One of the things that dems are pushing is development of low income housing across the US, specifically in the suburbs. It’s been happening in many towns in NJ. Most residents of the towns typically are opposed to it, most of it centering around issues with schooling and the subsequent costs. But you would think every lib would be more than happy with such progressive policies? I mean where else are we going to put all these people coming across the border? Also who’s going to pay for all the free housing, free healthcare, free education, etc., that these people are entitled to? Well it doesn’t seem libs really want this next to them:
I guess it’s one set of rules for the pee-ons and another set of rules for the elites.
This is straight out of the article. Apparently he thinks low income people are a threat to the safety and privacy of the children.
Routinely vocal on matters of social justice, the Bay Area power couple indicated that joining the well-heeled chorus of objection made them uneasy.
“We hesitate to add to the ‘not in our backyard’ (literally) rhetoric, but we wanted to send a note before today’s meeting,” they wrote on Jan. 18. “Safety and privacy for us and our kids continues to be our top priority and one of the biggest reasons we chose to live in Atherton.”
Most wealthy people who buy expensive homes, do not want to live near those that cannot afford that type of luxury.
That being said, most conservatives will be honest about their disdain for folks that cannot afford expensive homes.
Liberals on the other hand will shout about the homeless problem, but if a new low income home project is slated to be built near their expensive home, they complain.
I think security is a valid concern for a celebrity at that level. But I’d also like some details. It we are talking about a subdivision a couple of miles down the road, this sucks. If they are talking about a 20 story high rise overlooking his back yard, and looking into his bedroom, he may have a point
What does the view from windows have to do with safety? Are we saying that people mearly looking at someone’s yard/house from a distance is a threat to the safety of a family? Again safety was his word choice. Oh, and if he doesn’t like being seen, he has more than enough wealth to modify the fencing and landscaping of his property line. But again, what does the view have to do with “safety.”
I’m pretty sure you can figure out how privacy and safety are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing for a multi-millionaire international celebrity, if you think it through.
It’s pretty clear. The folks who don’t have as much can buy his merchandise, support his league with TV viewership and add clicks to his wife’s website, but they aren’t good enough to be his neighbors.
Public housing has to go somewhere, right ? If it’s not Steph and his family, won’t someone else’s safety and privacy be impacted, no matter where it goes ?
Although likely it’ll be someone whose jumpshot isn’t quite as pretty.
They aren’t being built for sale to elites, they are being built for low income multi family affordable housing. I guess you missed the HUD initiative to push multi-family "affordable housing into suburbs and single family neighborhoods all over the country.
