5 families vow to fight possibility of eviction
Teen sons charged in armed robbery
A group of mothers facing possible eviction from Charleston public housing shuddered at a frightening image: 25 children lined up outside a homeless shelter.
That could happen, they said, if a hearing officer with the Charleston Housing Authority decides that it's best to evict five families from the Gadsden Green housing complex because teenage sons from each family have been charged in an October armed robbery. Between them, the single mothers heading the families have at least 25 children.
If you go
Eviction hearing: 1 p.m. Tuesday at the Charleston Public Housing Authority, 550 Meeting St.
Support Rally: 4 p.m. Dec. 8 at Nichols Chapel AME Church, 132 Bogard St.
"That's not an exaggeration," Rushika Robertson, one of the mothers, said of the prospect of becoming homeless. "That would let people see how real it is."
Gadsden Green is a complex of apartment buildings that currently houses 262 families near the Crosstown Expressway between Hagood and President streets.
The Housing Authority said serious criminal charges against any individual allow it to evict the entire family for the good of their neighbors. Tenants sign a lease that includes a zero- tolerance policy for serious or repeat offense.
This policy and ones like it have been controversial in Charleston and elsewhere. In 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced a hard line against drugs, backing rules that permit eviction of families from federally subsidized housing if any family member or guest is involved in narcotics.
Robertson and two other women facing eviction said they do not condone the criminal activity of which their sons are accused. As a compromise, they said they would even send the teens to stay with other family members, if the rest of the immediate family can stay put. Despite what the Housing Authority says about protecting the community, the mothers said their neighbors overwhelmingly want them to stay.
"These ladies are not getting put out," said Ruby Washington, a Gadsden Green resident and supporter. "We're going to do something to stop it."
Housing Authority CEO Donald Cameron said even if a hearing officer decides against the families, they still have a chance to appeal the case to a county magistrate before anyone is evicted.
Trouble for the five families started Oct. 20 when Charleston police said a pack of youths tried to rob one man on Wentworth Street and robbed another man of his cell phone on Montagu Street. In both cases, the weapon used appeared to be a pellet gun, according to police reports.
Police reported detaining six teens between the ages of 14 and 16 nearby on charges of robbery and attempted armed robbery. The case is pending in Family Court, the families said.
During an interview Friday, Robertson, two other mothers and a couple of supporters vowed to fight the eviction process. Attorney Skip Martin of Charleston has taken their case and Charleston City Councilman Wendell Gilliard has taken up their cause.
"There has to be some kind of compromise," Gilliard said. "You can't sacrifice the many for the few."
They are asking supporters to attend the Housing Authority meeting at 1 p.m. Tuesday and a rally at 4 p.m. Dec. 8 in Nichols Chapel AME Church.
Robertson, a mother of seven children between 3 and 14 years old, said she has been living at the complex about five months. She has been training to become a nurse and is getting back on her feet, she said. But she said she's afraid to even buy Christmas presents with the threat of losing their homes.
Portland Grays, whose 15-year-old has been charged in the robberies, has lived in the complex about two years. She said she worries that the public won't see her for the hardworking person she is, a freelance grant writer with six children between the ages of 2 and 26.
She said the threat of eviction "is like a cloud over our heads daily."
Reach Noah Haglund at nhaglund@postandcourier.com or 937-5550.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
Reader (anonymous) says...
"Between them, the single mothers heading the families have at least 25 children."
'Nuff said.
A zero tolerance policy is fantastic. Someone needs to provide the sort of cause-and-effect discipline that these children are obviously not getting from their parents. If it takes punishing the whole family for criminal acts, so be it.
December 1, 2007 at 2:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tj66 (anonymous) says...
if there is a 0 tolerance,and they signed it,what more is there to be said,25 kids between the 5 of them,sad that they would send kids away so they can stay... is that because they dont want to pay real rent?thats what is wrong with some parents today... kid does something wrong and they hand them off to other family membersand why so they dont have to pay regular rent.. i think they want to stay so they dont have to pay and to worry about christmas.. that says alot
December 1, 2007 at 4:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justme2 (anonymous) says...
I think it is wrong to punish the whole family for the activities of 1 person, then turn around and condemn them again if they are on the streets and commit more crimes due to what Society will have done to them. These are BABIES - ages 4 to 14? What is wrong with this policy? If allowed to do that can you imagine how many families will be on the streets?
This is a public disgrace to do this to the families. Give them a chance to work on whatever needs work. Sometimes a bad seed is found in every apple. Do you realize how many families would be on the streets? Many parents are at work and depends on siblings to help out? Anyone ever heard of "latchkey kids"? Well many of them are. Not every parent is lazy and sits at home and does nothing. These parents are training and working to make something of their lives and to provide for their families and has no other option if they are knocked down everywhere they turn.
