Part two
Re “Why the Titanic Is So Determined to Push the Brown Agenda”
For perhaps the half-dozenth time since early January, the Sunday Los Angeles Titanic argued editorially that redevelopment agencies should be destroyed. They gave two reasons: Developers are growing too darned rich by rehabilitating blighted areas and, equally despicably, not enough of that artful liberal feel-good concept — affordable housing —is happening.
There is of course no barometer known to mankind that will say a sufficient amount — heaven forbid — of “affordable housing” ever has been built.
Where are liberals going to stash their six favorite toys, “working families,” “middle class families,” the “poor,” the “middle class,” the unemployed and the under-employed if not in subsidized housing? How can we waste money defending the country when “working families” only enjoy steak three nights a week?
Affordable Housing and My Gosh, Honey, Every School in California Will Close by the Weekend if We Don’t Empty Our Wallets and Purses on the Kitchen Table Now are two of the favorite emergency fire engines that wild-spending liberals go for when they need a quick fiscal fix, and liberal voters cave almost every time.
I Feel So Good
Affordable housing is a pliable, vague It Makes Liberals Feel So Good notion that the left pulls out of the bag when they need to produce even more money than they can wring from their Schools Are Gonna Die Today plea.
My friend, you have won the lottery if you can squeeze both Schools Need Help Fast and Affordable Housing Must Be Built Before Nightfall into the same story, and that was the nifty magic the Titanic pulled on Sunday.
Because the Titanic swings from the left wing of the left wing, it kicked away a suggestion from the pro-agency California Redevelopment Assn. that proposed taking the 20 percent of its annual funding that is tagged for affordable housing and send it, instead, to schools.
Oh, no, said the Titanic, realizing that such a scheme would blow their cover. Then how could we beg for new taxes to underwrite schools when the schools already would have the money we have been claiming they need?
Besides, said the newspaper, if agencies sent away affordable housing funds. That would deprive agencies of their most important obligation, putting up “affordable housing,” that comfortably generic, quite inspecific concept.
What do Culver City’s Redevelopment Agency members say about that? Next installment.
