Towne Lake Worsening? (Houston, Dallas, Arlington: real estate market, rent, mobile home)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Houston metro ALREADY has more crime infiltrating "good suburban areas" than any other place I personally know in the United States. Apartments are interesting. In other places I've been, apartments do not seem to increase crime, for the most part - BUT THEY DO IN HOUSTON! I truly do not understand why crime is so bad here "in the good areas" and places go downhill far more than most other places. What gives.
On average, do the lower and working class in Houston have much less sense of community and pride for the neighborhood and each other than other areas of the USA (I'm familiar with Northeastern and Midwestern cities), or what is the deal with this here?
I'd argue that DC, Miami, and Atlanta all have a sizable concentration of less safe suburbs too. I don't see that as unique to Houston per se but more of an offshoot of the affordability of those suburbs and the fact that average criminals/criminally inclined folks can afford them too. That may not be the entire reason but it does play a part imo.
But see, you like Local planner are being dramatic with lines like this. I've seen both you and LP discuss having second family properties, so why not setup homeless people in those if you aren't renting them out?
All people want is more planning, which is hard to do in a city with no zoning, that extends to the unincorporated areas that now have more people than the City of Houston. What does Houston's no planning style do? It keeps the market relatively cheap, so buying a home is within range for middle class families. This comes with drawbacks too though because the lax regulations lead to the apartment clusters that basically become projects over time.
In regards to your article, it is very ironic the woman's last name is "Threat" and she's one of the ones being forced out due to the small town eliminating section 8. Almost seems like a joke. Regardless, this example here is an extreme one as this is a newly formed town creating their own self governing rules. I'm sure this kind of thing has happened in Houston before.
You've been to Galveston I assume and understand the demographics there. These aren't rich people and a good chunk of the island is poor. I also see the irony in you calling my comment dramatic while immediately calling for me and LP to host poor people on our property - as if that has anything to do with what we're talking about here.
With regard to Providence Village's actions, should every town be able to ban Section 8 renters? Because I'm sure if you asked most of the people in this thread if they would favor that for their community, they would say yes. Then they would immediately be confused by the sudden rise in homelessness, crime, and extreme poverty and not understand why that would happen.
What should the rules be regarding that in your opinion?
Quote:
But although overall Houston area crime might be down, it's undeniable that crime in places like North Katy has gone up. When I was a kid, you could leave your doors unlocked in these areas. I still know people here and the kids growing up are way different committing multiple burglaries and thefts. The vibes are not the same.
It'd be interesting to see crime comparisons by area because I bet you'd see crime went down a bunch in places like 3rd Ward, 5th Ward, Acres Homes, heck even parts of SW Houston. But it went up a bit in places like North Katy, South Cypress, Spring/Klein, northern FB County (Bush High area), etc.
I would bet you're 100% correct. That's why your and my attitudes differ on this, fundamentally. I live in the city, always have when I've been in the Houston area, and have noticed the decrease in crime over the last 30 years. The 90s were nuts ITL, and apparently the 70s and 80s we're worse. You've noticed the opposite and your reaction is understandable. I personally don't think the government should enact legislation (such as allowing Section 8 to be banned in certain cities/areas) that would favor one area over another. No one is better than another and money shouldn't allow you to buy your way out of social problems with the government's blessing.
It's similar to my stance on how US TV stations don't show graphic war footage like they do in other countries. I remember being in Europe and Asia during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and they would often show very graphic footage that brings home the *actual* horrors of war. Why should we be protected from seeing the consequences of our own choices?
People with money (which, frankly, I qualify as one) should not be able to live in this little government-enabled bubble that whitewashes the effects of things we as a society have chosen to do. People want to pay to avoid poor people and I'm not a fan of it.
Since Towne Lake is apparently becoming ghetto, I wonder how all those large homes with spas and boat docks in gated communities will rent out for?
Probably not as much as their counterparts in incorporated suburbs thats for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch
I'd argue that DC, Miami, and Atlanta all have a sizable concentration of less safe suburbs too. I don't see that as unique to Houston per se but more of an offshoot of the affordability of those suburbs and the fact that average criminals/criminally inclined folks can afford them too. That may not be the entire reason but it does play a part imo.
