So, the government is trying to convince everyone how much they want to help Americans huh? How helpful was this?
So I had an interesting discussion with my brothers and my Dad today. My Dad has this friend, well actually he’s never met her, but my brother has. She answered the door naked one day when my little bro went over to her apartment to check out an electrical issue. Interesting meeting…… Anyway….
See, she used to be a tenant of my Dad’s in one of his apartment units. Well, she couldn’t make rent, she moved out, found a cheaper place in town, and one day sent my Dad a letter saying that her building had been condemned by the city, and that she had been evicted and had to move by last Sunday. So here’s how the story goes from there:
This lady is divorced, on Social inSecurity, still lives with her ex-husband because he is on Social inSecurity too and they have to share expenses as a means to get by on what little they have. So, my Dad tells this lady that he has rental property in Indianapolis, and if she can get there, he will let her rent one of his houses. He tells her he won’t charge her for the first little while, and he also won’t charge her a security deposit. The lady decides that’s what they will do. She’s anxious to move away and so they pack up their truck, which the husband drives, she’s driving the car, and they head east to Indianapolis. She has just enough money for gas based on her mileage figures and she then forwards her SS checks to the new Indy address.
This husband guy has some mental problems and at one point, leaves her at a rest stop in Denver and takes off in the truck with all the stuff. That was the last my Dad heard from her, until today, when she calls from Topeka, KS. Apparently she and the husband meet up again somehow and make their way to KS, where he all of a sudden goes missing….for the past 4 days. The lady files a missing persons report with the police, we never figured out how she lost track of him or if he left again or what, but this woman now has the car and the truck and has been sleeping in a Home Depot parking lot and using their bathroom and phone. The story just goes down hill from there, she can’t find any help, she miscalculated on the gas money situation, she’s stranded and probably scared, and waiting for the police to find her husband. That’s all we know for now…if anyone’s interested I’ll post an update when I get one, but for the point of this post…..
So this all started by the Big Bad Pretend-to-Help-Everyone Government; and what do they do with our tax dollars? First they use them to have lazy government workers stalk around the city all day looking for building code violations and usually harassing property owners unnecessarily. Then they waste more of the tax payer’s money paying these people to write up and issue citations to property owners explaining what’s wrong with their crappy building or house. The citation goes on to say that the owner has until a certain date to fix said building code violations or else you’ll get fined, etc., etc., etc. (Oh by the way, Salt Lake City cited my Dad because the lid wasopen on the complex dumpster, apparently that’s a code violation. What? Now property owners need to hire a dumpster monitor to make sure the tenants close the lid every time they dump their trash? Nice…because that’s probably what it will take. What kind of code violation is that anyway?) So now you see the city’s nonsense in checking for “code violations.”
When the code violations are so egregious, (according to the government), they will condemn your property. Then you have to evict all of your tenants and tear down the property, or they will do it for you.
This all goes back to the government, city, state, or federal, staying out of our business. Here you have a building that you own, that nice people live in, and here comes the government saying that people have to move. Why should they have to move if they are perfectly happy living a a building that just happens to be under the city standards. So what if the windows don’t have screens, or the door doesn’t have a separate dead bolt (just some codes in CA for example)? Isn’t that the choice of any American to make, about where and in what conditions they live? Yeah, it should be our choice, not the government’s. If the property owner doesn’t make certain repairs according to the city’s rules, but there are still tenants that want to live there, then that should be absolutely no business of the government’s.
So now we have this lady, (along with who knows how many other people) who can’t find affordable housing, she’s homeless, stranded and scared. Thanks big government for “helping” and forcing her landlord to bulldoze his building, and put all of his tenants out on the street. But the thing is, it wasn’t just the owner’s building that was destroyed, it was this lady’s home, along with other families’ homes as well. The owner bulldozing his building and being forced to pay taxes on an empty, non-income-producing, lot or building new apartments that will be way too expensive for the former tenants, or anyone in their income bracket, is not productive, or helping anyone.
