Yeah that sounds like a great idea! Forcibly removing people from their homes for not abiding by "social norms". Centralizing these people who display "anti-social" behavior is only going to harbor more problems. This doesn't solve the problem at hand, it just moves them to a place where they'll be less of a public nuisance. It seems like they're just taking a page out of America's prison industrial complex handbook.
This kind of stuff is an inevitable side effect of statism and democracy, the majority turn the full violence of the state against the minority. It happened in the United States with Jim Crow, it happened in Nazi Germany and it will happen again in any society that puts its faith and its freedom in the hands of the state.
I'd rather live with the 'scum' of Amsterdam than not. They are probably some really chill, down to earth people.
Whats interesting is the article clearly states these people HAVE DONE NOTHING ILLEGAL, they are nonviolent, they just are annoying to their neighbors for one reason or another.
Exactly, didn't mow your lawn? SLUM VILLAGE FOR YOU Your music is too loud? SLUM VILLAGE FOR YOU You didn't say good morning to your neighbor? SLUM VILLAGE FOR YOU (I am obviously being facetious, but you get the point) So you think that people who violate no laws should be forcibly removed from the property that they worked for and be relocated to a fucking shipping container? Jesus.
I honestly don't talk to my neighbors or even see them that much. We all just keep to ourselves. It's just a culdesac with 6 houses. I guess we all are scum of the earth then.
I'm guessing this is government housing? Because if not shouldn't whether the person lives in that building be between the owner and the tenant? Don't they have rental agreements? Why is the government getting involved? My guess is the housing is either owned by the government or the government has put so many restrictions on the owners that its impossible to evict a tenant without going to court or some other foolish process.
I'm not sure which housing you're talking about? The one that the tenants are being evicted from? Or the one that they're relocated to? Well, if the Amsterdam definition of projects (the shipping containers) is the same as the US it means that it's owned by a government authority, which may be central or local.
Government housing is real big in Europe I will never forget my moment of shock when I turned on CSPAN and saw Parliament deciding how many houses to build that year. I thought I was watching some old Soviet meeting the only thing that was different were the flags and the accents.
Right, you keep saying that but you aren't answering the question at hand. I never even implied that you were saying they're scum. Those are the words of some out of touch politician half way across the world who I couldn't give two shits about. I want YOUR opinion on the matter. Should people be removed from their property because they are a nuisance to their neighbors?
It's Amsterdam's version of social cleansing. In several countries in Latin America, they send the death squads in to cleanse society of undesirables. In America our form of social cleansing is the manner in which we warehouse our undesirables, those particularly being poor people of color in prisons. It's a little weird that Amsterdam elected such a crazy right-wing fuck, but I guess things are changing there.
The article doesn't go into much detail. But I'd guess this initiative is focused on troublesome residents in municipal housing. Basically these are flats in buildings that are rent-controlled and aimed at low-income individuals and families. The greater majority of these are normal quiet people that go to work or studies and do their thing without bothering anyone. They don't just have the finances to buy their own or rent privately in a more upscale building. But as can be imagined, some in the same low-income bracket are riddled with anti-social behaviour. Drugs, alcohol-abuse, incessant partying with loud music. Perhaps even domestic violence and whatnot. All very much a nuisance and even a potential risk to their neighbours. To me it makes perfect sense that the troublemakers should get evicted, rather than the more normal people feeling pressured to move due to a troublesome neighbour. What this initiative does is provide alternative housing for these troublemakers. Unlike in the US where they'd end up without housing all-together. Also, lumping these people together in alternative housing means social-workers and police can do a better job of helping those that need it and defuse dangerous situations when needed.