And what do these areas all have in common? Large swaths of unincorporated suburbs. Houston is the worst of this group. Atlanta and Miami constantly have new suburbs incorporating into cities so they can have more local control (planning, police, events, etc.). DC's is due to the heavy gentrification of the city, some of the highest in the nation, that pushed crime into the suburbs. But even then we're only really talking about the Maryland suburbs, not Virginia.
You've been to Galveston I assume and understand the demographics there. These aren't rich people and a good chunk of the island is poor. I also see the irony in you calling my comment dramatic while immediately calling for me and LP to host poor people on our property - as if that has anything to do with what we're talking about here.
Obviously the reason why I said that was because both you and LP were acting like people who disagree with over apartment building hate poor people. I wouldn't have brought that housing the poor comment up at all if you two weren't implying that first.
Quote:
With regard to Providence Village's actions, should every town be able to ban Section 8 renters? Because I'm sure if you asked most of the people in this thread if they would favor that for their community, they would say yes. Then they would immediately be confused by the sudden rise in homelessness, crime, and extreme poverty and not understand why that would happen.
What should the rules be regarding that in your opinion?
Section 8 rules should be setup by the county, where there should be a certain % of units for Section 8 based on the amount of service economy jobs in that particular city. If a city wants a bunch of retail to bring in outside dollars, they need to also provide Section 8 or other low income offerings for the workers. Something like this would only work with adequate city planning, not for huge unincorporated areas with no zoning.
Quote:
I would bet you're 100% correct. That's why your and my attitudes differ on this, fundamentally. I live in the city, always have when I've been in the Houston area, and have noticed the decrease in crime over the last 30 years. The 90s were nuts ITL, and apparently the 70s and 80s we're worse. You've noticed the opposite and your reaction is understandable. I personally don't think the government should enact legislation (such as allowing Section 8 to be banned in certain cities/areas) that would favor one area over another. No one is better than another and money shouldn't allow you to buy your way out of social problems with the government's blessing.
It's similar to my stance on how US TV stations don't show graphic war footage like they do in other countries. I remember being in Europe and Asia during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and they would often show very graphic footage that brings home the *actual* horrors of war. Why should we be protected from seeing the consequences of our own choices?
People with money (which, frankly, I qualify as one) should not be able to live in this little government-enabled bubble that whitewashes the effects of things we as a society have chosen to do.
The thing is, money does buy yourself out of many social problems. That's why there are areas like River Oaks with their own police departments, or why cities like Beverly Hills exist. if you have enough money, you can certainly buy your way out meanwhile putting up a front that you care (but call the cops when you immediately see the first POC in your neighborhood).
I agree about the war stuff. More should be shown on American news stations, but we know American news stations aren't in the business of that. They answer to the same people and have to make America look good, while spreading BS (like how Iraqis and Libyans wanted Democracy lol).
I've also been the apartment kid during school. The majority of the POCs at one school I went to came from the street of apartment complexes built together. Of course there were things said, especially by parents, about the apartment kids. So I know how it is to be on that side of the aisle. But being an apartment kid, I also saw why a lot of people don't like having a bunch of apartments built together like that because there was more BS that happened on that street than the rest of the school zone combined, from homicides to robberies to brawls, etc.
"Poor planning" is frequently brought up as the reason for the quick decline of a number of suburbs in the Houston area, and maybe it is a factor - but could another factor be the simple fact that the greater Houston area is perhaps the most effective metroplex in the country when it comes to adding suburban housing stock?
The rapidity with which suburban development occurs here is unreal, and I can't help but wonder if it factors into families' moves out to the latest new subdivision as soon as the slightest hint of real or perceived decline occurs in their own neighborhood (or, for that matter, because their kitchen/baths were built 9 years ago and "look old"). If all non-infill development was shut down tomorrow, would owners be more inclined to invest in and support the long-term health of their neighborhoods? Would "middle" neighborhoods between 610 and Hwy 6/1960 enjoy a wave of investment and gentrification?
Not saying that this could/should happen, or even that it would be ideal - but it would definitely have some positive side effects.