So in the government’s twisted way of allegedly “helping” people, they really aren’t. This scenario is just another way the government is trying to control our lives under the guise of “helping” us. I think it’s pretty typical of the kind of “help” the government purports to give people. How did they help my Dad’s friend? First she had a place to live for the $500 per month including utilities that she could afford, and now she’s homeless, stranded and hopeless. This folks, is representative of kind of environment that Obama and his cronies are trying to create for us. They want us to be dependent on the government and that gives them the control. They want more people on welfare, more people utilizing their social services and more people giving up their ability to choose for themselves. See the connection to Socialism here?
So I say this building code, bulldozing, homeless deal stacks right up there with Obama and his cronies purporting to want to help you with your end of life issues, and your lack of health care situation, and oh yeah that SBA loan thing, not a chance!!!
{Post Edit} I am in no way promoting slumlords or anything of the like, I am however, trying to demonstrate how the government is always trying to take away our liberties. They want to tell us where we can and can’t live. They want to impose ridiculous codes and fines on property owners. All as a way to infringe on our freedom and liberties. This post is a demonstration of just another way that the so-called helpful government makes a bad situation even worse for people.
The Journalista Chronicle// 
Your’s is probably one story among countless others like it, where those in the government have to control everything; then when they create disaster, they claim THEY have to fix it…of course with our money.
un-freaking-believable!
http://stevex09.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/change-the-congress-in-2010/
Thanks for your comment Steve. You’re exactly right! The government is pretty good at creating disasters, then they always need someone to pay for them….and that would be us. I believe the government should have as little involvement in our lives and finances as possible.
You say: “Isn’t that the choice of any American to make, about where and in what conditions they live? ” Yet, before then, you begin with “she couldn’t make rent, she moved out”. Doesn’t sound like much of a choice.
You seem to miss a very big and important point that poor people get taken advantage of very frequently. That they don’t have as many choices as those better off.
Instead of calling everyone and everything evil, why not discuss plausible solutions to the problem? How would you prevent landlords from taking advantage of poor folks? If someone is not speaking up for the poor, who will? Because there is no denying that poor people don’t have as much choice and do get taken advantage of.
Are there any proofs for this? Have you ever tried consulting government offices..these accusations needs to be verified..
What do you mean “proofs for this?” This is a true story…the lady, the bulldozer and the citation for the dumpster lid! The government’s too shady for me to have to make this stuff up.
While I appreciate your comments and point of view Ulyana, this isn’t a blog or a post about poor people, it’s about politics, policies and the US government using them to take away the freedoms of this country’s citizens and how they frequently make a horrible situation even worse. At least the lady had a place to live, now, thanks to building codes and government interference, she’s homeless. It is not the government’s job to make life perfect and easy for everyone. We have our free agency and we can all make our own choices in life, good or bad. The government needs to stay out of it.
You hit the nail on the head journalista. The right to life, liberty, and the ‘persuit’ of happiness…
that doesn’t guarantee happiness; but at least one has the right to persue it.
Just because a person doesn’t have the advantages of someone that is more well off doesn’t mean they can’t be happy…and the liberty that should be guaranteed, with some determination and work…most folks can be happy and secure.
The solution to the problem Ulyana, is for the government to provide for the security of the nation…and spend the tax money in a responsibly, and not interfere with the lives of the private citizen…
NOT to keep people dependent on them, so those in government will have a perpetual job… but let the people make their own way, provide for their families, raise and see that their kids are educated.
It’s beyond me why folks cannot understand that.
Journalista, with all due respect, but how is the subject of this post not about a poor person? If this person wasn’t poor and couldn’t afford a place to live in, you wouldn’t be writing this post at all. We are talking about someone who is 1) poor, 2) doesn’t have a place to live.
Regarding #2, as to why there isn’t a place to live. Bad government forced the landlord to bulldoze the building. Why? Give us precise reasons as to why. There must have been significant violations.
