It's code for block busting. It's planned, systematic demographic warfare. "Affordable housing" is always high-density apartments/condos dropped into a conservative (i.e., white suburban) voting district. One or two of these developments can completely switch a red precinct to a blue precinct. The best part for them is that they're using the taxes they charge the white homeowners to finance their own demise.
Once that population count is up, they can easily get away with fraudulent votes since most of those low incomes are low iq and either do what they are told or don’t make a fuss when someone use their identity to vote.
I think the demographic warfare is key for people to understand. Without an understanding of how the left is systematically attacking and dismantling western society it's impossible to recognize and stop. In places where the demographic war has already been lost it may be impossible to reverse. The key battlegrounds right now are Texas, Arizona, and Idaho.
Texas is a battleground? LOL, no. It's already been lost.
The best part for them is that they're using the taxes they charge the white homeowners to finance their own demise.
How's this work
The white homeowners pay property taxes, income taxes, capital gains taxes, which all go to fund programs for affordable housing projects and fund rent subsidies and welfare so your replacements can afford to live in your voting precinct. You're literally being forced at the point of a gun to fund your own demise.
when is baby Jesus gonna come and stop it?
I saw the map for this thing. It is 1.5 acres that the developer was going to donate to the Village (ie city) to use as affordable housing, whereas much more area was dedicated to single family and townhouses to be sold at market rate. What that constituted would be up to them. The reason Chappelle and a bunch of the neighbors are pissed is because they don't want development. Just like... almost everywhere else. People that are in a place don't want any more houses because there's nothing in it for them, and no one likes being around other people. If anything it decreases their property value because there are more options. But that doesn't give people a right to tell someone else what they can do with their property. In my mind. I know that the mechanics of city government mean that it actually does. The countervailing force is that developers take over and bribe city governments.
But that doesn't give people a right to tell someone else what they can do with their property.
That's why it's not OK for someone the next property over to build a condominium project where there was just a home before. That's one property owner telling all the rest of the people in the neighborhood how their property is going to be for the next 50 years.
Rights end where others begin. Of course people have private property rights, but those rights don't include violating the property rights of their neighbors.
How do you come up with that? Someone who builds a condominium complex is using their own property. No one need even enter neighboring property. I understand zoning, but your argument seems to be that you can't do what you want with your property if it "affects" your neighbors. That's a slippery slope. Particularly, I mean, when you live on 150 acres and you're telling the guy on the next 150 acres he cant' build because it's "out of character with the neighborhood." Like, I understand why it annoys people, but I don't understand generically what gives them the right.
(post is archived)