Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
1) Unless the "poor" cars are that dilapidated, it's unlikely to make much of a difference. If they're that poor they won't have cars to be visible in the first place.
2) The enhanced job opportunities are unlikely to be in that area. Why shouldn't they want to move?
3) The 2nd/holiday home argument is a bit of nonsense. When have the "poor" ever been able to buy properties there? Why should being "poor" give them the automatic right to live there, buy up the properties and then sell them on for a profit, and you're back to square one. The wages and job opportunities are said to be that bad, that no matter what, they couldn't afford to buy a property.
4) If an identifiable group has a higher chance of finding something, then that is exactly the reason they SHOULD be stopped. Eg Several years ago at the Notting Hill Carnival, a group of police decided NOT to search somebody, another group of police weren't so fussy and searched them, finding a gun in the process. Little point stopping little old ladies on the street.  Then again if little old ladies on the street were found to be involved in crime, then they too would be stopped. |
1) I've lived in areas where the "poor" where the ones with multiple cars, satellite TV etc as they weren't paying for their accommodation. Those who did work were sometimes worse off.
2) First you don't need to live and work in the same area and also you could remain in your community and work to improve it, spend your money there.
3)In some areas people could afford properties on wages available in that area and property prices reflected the area. But that (and the fact it's often a pretty area) made properties of interest to people outside the area who could offer more. The 2nd/holiday home is of relevance if it removes properties from the local housing stock.
4)Yup and it becomes a vicious circle.