“It is not the government’s job to make life perfect and easy for everyone.” I don’t see how with building codes governemnt is attempting to make life perfect and easy for anyone.
“We have our free agency and we can all make our own choices in life, good or bad. ” In life, more money = more choices. There’s just no way around it. If due to lack of money, you are forced to pick between two bad choices – as in, to live or not to live in this slum or that other one, you don’t have a choice.
Again, this IS a post about poor people. I don’t see how this could happen to someone in middle class or higher.
Steve, I’d agree with your point. If the building was in such a state that no one should have been living there, why no further provisions were made for temporary housing? That just demonstrates lack of follow through. I’m not denying that the situation was unfortunate for the Journalista’s father’s friend. We are also lacking a lot of detail as to what exactly happened.
Thanks for the post Journalista. I appreciate the story and its intended purpose, to point out the deficiencies with the current welfare system. The left has controlled how we consider poor people in this country for 80 years now, and the cracks in the system are widening and creating more and more poor who get trapped by the government welfare system.
Ulyana is merely creating a red herring argument in order to throw off the scent of bad government by using the old, leftist mantra “Think of the poor!”
Euripides, how can this be an intelligent and respectful discussion of an issue at hand and of the post by journalista when you immediately dismiss my point of view by labeling it “red herring argument” and “leftist mantra”. Do you exactly know where I’m coming from? I make a valid point – we don’t know all the facts, and, yes, what happened would happen only to the poor. Rather than dismissing me, why don’t you suggest a solution. If it’s “no involvement”, then how would situations of abuse stop, and when the “no involvement” approach has worked in, for example, eliminating slums.
Honestly Ulyana, why distract from the real issue here? It is this lady’s right as an American to choose where she wants to live. So what if the building isn’t “up to code,” or “safe,” or has been “condemned?”
If I want to live in dilapidation, it is my right as an American. Conversely, if I want to maintain such a building–minimally, of course–and charge people good money to live there, IT’s MY RIGHT!
So big brother is going to tell me how sound my foundation has to be, how many fire escapes there have to be, the quality of my plumbing and sewage? No, I say.
A lady is on the street. If she were allowed to live in this place, she wouldn’t be. Honestly, this is worse than a recall on food or toys. Do you know how much money hard-working American businesses lose on that? Even more that Journalista’s dad.
Thanks for your comment Rob! You’re exactly right!!!! It doesn’t mean that property owners should maintain crappy buildings, but I believe that the market should dictate what happens to a property. It should be the owner’s and tenant’s choice. If someone keeps their property in disrepair, then people shouldn’t and might not rent from them, an empty building might encourage the owner to do some fix-ups as a means to get tenants. An empty building should be the result of zero demand in the market for living in a dilapidated building, not government take-over of private property. But as part of my post also pointed out, these codes are often frivolous and not even related to safety. Not everyone can live in Trump Tower, so people take the money they do have and find something they can afford. Ulyana, there is nothing wrong with that. We need to protect our freedom, no matter what! The government is trying to take it from us piece by piece.
Eh, I give up. If I started with “Obama and his cronies are evil”, I’d get listened to. No, nothing’s wrong with the natural market forces. But everything is wrong with the abuse of the poor. But, I guess, we are not denying that, we are just saying nothing’s wrong with the abuse and, essentially, “sucks to be poor”.
Btw, did you not pick up on the enourmous sarcasm of Rob’s post? Whoever “wants” live in dilapidation????? Nobody.
Ulyana:
Did you read journalista’s post? Did you read her answer to your first comment? Even after journalista tried to bring the discussion back on topic, you ignored the comment and went on with your own. Then you got bent out of shape because you didn’t get to derail the topic.
Your comments are off the subject and create a red herring discussion about the poor, rather than the underlying problem of the system that keeps poor people in poverty – big government bureaucracies and stupid building codes that prevent people from even a meager station in life. The duplicity of the welfare system creates intolerable problems and it is the poor people who get caught in the crossfire.
