From state-sponsored media… “Community unites after an LGBTQ+ senior housing project in Boston was defaced” (NPR, July 14, 2022):
The road to building The Pryde, a Boston housing development aimed at LGBTQ+ seniors, has been surprisingly smooth. That’s what made last weekend’s homophobic vandalism all the more shocking.
Among the slurs and death threats covering the perimeter of the construction site, which takes up nearly an entire city block of the Hyde Park neighborhood, were messages saying, “We will burn this,” “die slow,” and “die by fire.”
Meanwhile, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu also responded on Twitter, writing, “Hate & acts of vandalism will not be tolerated at the Pryde — or anywhere in Boston.”
“This affordable, LGBTQ+ senior housing development has been led by local residents, boosted by neighborhood voices & fueled by united support. We will move even faster to get it done,” Wu said.
Intolerance will not be tolerated by the tolerant!
From the developers:
Pennrose, in partnership with LGBTQ Senior Housing Inc., has been selected by the City of Boston to develop 74 new apartments for seniors 62 and older in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Boston. Construction has begun on the 120 year old former William Barton Rogers School that will undergo a historic rehabilitation. Rent-restricted studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments will be available to households and individuals at various income tiers (30%, 50%, 60%, 80% and 100% of Area Median Income). Several apartments will be set aside for homeless individuals. A housing lottery will be conducted, and 70% of the apartments will carry a City of Boston resident preference during the initial lease up of the community.
So many questions! First, why aren’t all of the apartments set aside for those who are currently homeless? (who has a greater need for a home than a homeless individual?) Massachusetts needs to catch up to California with its 160,000+ unhoused residents? Second, if Maskachusetts is Tolerance Central, why do members of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community have to live apart from those who do not identify as 2SLGBTQQIA+? Would it be okay to build rent-restricted housing for Black people? For Asian American and Pacific Islander people? If discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is forbidden under Massachusetts law, how can this new government-sponsored development discriminate against cisgender heterosexuals who want to live rent-free?
Related:
- “I Got Gay Married. I Got Gay Divorced. I Regret Both.” (New York Times): What if a 2SLGBTQQIA+ couple in one of these almost-free apartments splits up? Is the right to occupy a subsidized apartment a property right that can be divided by a family court?
“Dr” Phil: Since you are included in the group, please explain why the idle rich care so much about what other people get for free or at a reduced price. You (and your next 3 generations) are set for life no matter what happens to those people, so why not find something that brings you joy? “I got mine, but they better not get theirs.” I guess it proves money doesn’t buy happiness (at least in your case) because you sure spend a lot of time complaining about other people, especially the disadvantaged/minority/LGBT/poor. Keep kicking them while they’re down, Phil! That’s a great use of your time.
Mike: you haven’t answered a single question from the original post. Why aren’t all units allocated to those who are currently homeless? If the housing project is located in a hate-free city, why do those who identify as 2SLGBTQQIA+ need to be isolated?
Regarding your question about what the idle rich care about, that’s not the subject of the original post and I would have to find an idle rich person to ask!
“Dr.” Mike: There are several studies that dispute the conjecture of structural poverty among 2SLBGTQQIA+:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165176513004655
“We find, using National Health and Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 1988 to 2007, that the income gap has reversed over time from a penalty to a premium.”
From the heretic Brookings Institution (which includes many Democrat donors):
https://www.washingtonblade.com/2022/02/01/male-same-gender-couples-have-highest-income-study/
“An analysis released on Jan. 20 by the Hamilton Project of the D.C.-based Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy research organization, takes a closer look at recent U.S. Census data showing that same-gender male couples have the nation’s highest median family income among three types of couples.”
This matches my personal observation that 2SLBGTQQIA+ practitioners earn more on average, not less.
Maybe you should assume that, despite the pithy/provocative presentation, our host’s remedies have the same objectives as yours.
See: https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/how-to-star-man-arguing-from-compassion/
“Dr.” Mike: Additionally, did it occur to you that the people who (according to NPR) wrote the hateful messages are:
a) With near 100% certainty not rich.
b) Jealous that one identity group gets money and they don’t.
c) Tired of the propaganda.
Of course there also is the possibility that the messages are a false flag operation to keep the money flowing.
Mike is a dumb dumb!
Mitch: Thank you for pointing out that this blog can just as easily be read as advocacy for actually delivering on the promises that we make to our poorest neighbors. Pointing out the discrepancy between what is promised and what is delivered is not necessarily an argument for terminating the promises. If the folks in Massachusetts and California who evince goodwill toward the vulnerable were actually willing to reduce their personal consumption/lifestyle, they could house the unhoused. The wealth and income exist and the statements of fine sentiments exist. Somehow, however, it is new Teslas that are purchased and not apartment buildings for those who are currently without shelter.
The need to fund moving expenses and housing for those fleeing states where abortion care is restricted is a new one, but, again, the folks in Massachusetts who say that their #1 priority is abortion care are actually wealthy enough to enable potential birthing persons to move to Boston. Instead, they cook themselves breakfast in their renovated kitchens and drive their brand new cars to demand that people outside of Massachusetts take action of some sort.
@Mike,
> You (and your next 3 generations) are set for life no matter what happens to those people, so why not find something that brings you joy?
