Of course it didn't, liberals just like to think it would. But it's like an analogy I always use: if you take 3/4 cup of fresh delicious milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale, sour milk, you only have one thing: a cup of bad milk. Good cannot change the bad--bad changes the good.I been noticing in the last year that it seems like there's been a lot more white people driving around in Maple Hts. And I see more and more blacks that don't have their pants dragging on the ground with their a/cracks showing. Like you guys all here been saying, looks like the section 8ers' seem to be getting booted out of the city. So the 'plan' to let them live in decent homes here must have backfired. Someone thought that by giving them a nice home cheap, they'd act more civilized. Didn't work out too well now, did it?
#21 Jan 6, 2012
#22 Jan 6, 2012
Government isn't doing anything that the money doesn't tell it to do. The big boys made billions of off those loans to minorities and low-income people. Let's not forget that moving minorities in means white flight, which means more money for the big boys.
Now that the foreclosures are here, Maple Heights is making it hard for the process to repeat. Slum lords don't want in. Low-income people can't get the loans or rent. The city becomes stable.
#23 Jan 6, 2012
No, the city becomes undesirable and uncomfortable to live in. It becomes deserted at the same time. I don't know many who enjoy living here anymore. If you give most good people a way out where they don't loose their asz on their home, they would be out of here in a minute. It's one thing when you only have to worry about the bad guys getting you, but when you have to worry about the good guys and the bad guys getting you, you just want to GTF out no matter who you are.
#24 Jan 6, 2012
That has been my argument from the beginning. Maple Heights has made it hard for people to move out. At the same time, it has made it hard for undesirables to move in. Things will become stable. Soon "decent" people will start to come here because it is affordable. Imagine people who need to pay back student loans and want a place to live.
Maple is keeping the trash out and good people in. Like I said, it is somewhat of a gentrification process.
#25 Jan 7, 2012
Maple is not keeping anybody out. There is nothing they did to do that. It all has to do with the housing market and foreclosures. If the federal government were still giving minorities and the poor opportunities to live in Maple Heights, trust me, they would still be here with more on the way, and the city couldn't do anything to stop them.
Like I said earlier, apartments have been here for decades, but the real apex of crime in our city was proportional with the housing boom and bust. When the government allowed black Clevelanders to buy homes here, that's when our average murder rate rose to three people per year. When the banks foreclosed and they moved back to Cleveland, that's when the crime went back down. You are giving credit where credit isn't do. And mark my words, if by some miracle DumBama gets back in office, and the house turns Democrat again, look forward to another attack of lowlifes in the suburbs, because Democrats believe in taking from the working and giving to the non-working.
#26 Jan 7, 2012
Do slum lords want to invest in Maple Heights rental properties? No. So we have no low-income people buying home OR renting homes.
Maple Heights Nazi like policies are keeping slum lords from buying up all these houses and renting them out. Don't act like that isn't helping. Why invest here when you can go to a city that doesn't give landlords a hard time?
#27 Jan 7, 2012
This is true, and that's why their policies lowered rental property value to the point nobody wants to buy in Maple Heights. I have a guy next door who would do anything to get rid of his rental house. He offered me unbelievable deals just to dump it. But because it's in Maple Heights, I don't want it. I don't even want what I have now.
What you have to understand is that when you hassle everybody, you deter the bad as well as the good. It's what's called a "Zero Sum Gain." In other words, when you keep bad people out through such policies, you keep good taxpaying people out too. So what happens when landlords trying to get rid of their property can't get the money they want? What happens when the real estate value goes lower and lower? They sell to somebody who will take advantage of such an opportunity , and that somebody is the Housing and Urban Development agency. They look for deals just like those in Maple Heights where desperate landlords and single home owners are willing to take a loss just to get the hell out of the community. HUD goes to Sheriffs auctions just for that reason.