Somehow my comment didn’t make it on when I tried to post it yesterday, but I agree with Ulyana.
Let’s get something straight–and I speak from authority as one of the working poor who has just scraped together enough to move out of a place that’s falling down around her ears: no one WANTS to live in a dilapidated building. Sometimes people have to live in one because they’ve got an unscrupulous landlord who won’t make repairs, and they can’t afford the expense of a move. If your friend’s building was condemned, it darn well should have been condemned, and the same municipal government that condemned it should have been responsible for helping her find a new home.
It’s frankly appalling that housing the poor in festering slums is depicted here as some kind of triumph of the free market.
Euripides:
Oooookay, I feel I need to get something straight here.
1) There is no need to insult my comprehension skills; again, you don’t know me. Do you talk like that to your fellow professors or church members? Please be civil. As you know, we have to be careful when making assumptions about our audience on the internet.
2) I’m not bent out of shape. To me, this is an interesting topic. I enjoy the discussion, and what I mostly enjoyed is seeing where Journalista is coming from. I’m sure she herself wants to see a discussion and not some people attacking others for “derailing” the conversation. These are my thoughts, responses, and reactions to the post. All valid and all directed to the author. The only problem with my comments is that they are not what you wanted to hear.
I wonder if I should have inserted smiley faces, hears, and “haha’s” after every sentence to convey that I’m not “bent out of shape”. I’m not sure that would be appropriate for the topic at hand.
Well, I’m not disputing that beaurocracy is bad. I’m not lobbying here for the government to get bigger. In fact, the opposite. But, how would you know, I’m “derailing”, or, more accurately, not saying what you want to hear.
In my city, next door to my office, was an old house that a community group used as a meeting place for counseling disturbed teens and to run such meetings as alcoholics anonymous.
The house was old and not in the best of shape, but it was serviceable and afforded a common place for folks to meet and find help overcoming their problems. The counselors who worked there didn’t make a lot of money yet spent countless hours trying to help.
So the city came along and, instead of acknowledging the work this group was doing, told the group they had to bring the house up to city code or move out. Of course, the counseling group, which didn’t have a lot of money to begin with, couldn’t make the required changes to a perfectly serviceable building and had to close.
Somewhere along the line, we’ve empowered government to control our lives to the extent that prevents individuals from actually offering help. In the case of the group in my city, they had to disband and leave a now empty house. They could no longer help those teens and I understand few of them found another group which they could afford for help.
Here’s the crux of the problem. As Journalista said, “this isn’t a blog or a post about poor people, it’s about politics.” When government gets in the way of a private group trying its best to help the poor and those who need our help, we’ve got a problem on our hands. It’s sobering to note, that under today’s city codes and with the federal laws we have today, that Jane Addams would not have been able to create or run the Hull House complexes. Considering her impact on the progressive ideal, that is indeed a sad state we are in.
Government is now getting in the way of helping people. By funding its version of the welfare state, it actually maintains the poor class and keeps poor people from achieving anything but government dependence.
The solution is one I’ve advocated for years. We need to reduce government controls that are poking and squeezing into all available spaces of our lives. There is hardly anything we do that isn’t regulated or taxed. We need to repeal or change laws that feed the poor mentality and keep people enslaved to government welfare.
Human growth and human potential cannot be best served by enslaving a people to the care of government. Again, as Journalista said: “It is not the government’s job to make life perfect and easy for everyone. We have our free agency and we can all make our own choices in life, good or bad. The government needs to stay out of it.”
The government’s job is to do whatever the people vote for, and if the people vote for a stronger social safety net, then the government is obliged to give it to them.
Moreover, as I said, no one chooses to live in a dilapidated building. People get stuck renting from landlords who won’t do their jobs. If I get hired on at a burger place, and I refuse to flip burgers, can I argue that the management exercised their free choice in hiring me, and the lawyers who show me the contract I signed and demand that I work or leave are interfering incompetents who want to control everyone’s lives and have hereby left this poor fast food manager without anyone to flip burgers? I guess I could try, but the vast majority of the people in the western hemisphere aren’t free to not do their jobs. Why do landlords get a pass?