What will evicting the family solve? More people on the streets,angry, no place to go. There have been murders and their families were not out on the streets.
Can you imagine being out on the street with your babies and no place to go, especially in the Winter. What attitude will that put in the minds of those babies about society. THat will be forever in ther minds and they will start the criminal cycle because they will feel they have nothing to lose because they were mistreated. That's Cold-hearted.
And you wonder why so much crime and hatred and cold-bloodedness. You can bet Charleston will be on the national news and exposed if this happens.
December 1, 2007 at 4:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tfpoor (anonymous) says...
Between 7 women mentioned thay have 39 freaking kids! Did I add that right. My calculator isn't handy!
Un-believable!! Why don't you take up that cause Mr. Wendell! Bring THAT up at your AME church. How about a "zero babies" policy unless you can take care of all of them on your own? Now there's a policy. I can't wait to read these comments at the end of the day. By the way after 25 yrs of marriage my wife and I only have 3! And we can take care of them.
December 1, 2007 at 7:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
karmann (anonymous) says...
I guess it is now time to not hold people accountable for what they willingly signed up for. I guess this the way life is suppose to be, do what you want and then expect to be released from responsibility. It seems that the anger is misplaced. I fail to see where the families are speaking out against the teens who have caused their families these problems.
December 1, 2007 at 7:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
They should have kept better track of their kids. I have NO sympathy for them. Maybe it would be in the best interest of the other 39 kids if social services took them and placed them in foster care and began the process of removing the parental right of these mothers. If their kids are involved in armed robbery, then it should be obvious to even the most dim witted liberal that ALL of these mothers are unfit to raise any more kids!!!
December 1, 2007 at 7:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
I'll bet also that these women probably have had kids with multiple sperm donors and probably are not sure who the fathers are. What a freak show!
December 1, 2007 at 7:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dsgrntld (anonymous) says...
I pray that they get evicted. That way DSS can step in and those 25 kids can actually have a chance to be raised by a responsible adult. 80% of our crime in this city is based on city housing residents. I'm not saying all city housing residents are criminals, however, I hate that we pay taxes so that others can live rent free! Has anyone noticed that there is no such thing as City Housing in any of the northern cities? How much more funding could we give our 3rd worse in the nation school system by transferring the money from city housing to our city schools? That would truly be beneficial to the kids. Forget helping derelict adults - help the kids so they don't grow up and think city housing is the answer. I pray for the mother's who stated they would rather have their child raised by another than be evicted.
December 1, 2007 at 7:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JH09915 (anonymous) says...
Ignorance + ignorance = .. You got it, IGNORANCE..
December 1, 2007 at 7:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
prosperous_hb (anonymous) says...
Great! Put the families on the streets and then we will see more crime. I understand them wanting to protect the other tenants, but instead of kicking the whole family out they should try something else like having to some kind of program to help deter the kids from crimes. I'm pretty sure they can get some kind of grant to help them fund some type of program.
December 1, 2007 at 8:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MDW (anonymous) says...
I really do feel sorry for the remaining children. These people had free housing given to them and all that was asked was to behave and obey the law. They didn't. They should have made their children behave like civilized human beings.
December 1, 2007 at 8:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USC_Alumni (anonymous) says...
This is such a hollow concern for the siblings of the teenage criminals. If the mothers were so concerned about being evicted and not providing a roof over the heads of their other children; they should have removed the bad seeds from the household and the lease agreement.
December 1, 2007 at 8:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wonderdog (anonymous) says...
The law allowing the eviction of families who house criminals in federal housing is to motivate the residents to be law abiding and to protect those who live in the housing projects from criminals. A large number of the residents in these projects are elderly and are afraid to leave their apartments because of the punks. Kick out the criminals and the families who protect them, and let the people who truly are in need of housing live in a safe environment. It's a good law. Come on, Wendell - I agree with you most of the time, but your constituents include the law abiding folks, too.
I would probably have a hard time keeping after 5-7 kids......that's why I have TWO. What kind of woman keeps having kids without the legal and financial protection of marriage when she is unable to even afford to pay rent? Since I pay taxes, I DO have the right to comment. I support housing assistance for those who need and deserve it, but this appears to be cycle of bad parenting that will continue.
December 1, 2007 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
laine61 (anonymous) says...
Eviction is a horrible thing to have to face. Whether it is by their own doing or someone else's, these people will have no where to live. Some people seem to be more concerned with the amount of kids that they have than with the fact that they will be living on the streets. The amount of kids don't matter. If one kid has to live on the street because of something another kid did, it is too much. The mothers aren't the ones who commited the crimes. They are hard-working and trying to do the best they can. Maybe if there was some kind of program for those kids they wouldn't have been on the street. But that would have been too logical. So, put the others on the street so that they can become bitter young men and women. Great idea!!!
