• dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is basically just as opaque as a charity or HOA, with different steps. Which is great unless your community is poor.

    My contention with this concept is that with taxes, I can vote for people that manage both the money gathering rules and how it is spent. That and the money typically works in a much larger pool spread across a wide range of socioeconomic groups, which can vastly improve its reach and capability. On top of all that, it’s also transparent. My guess is this has no such features.

    • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      7 months ago

      I lived and worked in a lot of poor communities and neighborhoods.

      We have to organize our own clean ups, our own neighborhood watch, our own events.

      Richer neighborhoods get a lot more resources from the city.

      • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Right, that’s the whole point of HOAs. They do all the same shit local government does, but without needing to share with the poors. They should be illegal.

        • trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Where I love HOAs are mostly for sharing maintenance and insurance costs of the houses, they don’t take over any responsibilities from the local government.

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      7 months ago

      I was watching a thing not too long ago where a dude was praising the “safety net” of home and health insurance and almost in the next breath complaining how socialized medicine was a scam and welfare

      I was like “MF you JUST said you wanted a group safety net”