Now, what happened to the counselling group was unfortunate, but much as those individuals were helping their fellow human beings, other individuals were perfectly free to invest the money to get them out of their bind, and they didn’t. Whereas, if the group had been able to apply for government grants, as they can here in Canada, they might have been able to fix the place up, and have a consistent source of funding. The solution would have been more government intervention, not less.
And poverty IS political, hugely political. On what grounds could it possibly be excluded?
Cat:
You bring up some interesting arguments here.
“The government’s job is to do whatever the people vote for, and if the people vote for a stronger social safety net, then the government is obliged to give it to them.”
Well, yes and no. What happens when the people vote for and create laws that interfere with others’ rights? For example, in the US, we had “Jim Crow” laws on the books which disenfranchised blacks. Another example: in the US, the Supreme court created a right to privacy out of thin air with Roe v. Wade. It’s not constitutional, but that didn’t matter to many women or to the court. It also wasn’t legislated – not voted on at all.
What you imply here is that whatever people vote for is what we have to abide by. I disagree. If people make bad laws, we need to fix or change them so they don’t cause more damage. When the laws get in the way with, say the ability for a charity group to function, then the problem lies with the government, not the private charity. When the laws get in the way with an individual’s right to property, then it’s the government’s fault, not the individual’s.
“If the group had been able to apply for government grants, as they can here in Canada, they might have been able to fix the place up, and have a consistent source of funding.”
The viewpoint that government is the solution to all problems, isn’t a tenable position. This is precisely Journalista’s point with this post. Government has grown too large, too complex, too bureaucratic and now interferes with private businesses, enterprise, and charity work. The solution – to apply for government grants – only contributes to the growing problem and ties private industry more and more to the government.
Yes, it’s too bad the group next door couldn’t get private funding to fix a problem that was created by overbearing city codes. But why should a privately owned and operated charitable group have to tie itself to a government that will turn around and bite them?
Returning to Journalista’s blog, the now homeless woman was a product of government interference, although her mental state certainly didn’t help. When a private individual tried to help, it was government that stepped in, and instead of fixing the problem, made it worse by throwing her out on the street.
“And poverty IS political, hugely political. On what grounds could it possibly be excluded?”
Why, yes it is. It is also not relevant to this particular post or discussion, as I pointed out earlier.
Point taken. That rider is always present in my own mind, but I don’t always take the time to spell it out where I ought. So let’s try this again: the government’s job is first and foremost to protect human rights, and then to do whatever the people vote for.
That’s a double whammy though. Now, the social safety net is not just something the people voted for, but can also be acknowledged as a structure in place to protect human rights.
As far as the right to property, the text reads, “No one shall arbitrarily be deprived of his property.” This wasn’t arbitrary. There are laws in place that address how rental properties must be maintained, and the landlord was made aware of them and continued to violate them. Moreover, those laws aren’t just there for the fun of it; they’re there to protect the people he collects money from. As far as I can tell, his right to property does not trump his tenants’ rights to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of themselves and their families.
As far as the laws being overbearing, screens on the windows was one of the absurdities that these outrageous laws demanded, but I can say from personal experience that when there are no screens in the windows, mice get in. I’ve had to spend hundreds of dollars on traps, cleaning products, airtight canisters, and food to replace what the mice spoiled.
I’m not suggesting that government is the solution to all problems; I’m suggesting it’s the solution to THIS problem. When the problem is that I want butter-flavoured microwave popcorn for a low low price, that’s a problem I trust the free market to deal with. But you don’t vote for the free market. No one in the free market is sworn to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or held accountable when those rights are violated. When the problem is that people are exploited and in dire need, that’s something no one BUT the government is equipped to handle.
And poverty is extremely relevant. I mean, who else is expected to exercise this “free choice” to live in buildings with broken appliances and spotty utilities?