You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] [deleted] 1 point 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
6

[–] senpaithatignoresyou 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You may be on to something.

Living in the suburbs is not the same as living in the city. You need a car. The catch, if you have a car, that count's as an asset, and you may lose your benefits if you are not careful. If you do not have a car aka "reliable transportation" you can not work. they are removed from any chance of having a good job.

so this move does far more harm than good for everyone involved.

meanwhile, they get relocated to the "better life", and property in the cities is freed up for development. Good, expensive, money making property. So the only people who benefit from this are the banks and the construction companies.

0
3

[–] 0fsgivin 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I'd say your probably right. Out of everything is this thread so far that sounds like the most likely motivator and outcome.

0
1

[–] Le_Squish 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I think you are right. Everything about it seems like a blockbusting scheme but the naive and short-sighted will definetly mistake it for racism.

Last decade has been about destroying inner city projects and giving that land to luxury developers and now the bankers have decided land is too expensive for mass acquisition in the suburbs so they concoct a scheme to crash property values.