Hardship in the Hamptons
-
Money isn't the main reason we hate rich people, but of course it helps.
-
-
Some of those houses didn’t seem that opulent. Even the litchfield one (with the aerial shot) is so far out from the city it probably wasn’t all that expensive.
If you get beyond commuting distance prices get much lower. Unless you’re on the beach or something.
Of the 5 houses neighboring mine, 3 of the families have second homes in the country or in one case in cape cod.. Only one I would call wealthy, the others are almost sorta house poor, though they’re well off income wise.
-
@jon-nyc said in Hardship in the Hamptons:
I read the whole thing and didn’t come away a violent revolutionary.
We can’t invalidate their lived experiences.
Yeah, but you read it from your country retreat in The Berkshires.
-
You are all missing something, and I would have missed this too had I not heard a discussion about the very point being missed just the other day.. ( i was soaking in the hot tub at one of my second homes and contemplating whether or not I should start raising hogs when this topic was discussed on the radio....... lol) ( just kidding)
This article was written to further a narrative, and shape public opinion to soften us up for the kill, so to speak. The objective is not to tell you what wealthy people are doing. The objective is to get the average person to form a negative opinion about people who can afford a vacation home in the suburbs. You are supposed to be disgusted at what you view as their excesses. You are supposed to feel resentment. And when the times arrives for the Left and its media propaganda machine to point out to you that NYC and other big cities are not able to tax these properties in the suburbs that are owned by city residents, and how these people are cheating the city out of tax dollars by moving to the suburbs, you will already be conditioned to be sympathetic to that view.
Then you will be told that it is only fair that the big cities be given the authority to extend their reach into the suburbs, and "make these top 1% pay their fair share". Don't worry all you suburbanites they will tell you - we're only going after those disgusting rich people who can afford two homes... We will have the authority to come after you too, but trust us... We wont...
Once the get people to agree that the city should be able to levy a tax on the suburbs, the will extend this to applying city regulations on the suburbs. The ultimate goal is to allow the city to take over the suburbs. People are leaving big cities by the thousands. Its not because of the virus, it's because these big cities are taxing people to death. They're moving to the suburbs to get away from it. The democrat run cities want the ability to control you. This was first put in motion by the Obama administration. I see this story as proof the media actively coordinates with the democrats to work as a team.
-
@Larry said in Hardship in the Hamptons:
This article was written to further a narrative, and shape public opinion to soften us up for the kill, so to speak. The objective is not to tell you what wealthy people are doing. The objective is to get the average person to form a negative opinion about people who can afford a vacation home in the suburbs. You are supposed to be disgusted at what you view as their excesses. You are supposed to feel resentment. And when the times arrives for the Left and its media propaganda machine to point out to you that NYC and other big cities are not able to tax these properties in the suburbs that are owned by city residents, and how these people are cheating the city out of tax dollars by moving to the suburbs, you will already be conditioned to be sympathetic to that view.
Then you will be told that it is only fair that the big cities be given the authority to extend their reach into the suburbs, and "make these top 1% pay their fair share". Don't worry all you suburbanites they will tell you - we're only going after those disgusting rich people who can afford two homes... We will have the authority to come after you too, but trust us... We wont...
Once the get people to agree that the city should be able to levy a tax on the suburbs, the will extend this to applying city regulations on the suburbs. The ultimate goal is to allow the city to take over the suburbs. People are leaving big cities by the thousands. Its not because of the virus, it's because these big cities are taxing people to death. They're moving to the suburbs to get away from it. The democrat run cities want the ability to control you. This was first put in motion by the Obama administration. I see this story as proof the media actively coordinates with the democrats to work as a team.
Wow, @George-K, don’t you feel stupid now for not realizing what a corrupting piece of ideological propaganda this is? And you even brought it here to TNCR! How could you?
-
@Axtremus said in Hardship in the Hamptons:
Wow, @George-K, don’t you feel stupid now for not realizing what a corrupting piece of ideological propaganda this is? And you even brought it here to TNCR! How could you?
"The Kennedys want their house back..."
-
Good post, Larry. Gives me something to think about as it reminds me of other areas of policy which began with clandestine manipulation of peoples' emotions. Once people have been groomed emotionally, the difficulties in understanding become more subjective, complexities can be ignored, and leaders can then move even destructive ideas forward while convincing the people they are doing good.
Need to think about that more, because I'm not sure I actually agree with myself. -
@Axtremus said in Hardship in the Hamptons:
@Larry said in Hardship in the Hamptons:
This article was written to further a narrative, and shape public opinion to soften us up for the kill, so to speak. The objective is not to tell you what wealthy people are doing. The objective is to get the average person to form a negative opinion about people who can afford a vacation home in the suburbs. You are supposed to be disgusted at what you view as their excesses. You are supposed to feel resentment. And when the times arrives for the Left and its media propaganda machine to point out to you that NYC and other big cities are not able to tax these properties in the suburbs that are owned by city residents, and how these people are cheating the city out of tax dollars by moving to the suburbs, you will already be conditioned to be sympathetic to that view.
Then you will be told that it is only fair that the big cities be given the authority to extend their reach into the suburbs, and "make these top 1% pay their fair share". Don't worry all you suburbanites they will tell you - we're only going after those disgusting rich people who can afford two homes... We will have the authority to come after you too, but trust us... We wont...
Once the get people to agree that the city should be able to levy a tax on the suburbs, the will extend this to applying city regulations on the suburbs. The ultimate goal is to allow the city to take over the suburbs. People are leaving big cities by the thousands. Its not because of the virus, it's because these big cities are taxing people to death. They're moving to the suburbs to get away from it. The democrat run cities want the ability to control you. This was first put in motion by the Obama administration. I see this story as proof the media actively coordinates with the democrats to work as a team.
Wow, @George-K, don’t you feel stupid now for not realizing what a corrupting piece of ideological propaganda this is? And you even brought it here to TNCR! How could you?
If you were any dumber you wouldn't be able to walk.
-
-
@Rainman said in Hardship in the Hamptons:
Larry, you posted a few seconds after my post. Just didn't want you to miss my post, as it was almost coming marginally close to something nearing a compliment. Sort of.
Yes, I had read it. I was focused on how utterly clueless Ax is.
-
@Larry Have we seen evidence of this happening? (Municipalities expanding into the suburbs?)
I lived in the Bay Area for a few years - one of the biggest problem they had was low coordination and competition among the several municipalities that make up the Bay Area (for example, SF accounts for only ~800K of the ~8M people in the Bay).
There was no cohesive transit planning. Municipalities over-zoned for commercial space (since they're net revenue positive), but under-zoned residential (since they're a net cost). Result was a bunch of NIMBY municipalities and under-provisioned housing on a regional level.
-
I think what he’s probably referring to, though it’s unrecognizable in Larry’s description, is the Affirmitively Furthering Fair Housing policy. It’s not about cities taxing the suburbs, it’s about using metro areas rather than cities themselves for planning housing projects and ‘affordable housing’. When you cut through all the euphemisms it means forcing well off suburbs to build high density housing for low SES families (poor blacks and Hispanics, since I said I was cutting through the euphemisms).
It’s like ‘affirmative action’ for housing policy. It’s not enough that legal discrimination is ended. If economics and individual decisions lead to disparate outcomes the policy intends to break it down.
So yes, it will permanently change the character of suburbs over time in terms of traffic, student performance, and crime. Of course it will take a while to get there.