December 1, 2007 at 8:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wonderdog (anonymous) says...
I see your point, laine61, but it is not the government's responsibility to keep kids out of trouble, off the streets, busy or entertained. That is the responsibility of the parents.
The perps who were out robbing innocent people were apparently already bitter or bored (or just BAD), and they were not living on the street. One of the conditions of living in public housing is that you and yours obey the law or face eviction. It's in the lease.
December 1, 2007 at 8:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bankz (anonymous) says...
It just kills me to hear all the ignorance in this and other post. I see why white people always getting cracked over the head. I have no sympathy for that.
December 1, 2007 at 9:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KymyBear (anonymous) says...
I have to agree zero tolerance means zero tolerance. It's sad that they got themselves in the position where they had so many kids they can't take care of them without our money. Now they have so many they can't control them.
We gave them the chance to have a low cost place to live so they could get on thier feet and learn to live like the rest of us have to. But we all have to take responsibility for our actions and the actions of our kids. That is life and I think in this case it is fair. They signed the lease they knew this would happen if they didnt control their kids. Sorry but things in life that suck only make you a stronger person. We do not owe them anymore!!!
December 1, 2007 at 9:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JC (anonymous) says...
What part of 0 tolerance do the residence NOT UNDERSTAND???? And for Councilmember Gilliard, you should support the City's rules and regulations, not be promoting THUGISM!!
December 1, 2007 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
For everyone who has mentioned that it just isn't fair to put a family on the street where bad things will happen, let me remind you that there is a waiting line for low-income housing. If these families are evicted, the apartments will not go unused. For every family "put out on the street," there will be another family that is rescued from living on the street when an apartment opens up.
The only issue is whether we want THESE families in low-income public housing or some OTHER families. Looking at the issue in the correct way, why in the world would any of you favor families which include criminals in violation of their leases instead of law-abiding families?
December 1, 2007 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Zod (anonymous) says...
"That's not an exaggeration," Rushika Robertson, one of the mothers, said of the prospect of becoming homeless. "That would let people see how real it is."
Ms. Robertson - We (the state) will take care of the kids. It is you that will be homeless. Take responsibility for your life and the lives of your children.
December 1, 2007 at 9:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ironhorse (anonymous) says...
I didn't see a mention of the AME Church involvement with these families prior to the pending eviction, only another reaction from the church to appear to help out these families with a "rally". I'll bet the rally doesn't address the law or the lease agreement, but turns this into a black versus white issue just so they can pass the offering plate during the rally!
December 1, 2007 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Zod (anonymous) says...
"These ladies are not getting put out," said Ruby Washington, a Gadsden Green resident and supporter. "We're going to do something to stop it."
Ms. Washington - You should be planning to leave yourself. It seems to me that not only are you planning to stay but you are fighting to keep irresponsibility surrounding you. Maybe you should go too....
THIS IS TEMPORARY HOUSING PEOPLE! GET OFF YOUR BUTT!
December 1, 2007 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chsliving (anonymous) says...
I'm glad to hear that public housing in Charleston has this eviction policy for people who commit crimes...what a great idea making the family (parents) responsible for the actions of their children.
In a perfect world all parents be responsible for their own children, but it's obvious that by the fact that these 5 mothers have 25+ children they are not responsible people and accordingly need to be held responsible...either keep you children from committing crimes or your out of your public house.
Also is it not true that if these families are evicted that DSS will step in and take the children so they aren't living on the streets. In my opinion that would be the best option, I don't buy the BS that the mothers are working to better themselves. I've got $5 that one of the mothers either is currently pregnant or will be pregnant again within a few months:they obviously have not self control.
What would really help this issue would be is if you could pay women or men money to tie their tubes or for vasectomies. I would give money to a non-profit organization who would give say $1,000 to any low income person who would volunteer for this. This would stop the cycle that these people are going through generation to generation.
December 1, 2007 at 9:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DanniD (anonymous) says...
The mothers asked for a compromise...here it is:
Kick the families out, and place the 25 children into foster care where they will actually be watched and cared for.
I do not think that it is possible for a single mother to effectively care for 7 children on her own. This is why the children were out robbing people in the first place, because no one was watching them. It is very sad, these poor kids may never have a chance.
December 1, 2007 at 9:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MDW (anonymous) says...
Danni -
It is possible. I'm one of eight children raised by a single mother. Life was hard but we managed. None of us got into trouble with the law or did anything to bother our neighbors. Mom had a heavy hand in our schooling, in our lives, and on our behinds when needed.
