President in over a hundred years.

View attachment 8261


Take 5 billion out of that and build the wall. That will help blacks more.
Click to expand...

So why would our 6 multinational corporate state owned press black this all out again?
 
kudzu said:
Trump’s infrastructure ‘plan’ is not what it appears to be
01/31/18 09:20 AM—UPDATED 02/01/18 03:39 PM
By Steve Benen

It’s become a running joke for those who cover the White House: in Trump World, every week is “Infrastructure Week.” It tends to get laughs because Donald Trump and his team have repeatedly suggested some kind of ambitious plan is in the works, but they never follow through with anything substantive.

And so it seemed notable that the president brought up the issue in his State of the Union – and included a new price tag:

“Tonight, I’m calling on Congress to produce a bill that generates at least $1.5 trillion for the new infrastructure investment that our country so desperately needs. Every federal dollar should be leveraged by partnering with state and local governments and, where appropriate, tapping into private sector investment to permanently fix the infrastructure deficit.”

The dollar figure was apparently jarring to Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who told Politico last night that “$1.5 trillion, I think, kind of sucked the oxygen out of the room for a moment, as no one expected a number that big.” He added, “And the obvious thing is, where are we with debt and deficit and how are we going to be able to pull it together?”

The answer is, you won’t be able to pull it together – because Trump’s infrastructure “plan” isn’t real in any meaningful sense.


The HuffPost’s Igor Bobic summarized the issue nicely:

Trump’s latest plan will seek to leverage $200 billion in direct federal spending into an additional $800 billion in infrastructure investment from states, cities, nonprofits and the private sector. The plan puts a greater onus on state and local officials to find additional revenue to fund the projects, which will likely mean allowing more tolls or usage fees to create revenue streams that lure in private investors. The challenge is especially difficult for communities in rural areas – many of which supported Trump in 2016 – where fewer people are available to help spread the cost of new infrastructure.

continued
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the OP?
 
Havana Moon said:
Jaded Lizard thinks nobody knows about this sock!!
Click to expand...

I don't know why Kudzu quoted this with what he did, but it let me see what you're saying. Why is it the looniest of the bunch always obsess about sock accounts? I have a sock account, but not anything like that. You'll know mine, because they will be pointlessly quirky, with targeted annoyance. I'll even post with my sock after this. P.S. I am not an asshole.
 
tinfoil said:
I don't what blight means to you, but I'm talking about homes that are boarded up. Nobody but crackheads are living in them.
Click to expand...

Abandonned properties are generally blighted. Blighted properties are not, however, as abandonned as you seem to think
 
Kacper said:
Abandonned properties are generally blighted. Blighted properties are not, however, as abandonned as you seem to think
Click to expand...

You're a moron. Making homes livable again and improving the area are good things. You just object to who you perceive is profiting. You wouldn't have a problem if minorities improved their property and caused values to raise.
 
tinfoil said:
You're a moron. Making homes livable again and improving the area are good things. You just object to who you perceive is profiting. You wouldn't have a problem if minorities improved their property and caused values to raise.
Click to expand...

With gentrification you sometimes (often) price out the working poor.
 
tinfoil said:
You're a moron. Making homes livable again and improving the area are good things. You just object to who you perceive is profiting. You wouldn't have a problem if minorities improved their property and caused values to raise.
Click to expand...

The homes are often livable to begin with. I am not the moron who doesn't understand how gentrification works. I also did not say I opposed the program, illiterate. It is better, however, to build housing for the poor than it is to chase them into other neighborhoods. It happens time and time again everywhere. They move to the next cheapest neighborhood they can find, often an older working class area that then becomes the new slum as the retirees and working class flee. Owner occupied homes become low-end slum lord rental units that fall into disrepair because the rents do not justify the re-investment and upgrades in the property. Rinse and repeat. Investors do not move into these areas intending to rent to the same people who live there. They are going to rehab and demand market rate rents.
 
Kacper said:
The homes are often livable to begin with. I am not the moron who doesn't understand how gentrification works. I also did not say I opposed the program, illiterate. It is better, however, to build housing for the poor than it is to chase them into other neighborhoods. It happens time and time again everywhere. They move to the next cheapest neighborhood they can find, often an older working class area that then becomes the new slum as the retirees and working class flee. Owner occupied homes become low-end slum lord rental units that fall into disrepair because the rents do not justify the re-investment and upgrades in the property. Rinse and repeat. Investors do not move into these areas intending to rent to the same people who live there. They are going to rehab and demand market rate rents.
Click to expand...

The homes are more often not livable. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I actually work in the home improvement trades so I have extensive experience with renovations in blighted areas.

Yes, it's unfortunate for the poor people when they can no longer benefit from living in a run down area after new owners come in and clean the area up. Humans value nice things. When you make homes nice again, they are worth more. I don't know how to get you to understand that those areas should not have been valued so low and it was the state of disrepair that led to the low value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top