If Maple Heights had absolutely no laws or restrictions on landlords, we would be in the same predicament as we are today. No difference. You are under this unfounded impression that the problems in Maple Heights stemmed from rental houses. There is no truth to that. The roots to the crime problem in Maple as well as other suburbs was the federal government bussing lowlife blacks into cities just like ours. Some rental units, yes, but more single homes than anything else.
#28 Jan 7, 2012
I already proved that the ghetto problem started with rentals. It was before these ghetto people could qualify for loans.
And I keep telling you that this is a "poor man's gentrification" process. If you weren't so caught up in Republican talking points, you would see this. Keep the riff raff out, sooner or later the right kind of people will invest. This has happened to neighborhoods in New York, D.C. and other places.
Nobody got bussed into Maple Heights. Everything doesn't have to be a talking point. Slum lords gave up on the neighborhood and the rentals were the first wave. Being on the border of Cleveland didn't help.
#29 Jan 8, 2012
Thats because they dont come out when its cold.
#30 Jan 8, 2012
Where and when did you prove rental properties had anything to do with the decay of this city? I already made my case when I pointed out the direct correlation between the housing market and violent crime here. They are proportional. Not only are they proportional, but it still fails to address the fact that rental properties have been here longer than you've been alive, and yet, no problems before.
I also pointed out that HUD people are not a problem in this city. Our former Mayor and city prosecutor gave me those facts. My Councilman concurred. I even asked you to write your representative to get his or her opinion to challenge my assertion. You refused. You don't want to know the truth.
These are not Republican talking points or any other talking points. The problems that do take place with rental properties are the direct responsibility of Fair Housing Laws that frighten landlords into renting to people they know could be trouble. Our hands are tied by the federal government.
#31 Jan 9, 2012
I proved that the low-income renters came into the area and started the problem. I proved they brought the gangs such as the Folks, Crips and Vice Lords.
I proved that this started "white flight" and led to more rental houses in the city.
We both know that these people brought friend and family -- those are the people causing trouble. That means your assertion that the people doing the crime don't live here is false. They are the ones bringing the people who do the crime. Are the low life thugs that commit the crimes coming to visit you? Are they coming to visit me? No, they are visiting the low-income HUD people.
The councilman who told you that is an idiot. If you have 100 flies outside and one piece of shjt is on the ground, what is attracting the 100 flies? The piece of shjt. Remove the piece of shjt and you don't attract the flies. The low-income renters and HUD folk attract the flies(criminals).
The straw that broke the camel's back was the house flipping aka housing boom. But it started with low-income rentals. But the housing boom also happened with mcmansions. Why no crime there?
#32 Jan 9, 2012
Because the banks still had limits to the amount of money the federal government allowed them to borrow. And where is this proof you speak of? Anecdotal experiences? That's proof?
As a landlord, I have constantly monitored rental properties throughout the years. Sure, a rental house here and there, but most were apartments. A new study shows that land investors are now purchasing single houses in order to rent them out. But it didn't start from the apartments. This is a new phenomena.
What you are trying to promote is blame displacement. The real problem in the rental industry are the stringent laws we have to follow. Again, not one landlord I've ever known selected troubled tenants over good ones. Slum Lords as you call them lose a lot of money renting to undesirable people. What land investor pursues that?
If 20 years ago, the Fair Housing Laws were repealed, Maple Heights would still be a desirable community to live in. This is because landlords could pick and choose who they rent to without threat from the federal or state governments. They would have refused rental to most Clevelanders and selected those who were brought up in this community and understood our criteria here.
#33 Jan 10, 2012
You obviously have an agenda. You are obsessed with the Fair Housing Laws. I just am telling you like it is.
You can map out low-income renters and crime. I don't care if they don't commit the crime. They do bring it and this has been proven. Landlords more worried about dollar signs help bring these tenants in.
I already conceded that the zero down era did help contribute, but this has been going before that was an option.
The rental industry worked fine in Strongsville during the same exact time period. As for the housing boom? The housing boom brought people who couldn't afford to live in Strongsville, the difference is those people didn't kill or rob.
