I first learned of this controversy from a TYT segment from within the past few days, and it was mentioned again on the Rubin report (linked above). I am unsure if its being talked about anywhere else (have not checked).
The background is, apparently in the Upper West Side of (I assume) Manhattan, an apartment complex is going up that will house both upper and lower income families. As far as I know, the lower income dwellings will all be at street level (or at the lower levels of the complex), and the rest of the apartments will have a nice view of the river. The complex will have perks and amenities (such as 2 pools), but these will not be accessible by the buildings lower class residents. There will also be a different doorway for the 2 economic classes of the building, which both exit onto different streets.
The details of this story brought up the word “segregation”, and the tone of the discussion on both clips I watched (RR and TYT) both followed this tangent. But I fail to see anything really, wrong with the set up.
For me, I am glad that they added the lower income housing in the building (economic and/or tax incentives or not). The rest of the details, really do not matter to me.
The seprate doors for the 2 classes does not bother me. One could see it as a form of segregation, but all in all, who cares? Besides, one could also view it as a preventative measure. Even if progressives the world over think that rich and poor should live in harmony, that does not mean they will not conflict when exposed to one another.
When it comes to the complaint about the “rich” getting the good views, I have to say, who cares. It does not matter where you live in the world, you get what you can afford. Unless you want to live HERE .
On the topic of only the upper class residents getting access to the amenities of the building (such as the pool), I also fail to see any real issue with this. One thing that DOES come to mind, is the maintenance costs. Pools are not cheap to operate or maintain, so my guess is that the upper class are the ones funding it as part of the rent (therefore, get full access). If you were to grant access to the lower classes, it would be fair that they would have to also absorb some of the costs though either rent or a user fee.
Which presents its own problem. Will rent be still “affordable” with the added costs? Will the lower income residents be able to afford the user fee?
There are many problems (in terms of income equality) the world over without looking for new ones that may not even exist.