Readers Write: Section 8 housing is not suburban lifestyle dream

5
632

I am writing in response to your Aug. 7 editorial, “The Suburban Lifestyle Dream,” and to bring to the attention of your readers a number of facts and the history, not personal opinions or agendas, regarding the Obama-Biden AFFH Rule.
As stated in the July 8, 2015, National Review article by Stanley Kurtz, “Massive Government Overreach: Obama’s AFFH Rule Is Out,” (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/massive-government-overreach-obamas-affh-rule-out-stanley-kurtz/) “AFFH is an attempt to achieve economic integration.”
According to a May 8, 2016, article in the New York Post by Paul Sperry, “Obama’s last act is to force suburbs to be less white and less wealthy” (https://nypost.com/2016/05/08/obamas-last-act-is-to-force-suburbs-to-be-less-white-and-less-wealthy/), “Castro (Julian Castro served as the 16th U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 2014 to 2017) plans to launch the Section 8 reboot this fall, even though a similar program tested a few years ago in Dallas has been blamed for shifting violent crime to affluent neighborhoods. It’s all part of a grand scheme to forcibly desegregate inner cities and integrate the outer suburbs.”
The following quote from the Feb. 17, 2014, New York Times article by Joseph Berger, “An Affordable Housing Project Faces Opposition in Wealthy Chappaqua,” (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/nyregion/an-affordable-housing-project-faces-opposition-in-wealthy-chappaqua.html), exposes who pays for the Section 8 housing based on the a desegregation settlement Westchester County reached in 2009 that is being overseen by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development:
“It requires the county to spend $51.6 million by 2016 to help finance the building of 750 units of moderate- and low-income housing in some of Westchester’s 31 largely white communities, including Rye, Larchmont, Harrison and Mount Pleasant. The county is required to aggressively market those apartments to nonwhites.”
As for where the property is located in Nassau County available for this Section 8 housing, may I quote a fellow letter writer and reader, “Try the vast, quickly accelerating stock of empty retail spaces, for one. The land is there, unless these flying monkeys who show up at town meeting protesting new construction are imagining things. Right? And the Macy’s property?”
In conclusion, of course black lives matter, but does the editor really believe that 65 percent of suburban voters have a favorable view of the BLM (Bolshevik, Leftist and Marxist) political movement?

Walter J. Jaworski
New Hyde Park

5 COMMENTS

  1. My Dear Mr. Jaworski-

    it is interesting how easily you voice the most hateful comments out loud, without shame, self-awareness, or without even a hint of provocation. Truly revealing.

    From a simple article I wrote that pointed out the NEED for housing alternatives in a County that relied too much on sprawl and single family home zoning, without provocation, you replied with the mention of “Hempstead,” for reasons I cannot fathom. What was THAT supposed to refer to?

    You then attacked the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, which I never mentioned, or have ever offered an opinion on.

    You titled your article with the “Suburban Housewives” canard, which the “President” re-asserted today. That’s not a racist dog whistle- it’s a racist megaphone. Aside from the naked attempt to invoke fear of an onrush of people of color swarming our neighborhoods, this is the 21st Century, and the day of the single earner has been dead for decades. They’re not “housewives.” They’re accomplished professionals with real careers. Some of them out-earn their husbands.

    How you jumped to a conclusion, without prompting or even a hint, that my article dealing with the needs of the Nassau population AS IT EXISTS, and not the way it was, into an advocacy of Section 8 housing is pretty telling stuff. What did I write that triggered this paranoid avalanche of color and class fear on your part?

    All I said- and this is from personal experience- is that Nassau is very limited in it’s housing choices, thanks to the cookie cutter housing development that ran rampant after Mr. Levitt’s success with the concept, but the time has come to provide housing for people aging out of those homes, and young people who want to plant their stake here.

    That was the whole point. Providing alternatives that kept families together and let single wage earners have their place here to provide the workforce the County needs. Practical stuff.

    As for the Macy’s property, I don’t think Brookfield is in the business of building low income housing projects. In fact, if they build it, I doubt you could afford it yourself.

    All my article stated is that Nassau needs a better mix of property types to suit the changing demographics and economy of the County. YOU turned it into a race war.

    You have the last word.

    Good day.

  2. The letter was a response to the paper’s Aug. 7 editorial, “The Suburban Lifestyle Dream.” I quoted facts only.
    I rest my case.

  3. Too clever by half, Mr Jaworski.

    This was a continuation of this screed you wrote: https://theislandnow.com/blog-112/readers-write-would-suburban-housewives-approve-of-affh-mandated-zoning-changes/

    …which was in direct response to my letter. You wrote: “In response to Donald Davret’s July 10, 2020 letter, “Don’t block door on Nassau’s housing needs,” I offer the following information to the readers for serious consideration”

    You then followed up with a response to the Editor’s article on AFFH, which LBJ signed into law, and was slightly modified by the Obama Administration.

    You then conflated the AFFH with Section 8. That rule has been in place since 1937. It also assists veterans with their housing needs.

    I think the readers can decide for themselves what you really mean.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here