#34 Jan 11, 2012
Don't kid yourself. Strongsville is starting to have their problems too similar to ours about 20 years ago. A friend of mine just bought a house there last year.
I never said that low income people are not the problem. What I said is that HUD residents are not the problem because they don't want to get kicked out of the suburbs. HUD residents are generally better tenants as well because they keep the place clean and don't destroy anything.
A friend of mine who lives in Garfield has a neighbor who is a full time landlord. I guess he has about six or seven houses in Garfield and surrounding areas. He said the last thing this guy wanted to do was go to HUD, but he couldn't get descent applicants or those making enough money to afford the place.
After he started renting to some HUD tenants, he confessed he had much less problems with them than he did with people who applied outright. When he chose the tenants, at times, he would get constant complaints from the neighbors. They would sneak animals in when his policies restricted pets. When the tenants left, it was a mess and he even had to go to court to sue his former tenants because of all the damage. He said that he has none of these problems with HUD residents.
Here is what you don't understand about the apartment rental business: we strive to rent to the best tenants possible. But it's a supply and demand thing. When the neighborhood is great and everybody wants to live there, a landlord can pick and choose. When it's the opposite, just about the only people that apply are those who are sketchy. It's not like we have many options at that point. And that's why I've always said that the neighborhood has to go first before landlords start renting to less desirables.
#35 Jan 12, 2012
My link shows that crime follows these people. They are the source whether they do it themselves OR if the people who visit them do the crimes. That is why the councilperson trying to use statistics doesn't know what the hell he or she is talking about. It's a proven fact. These people -- one way or another -- are a source of crime.
I am not attack landlords, I am attacking the landlords that start all this crap. Along the way, some landlords messes up financially and needs to rent quick. All it takes is one low-life to start the downward spiral. If I were to go look at a property and witnessed a whole bunch of lowlifes playing loud music and staring at me like I just walked into a prison, I'm not going to live there. But hood folks will feel right at home.
So yes, the rentals started it and the housing boom finished it. They actually worked in synergy to make the problem much worse than either one could have accomplished on its own.
While you were on the westside of Maple Heights, the eastside started going to hell. All it took was a few landlords to start the ball rolling. Next thing you know the families they rented to would have a house full of people.
#36 Jan 12, 2012
Landlords like myself who own few rentals or multi-family dwellings don't rent to people like that when we have choices. Apartment buildings do because they have a list of criteria for the potential tenant, and if they meet that criteria, they get an apartment.
Apartment building rentals have big money lawyers who create these standards of leasing. So what they do is draft contracts that protect their client from possible lawsuits. And of course, we know what the heart of lawsuits are: Fair Housing laws.
It's like what I told you earlier about my nephews fiancee. She just shows the apartment, takes the application, and from there, it goes up to corporate. The executive in charge has no idea who these people are, what they look like, or what kind of car they drive. If they meet the legal requirements to get an apartment, they offer it to the applicant with no input from my nephews fiancee.
You can't threaten business and then expect them to do the moral thing. It's not greed because apartment complex owners are incorporated so they really don't care about empty rental units. They write those off on their taxes. The heart of the problem are the Fair Housing Laws and various laws thereof.
It's like when the government created the loan standards for banks. Look at what happened! The same holds true with renting apartments. Government makes the decision, not the owner. And like the banks, if government would just stay out of our business and let us run it the way it should be run by our own standards, then you can stop undesirables from getting into suburbs like Maple Heights.
#37 Jan 13, 2012
It is not the Gotdam fair housing laws. It is the slum lords who have been around for ages. I see the ads in some communities that don't have problems.
Apartment for rent $700 a month. blah, blah. NO SECTION 8. No PETS. BACKGROUND AND CREDIT CHECK.
Now we have been over this. It is true that SOME people can appear to be perfect and be trouble, while others can have bad credit and be on section 8 and be the best tenants. But as a general rule, ghetto people have shit credit and don't like background checks.
