America’s Slum Lord in Chief

posted at 10:41 am on January 16, 2010 by
[ Cronyism ]   

The people of Massachusetts have an important decision to make this coming Tuesday. Do they advance the cause of Barack Obama, whose mission — to place the government in control of as much of America’s destiny as he can — has been made unambiguous by his blatant vote-buying tactics of recent months? Or do they say, “Enough of hope and change” and elect Scott Brown to the seat vacated by the late Edward Kennedy?

One group likely not to turn out in large numbers on Tuesday is comprised of Obama’s most ardent supporters — minorities. Their absence from the voting booth will be the result of indolence. It should be the result of outrage and betrayal. This story from the newspaper of record of America’s second most liberal city, the Boston Globe, paints a sobering portrait of the champion of the underclass. Remarkably, the article was first released in June of 2008.

The article’s teaser gives a pretty good summary of the content to follow:

The candidate [Obama] endorsed subsidies for private entrepreneurs to build low-income units. But, while he garnered support from developers, many projects in his former district have fallen into disrepair.

The dateline of the piece identifies the place where these activities occurred: Chicago, Obama’s adoptive hometown. It focuses on Grove Parc Plaza, a housing development in the inner city with 504 government-subsidized apartments — none of them safe to live in. Writes Binyamin Applebaum, the article’s author:

Grove Parc has become a symbol for some in Chicago of the broader failures of giving public subsidies to private companies to build and manage affordable housing — an approach strongly backed by Obama as the best replacement for public housing.

As a state senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal subsidies. And as a presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could give developers an estimated $500 million a year.

How the American public, aided by most of the mainstream media, managed to overlook the realities of electing this man is a question that needs an answer if we, the people are to avoid the same mistake in the future. The people of Massachusetts are an unlikely group to take the first step toward leading the United States back onto the right track. Will the people of Boston, the city where the first Tea Party took place, pick up the banner once again? In less than 96 hours, we’ll have an answer.

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can also reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

We have some relatively small subsidized housing here and, for the most part, it’s not too bad. But, the program is very carefully monitored and the buildings are not sub-standard. Chicago, being Chicago, probably gave the contracts to friends who felt under no obligation to build something good and never bothered to put ongoing watchdog mechanisms in place. Wondering if it’s not a case of just doing as opposed to doing it right.

jeanie on January 16, 2010 at 4:43 PM

I remember reading this at the time. It is a stain on the reputation of the “elite” press that no one followed up on this.

They were too much in love, a romance for the ages. Their hero, the european social democrat, like the one in their dreams, but more handsome.

They could finally hold their head up…that, finally, the US could join the world in a two tier country…the political/elite class and everyone else.

r keller on January 16, 2010 at 5:46 PM

One group likely not to turn out in large numbers on Tuesday is comprised of Obama’s most ardent supporters — minorities. Their absence from the voting booth will be the result of indolence. It should be the result of outrage and betrayal.

Okay, first, I take the point of the article linked.

Second, you appear to be labeling minorities as lazy. Why is this?

Black Yoshi on January 17, 2010 at 2:50 PM

“You appear to be labeling minorities as lazy. Why is this?”

Because it’s true. Minorities have atrocious voting records.

Howard Portnoy on January 17, 2010 at 8:24 PM

“You appear to be labeling minorities as lazy. Why is this?”

Because it’s true. Minorities have atrocious voting records.

Howard Portnoy on January 17, 2010 at 8:24 PM

Even if so, lazy is an interesting choice of words.

Black Yoshi on January 17, 2010 at 9:11 PM

Indolent: having or showing a disposition
to avoid exertion; slothful: an indolent person.

Perhaps unmotivated would be as apt.

As we saw in the last election, there were many that
voted for Obama in what they saw as their best interests.

E.g.: Peggy Joseph.

As those interests still remain unmet, i.e.: no free gas or mortgage, a lethargic response this time around would appear justified.

Joe Mama on January 18, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Isn’t Grove Parc the area that was supposed to be rehabbed into athlete’s quarters for the Chicago Olympics?

unclesmrgol on January 20, 2010 at 8:58 PM