I've also been the apartment kid during school. The majority of the POCs at one school I went to came from the street of apartment complexes built together. Of course there were things said, especially by parents, about the apartment kids. So I know how it is to be on that side of the aisle. But being an apartment kid, I also saw why a lot of people don't like having a bunch of apartments built together like that because there was more BS that happened on that street than the rest of the school zone combined, from homicides to robberies to brawls, etc.
I grew up in "ghetto" apartments as well and I can 100% vouch for this comment. Funny it's always some yuppie or someone who've never walked in my shoes trying to make a case. SMH
"Poor planning" is frequently brought up as the reason for the quick decline of a number of suburbs in the Houston area, and maybe it is a factor - but could another factor be the simple fact that the greater Houston area is perhaps the most effective metroplex in the country when it comes to adding suburban housing stock?
The rapidity with which suburban development occurs here is unreal, and I can't help but wonder if it factors into families' moves out to the latest new subdivision as soon as the slightest hint of real or perceived decline occurs in their own neighborhood (or, for that matter, because their kitchen/baths were built 9 years ago and "look old"). If all non-infill development was shut down tomorrow, would owners be more inclined to invest in and support the long-term health of their neighborhoods? Would "middle" neighborhoods between 610 and Hwy 6/1960 enjoy a wave of investment and gentrification?
Not saying that this could/should happen, or even that it would be ideal - but it would definitely have some positive side effects.
That's the issue - you build a new one - one sign of trouble or in some cases, lack of being able to sit down in one area, folks are ready to jump to a new suburb as each new burb brings the less expensive burb with them in the general area
Who said anything about preventing you from renting to poor people? My comment stems from the several you made that folks who are against large apartment clusters are also against poor people, yet you have multiple properties and aren't housing poor people in any of them. Why?
You can do anything you want with your property, but don't point fingers at others calling them uncompassionate/don't care for others/etc. for simply having a different opinion when there's more you could do as well.
Again, this seems to be a Houston unique problem where large apartment clusters all turn to crap. There is always an excuse, but at the end of the day, it's shoddy planning and bad development. Sugar Land has apartments, and although crime is higher in those apartments due to more density of residents, Sugar Land's apartments aren't quasi-projects like their Houston counterparts. Multiple this across the Houston area if places like Cypress, North Katy, Spring, Klein, etc., were their own cities and the Houston region would be better off for it.
You keep calling for "planning." I'm all for planning. Zoning is NOT planning; good planning does not require zoning. Zoning is not needed, apart from prohibiting physically hazardous incompatibilities. Yet you keep insisting that the government must dictate residential uses and densities. You can't make a case that suburbs should restrict residential densities or concentrations of rental housing like apartments, as long as water and sewer infrastructure is there to support it. Certainly not on the speculative basis that "clusters of rental housing might cause more crime at some point in the vague future." Yet you keep insisting otherwise.
And furthermore, I haven't actually accused anyone of being unkind or not caring about poor people. What I have accused people of is saying that governments should be able to use force of law to limit various kinds of residential uses. In the suburbs of Houston and basically every metro area in the country, you certainly must be aware that a primary use of zoning is to do exactly that, and it is primarily used to limit multifamily housing and rental housing generally, with "fear of crime" being a common sentiment, just as DoE and others are expressing here. And communities all over the nation try to use government, though zoning or other means, to limit or prohibit the ability of households of lower income to be able to live in their community. Somehow folks think that government should have the right to massively interfere in private property rights - prohibiting a developer from being able to answer a market need for apartments or whatever - because homeowners or would-be home owners are somehow owed this. They are not.
It's just the same as in the city itself, where whiny homeowners think that a fancy apartment tower shouldn't be built in or near their SF neighborhood, or that a builder shouldn't be able to turn a SF into townhomes. The fear of low-income people, crime, or renters may not be at play there, but the idea that these homeowners should be able to dictate the property rights of others just to prohibit things that irk them, is not justifiable. Cities and suburbs should be allowed to evolve as per the economy and the market when it comes to use, height, and density. To argue otherwise is to advocate BAD planning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