Compare that ad with one from a landlord who doesn't care.
Apartment for rent.$700 a month. Section 8 welcome(tells most good tenants to avoid it). Free heat and water.(no mention of credit or background check).
Maple Heights was crime free during much of the time that there were these fair housing laws you rant about. What happened was a FEW EASTSIDE landlords started opening up the gates. Then all hell broke loose.
#38 Jan 13, 2012
No, that's not what happened at all.
Before the community went to hell, good black families moved to Maple Heights. Black people don't like feeling like outsiders, so they are the ones who dragged their ghetto family and friends into the city.
It's like the heat black Republicans get from the black communities: sell out, Uncle Tom, off the plantation, and so on. One guy that unloads my truck is a black guy who was raised in Kentucky. He is a good guy and a hard worker. We have normal conversations about all kinds of things. But when other black workers approach him, he starts that "brother" crap. His language changes, he starts using words I don't even know the meaning of, he does that silly handshake thing, uses his hands like he has no wrist control; the whole thing.
At first, I thought it was my imagination. Then some of my fellow co-workers brought him up during a conversation, and they noticed the same thing.
See...... you say lowlifes come in all colors; this is true. But the difference between white lowlifes and black lowlifes is that the white lowlifes are not welcomed by fellow white suburban people. We reject them, we hassle them, we virtually throw them out if one happens to cross our borders.
Black people don't like feeling like they are turning against their own kind. If they do, they are ridiculed, hassled, called all kinds of names. They feel ashamed of being somewhat successful. So once they move up in the world, they don't want to turn their back on people from where they came.
I've lived here over 25 years. And as you would imagine, I witnessed the steps of deterioration that took place. It's like that Aunt Selma thing I told you about. It was in the paper that "Clevelanders" who moved here were taking in relatives by the dozens to attend school here. They attended school, created all kinds of problems, and white people moved for the protection of their children. They didn't want to send them to Maple Heights schools any longer. And that was the start of all this. These were home owners--not renters.
#39 Jan 16, 2012
Wake up nobody wants to live with black people.
#40 Jan 17, 2012
I live what you are describing; black people have to know how to communicate in a white world and a black world. We are bilingual because we have to be.
I grew up in Maple Heights. We did not bring in the trash. That is why racial attacks happened for years in Maple Heights. We just tried to exist. When the low-income black people were brought here, things changed. They started letting their family come here for school. I told you that I witnessed it first hand. I grew up getting chased around town by greasers. When the low-income blacks came, all that stuff stopped. The greasers didn't want to deal with the inner-city gang bangers. They didn't know who they were chasing anymore. If you chase the wrong black person, you could end up with a gun to your had.
So you are incorrect, I know because I lived it. The first black people here played the humble role. We put up with things. The second wave that happened with low-income renters weren't putting up with anything. The greasers got in line. You had to be in school at the time to see the effects.
One low-income black renter's kid almost caused a riot situation. A white greaser attacked his cousin. He brought all of the "hood" up to Maple Heights. The greaser was crying like a baby. That was just one low-income renter's kid changed the whole school setting. Overnight greasers went from alpha to nothing.
Add your comments below
|cls service incorporated||10 hr||Bob Check||3|
|Well, Here's Another Black Kid Shot By Cops ......||19 hr||Maple Resident||9|
|Cuyahoga Amateur Radio Society F U C K Y O U||Nov 26||Ex Member||12|
|Illinois Open Meetings Act - public comments||Nov 22||LIB||1|
|Amateur Radio Tower 7395 Brecksville Road (Feb '09)||Nov 22||Omega Electronics...||35|
|Just Want To Say.......||Nov 21||Maple Resident||1|
|Obituary ROBERT CHECK 8/15/2014||Nov 21||Ive A Bigone||5|
Find what you want!
Search Garfield Heights Forum Now
Copyright © 2014 Topix LLC