Let’s look at the demographics of Union Square. I notice discussions of “diversity.” My reckoning is much of the population that constitutes such “diversity,” is also newcomers to town. How many of them have been here more than two generations? And, again I bet there was an uproar about “immigrants moving in and ruining the property values,” “bringing in crime,” etc.

Which brings me to the third point, the relation between wealth and crime. Now, they may be coincident, thus related, but let us avoid the fallacy that one CAUSES the other. That poverty is a cause of crime is a left-wing story, something that the “do-goody-goods” always bring up so they can throw taxpayer money down the toilet on social services (read: “give some MSW “social engineer” a job). Conversely, maybe the wealthy moved to segregate themselves from the “unwashed masses.” Likewise, some would like to say that density of population is a cause of crime. Why did Boston in 1947 which much more population than today, have ONLY SEVEN murders, when now and for about 40 years, some streets have been “shooting galleries.” Somerville is still quite safe, with less than one murder a year, in spite of its density. And, how come New York City is so much safer than Los Angeles, a much less densely populated place.

Next, taxes: remember Proposition 2 1/2? The opponents were right: a lot of schools and fire houses closed. But what happened? The property values, and thus the assessments went up. When the wild real estate speculation started about ten years ago, guess what also went up. YES, your taxes! And, for those who rent, your rent. Did you have to absorb a 50% rent increase like I had to? Can’t have it both ways: either you have a high property value and pay the taxes or have lower taxes but it will probably come from a lower property value. Don’t thing a lower tax rate’s going to come anytime soon. That will happen only if the tax base, to wit, some people will fill the vacant lots or improve on what they already have, increases. Since the factories left, where are all these “working class” people, anyway? Or are we talking about “service workers” now rather than “factory workers?’

I want transit to INCREASE property values. That’s the whole point of building the danged thing in the first place. More traffic on the streets, then the businesses make money, too.

Increase the welath; increase the peace.

This was all discussed ad nauseum on this list several weeks ago. Don’t people read?

Rationales about “the market” and about welfare, luxury rates, rental vs. condo, are all smoke in this context: transit access will drive up prices and encourage speculation unless there is a clear means of discouraging that speculation. A sales tax is one well proven way, that meets constitutional standards, producing a retained trust fund to assure permanent affordability. It has worked on the Cape to protect nature reserves, and it has worked in places as different as Charleston, South Carolina (to protect historic buildings) or Ontario (to guarantee adequate housing). We did that research 10 years ago, and it could probably be updated, but it is the ONLY way to generate adequate affordability. Haggling with developers about 12% or 15% or 10% is all smoke in that context. Those are, frankly, naive and stupid discussions in a setting as volatile as the Somerville housing market facing the pressure of a $600,000,000 transportation improvement.

I sure hope people are smokin’ good stuff to get so distracted by such trivia.

I suspect that surplus luxury units will eventually be subdivided into family housing once Somerville realizes that it’s losing its revenue base as wage-earners move out. The only question is when.

Working people are the tax base of Somerville – not luxury developers who employ foreigners, not luxury residents who can afford to lawyer their way out of paying taxes and who spend their money on global investments.

I’m talking about the foundation, the source, the people whose earnings stay local because they, and their families, stay local. I’m talking about people who go to work, pay their parking tickets and patronize the restaurants and shops, unclog your drains and repair your engine – and who look out for each other to keep crime, noise, and decay from happening. Ask your alderman. When we see these things happening, they hear about them. At length.

Are the people you’re happy to squeeze out the “welfare cheaters” so belabored by talk show hosts? If so, I don’t like them either, but they’re not a big problem around here.

I must say that I’ve followed a few of your posts and I’m not quite sure what you mean by well-to-do neighbors. I feel that you view this whole concept almost on a class warfare level, where the capitalistic Andrew Carnegies are oppressing the poor proletariat (I grew up in a communist country so I’m well versed in the lingo). But to answer your, perhaps rhetorical question I say: Yes! If you have a home or rent and can make your monthly mortgage/rent payments, you pay your taxes, you don’t become the reason cops are called to your neighborhood every week, you keep your property updated, you don’t make too much noise and bother your neighbors – then 10 times Yes, even if you don’t participate in civic government or your local PTA.. yes, yes, yes. Such neighbors are definitely worth squeezing out those that can’t afford to live there and may or may not contribute to the overall problems plaguing the city.

But isn’t financing tax breaks for luxury developers by continuing to tax existing homeowners disproportionately “subsidizing” the luxury developers? As a Somerville homeowner, you’re familiar with our property taxes. Are well-to-do neighbors – who can afford to insulate themselves from community problems until graft and neglect take a sufficient toll for them to flip their property and move on – worth squeezing out neighbors who work for a living and have a genuine interest in staying and making Somerville a better place?

Affordable = Subsidized because every ‘affordable’ apt is one way or another subsidized through tax dollars or by reduction in taxes paid by developers.

On the other hand allocating money from the whole community (not that rich of a community) to benefit few individual or families at the expense of projects that could benefit the entire city does not seem right. Although I agree with you that perhaps high powered executives might care less about the school system or crime, I must say that you don’t honestly believe that’s the type of residents that live in Somerville or the type of new residents that are coming to Somerville. In fact most residents that are moving here and are ‘gentryfying’ the neighborhood are those that can’t afford to live in Cambridge or Brookline but are able to make ends meet here, in Somerville, at honest market rates.

Don’t get me wrong because I really want all Somerville to be as prosperous as possible. But for every tax rebate to a developer, for every subsidy to an apt, I see one less teacher in public school, one less cop on the streets, one more pothole in the pavement.

And although there is nothing wrong with being poorer or richer, there is something wrong with living beyond one’s means, or offering others an opportunity to live beyond their means at other’s expense. I lived in Cambridge for 8 years, but could not buy there because it was too expensive – so I moved to Somerville and now I’m a homeowner. If someone else can’t afford to live in Somerville, well Chelsea and Malden are just around the corner — and that’s AFFORDABLE housing.

Affordable housing is non-luxury housing, housing that young professionals or established wage-earners can buy (thereby heeding your advice). Since these folks are often parents as well, they have a vested interest not only in working with the police to prevent crime, but in promoting other safety issues (like traffic management) and improving the school system, which are of less importance to high-powered executives whose careers take precedence over their home lives.

In regard to the post of a person who claims that poor areas are not necessarily prone to crime, I beg to differ. You can look at any map that shows the graphical representation of crime (http://www.universalhub.com/crime/ for example) and the correlation between wealth and crime is rather easy to spot.

And finally there is a sure fire way to make sure that people can insure themselves against rising rents in the future – buy a property! Nobody is forcing any person or family to rent forever!