You can probably put me into this bucket as well. But you may also want to know that I immigrated to the USA back in 1981, legally, and worked my butt off to get where I’m and still do to this day. Beside my day job at Big company, I have a rental property that I manage it all on my own. My weekends and evening relaxing times are spent on this side job. Now, when I’m gone from this life, I know my kids will be just fine and will carry on with what I will leave for them because I taught them hard work and responsibility is important just like my parents taught me. In short, not all of us inherited or were given “free” wealth. And more importantly, we work our butts off to stay in that just-above-middle-class bucket.
> … complaining about other people, especially the disadvantaged/minority/LGBT/poor. Keep kicking them while they’re down, Phil! That’s a great use of your time.
The only complaint I have is the fact that those folks abuse the system that’s designed to help them. As a simple example. Let’s say you are a reasonable person and understand that your next door neighbored will have parties every now and then just like you would do. And once in a while a party may get wild and you let it go too because you are a reasonable person. Now, if this goes on and on, month after month, would you still be a reasonable person and let the wild parties go on interrupting your nights?
This is how I see the so called disadvantaged/minority/LGBT/poor that you named. No matter what you do to them, what you give them and how much freedom you give them, they keep crying “wolf” and keep asking for more to the point they see the temporary programs offered to them as “entitlement”.
Don’t believe me? This morning I got off the phone with RCAP [1] regarding one of my tenants. For 19 months now, you and I — sorry, I meant to say the government — have been paying their rent. The representative told me they are no longer giving out rent payment the way they used to because: a) the funding is not there any more like it used to be, and b) shock, shock, there have been a lot of abuses by tenants decaling “emergencies” to receive free rental help.
[1] https://www.rcapsolutions.org/
> why aren’t all of the apartments set aside
> for those who are currently homeless?
Maybe that’s how it works when a formerly rich country becomes physically unable to provide the welfare it once promised. If the proportion of non-working people grows and the proportion of skilled working people shrinks then some people are going to lose out through higher prices or non-availability of what they need.
The federal government can print money to outbid the obvious losers, i.e. working- and middle-class taxpayers. State governments can tax them. But the point has to be reached when it’s difficult to squeeze enough out of them. If the tent cities (Bidenvilles?) continue to grow, is it a sign the squeeze is reaching its limit and therefore the definition of “safety net” has to get more flexible?
Given the passion for abortion care and in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, it is also worth asking why this complex isn’t repurposed to house reproductive-age potential birthing persons who are fleeing states in which abortion care is not available at 28 or 32 weeks as it is in Maskachusetts.
A topical news story on taxpayers fleeing high taxes, crime and squalor. “(California is) at a risk for becoming a state for very, very wealthy people and very, very low earners who receive state and local and federal aid that allows them to be able to live here,” according to a UCLA professor.
So what happens when there just aren’t enough surveyors, electricians, plumbers etc to go around? Tim Cook and Diane Feinstein probably aren’t going to roll up their sleeves to do bricklaying and roofing. With few non-elite workers left to squeeze, the “unhoused people” are more likely to stay that way, aren’t they?
Are the construction workers also certified to be 2SLGBTQQIA+? Or do they just use straight people to build the discriminatory (and probably illegal) ghettos?
Let’s ask the next logical question also: are ALL the construction workers on the project documented, bona fide Americans, or are they partially comprised of “no human is illegal” people who aren’t legally in the country? It would be interesting to see that data. What about the people who are going to work in the place to help the elderly who live there? Are they documented?
I ask these questions because if you’re going to construct what are effectively ghettos for protected people using taxpayer money, you should probably make sure that everyone who ever works on the project or later, IN the project, fits the criteria for the ghetto you’re building, because somewhere down the line, there might be someone who resented building the ghetto.
Have they made any arrests?
Let’s hope that The Pryde will be less expensive than The Big Dig (for international readers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig#Problems).
I’m disappointed that nobody has addressed the legal angle: “Would it be okay to build rent-restricted housing for Black people? For Asian American and Pacific Islander people? If discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is forbidden under Massachusetts law, how can this new government-sponsored development discriminate against cisgender heterosexuals who want to live rent-free?”
How can the government build housing that is restricted in these ways and not run afoul of the Equal Protection clause (14th Amendment)?
You are correct of course, but the Democrats’ current modus operandi is to make up arbitrary rules and wait until someone sues (in which case they often lose).
They don’t respect labor laws and defamation laws either. Only the courts can stop them.
Isn’t this addressed by its being handled on a nod and a wink basis? LGBTQ Senior Housing (https://www.lgbtqseniorhousing.org/) is a non-profit advocate working with its developer partner, Penrose. The housing can’t really be restricted to LGBTQ citizens – how would they demonstrate their lifestyle preference?
No need to be disappointed. Alex (1.0?) did address the legal angle just 2 posts above!
Boston 2SLGBTQQIA+ community better leave hate-filled Boston and move to 2SLGBTQQIA+ friendly Ukraine – and Make Mariupol Gay Again!
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/07/24/lgbtqnato-send-arms-ukraine-make-pride-mariupol-possible/
First reaction : “probably a hoax hate crime like so many others”.
When my mother had to go in to long term care, the Christian based non-profit had to rebrand because the local small town newspaper refused their ads – saying that the use of “Christian” in their organization’s name was exclusionary and could give people the idea that only Christians were welcome.
A more crafty legal team than they had, would have simply tried to surreptitiously place an ad for the above senior center – and then sued over the discrimination.