All it takes is for these single mothers to get off their lazy butts and care.
December 1, 2007 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bankz (anonymous) says...
tripsa what if it happend to you. You would want someone to care no matter what piece of paper you have signed. And do not say it could not happen to you because it can, it can happen to anyone..
December 1, 2007 at 9:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
carolinabeachgirl (anonymous) says...
It's nice to see the housing authority taking a stand on this matter. For many years they have not. It should not be the tax payers problem to care for the multitude of children these women have had. Oh, but they will send the criminals to live with someone else? Who is dumb enough to believe that? They would be back in a week. They should be evicted and prevented from using puclic housing. Let the good councilman take them all into his home. There are plenty of single mothers out there taking care of their families and don't have criminals for children. Maybe with this group evicted they will get a chance at the public housing.
December 1, 2007 at 9:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
juniemoon1957 (anonymous) says...
WOW.....is all I can say. Just blows my mind.
December 1, 2007 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bankz (anonymous) says...
I really do thing a majority of the people in this post think they are perfect parents and they can do no wrong. As a parent you learn as you go. You can tell your kids the right things to do all the time, but they have the ability to make their on decision and the majority of the time parents are not included in the decisions. I doubt the mothers of these children told them to go out and committ robbery, this was the childrens decision and the children should suffer the consquences and not the parents.
December 1, 2007 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
summerville (anonymous) says...
For all of you that are posting comments on this subject.You need to go to Wild Dunes and read the comment blueline put out there.I am so angrey about what he said.
December 1, 2007 at 10:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
love2teachkinders (anonymous) says...
I believe that the families need to comply with the agreement that they signed. People should be held accountable for their actions. There. is nothing that can be done about the children except pray for them to break the cycle of poverty and rise above
December 1, 2007 at 10:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MDW (anonymous) says...
Summer -
That comment sounds like a setup to get folks fired up. I ignored it.
December 1, 2007 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bankz (anonymous) says...
The moms did not do this to the children the children did this to themselves. No one failed the children but themselves and they should suffer not the mother who is out working trying to provide.
tripsa your argument is always invalid, you are miserable and depressed. GET A LIFE.
December 1, 2007 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wonderdog (anonymous) says...
Ditto, tripsa. It doesn't even take much intelligence to know better than to continue having children without the minimal financial resources to raise them. One mistake.....ok, maybe even two - but five or seven? They knew what they were doing; how could they not? I wanted to have 3 or 4 kids but knew that would be very difficult financially, so I didn't.
To paraphrase Jackie Kennedy: If you don't do a good job raising your children, it really doesn't matter what else you do with your life.
Your definition of insanity is a good one. It also applies to the word stupidity, which has no economic boundary.
December 1, 2007 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
poorboy (anonymous) says...
bankz/ "It just kills me to hear all the ignorance in this and other post. I see why white people always getting cracked over the head. I have no sympathy for that."
THIS FOLKS IS WHAT IS WRONG RIGHT HERE! ALWAYS LOOKING FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO BE AT FAULT. HOW ABOUT MOMMA'S SHUTTING UP HER LEGS UNLESS SHE CAN TAKE CARE OF 5 KIDS ON HER OWN? ITS RACIAL ALRIGHT 7 OUT OF 10 BLACK CHILDREN BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK! WHITE PEOPLE GETTING CRACKED OVER THE HEAD? READ THE FIRST ARTICLE ON THIS P&C SITE.
December 1, 2007 at 10:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bankz (anonymous) says...
Who cares about having childern out of wedlock, you act like that does not happen to white people. Sorry to alarm you it does. No one else needs to be at fault but the children who committed the crime.
December 1, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
professional_blk_woman (anonymous) says...
Let's not be so hasty as to assume that all of these women were always single parents with multiple sperm donors and live in the housing projects by choice. I DO agree that some of the families may need to be evicted. But in my opinion, each of these situations should be considered on a case by case basis. Hell yeah...if you are an uninvolved/uninterested mother who has teenagers out there committing crimes while you sit your ass in front of the TV watching Jerry and not knowing where your teenagers are, then absolutely, unequivocally, "YES", you need to be evicted. But the flip side of that can be a very different situation. I am the executive director of an agency here in Charleston and know personally of two situations where the single mothers have multiple children (one has 5, including a special needs child, and the other has 6), had/have very good jobs, and were once married. These people were able to care for their children when they were in a two income household, but fell prey to divorce, and things quickly spiraled downhill for them. They are truly victims of circumstance. People can have as many children as they want as long as they can provide for and supervise each of them. So that's really not the issue here. If you refer back to the article, you will see that one of the moms is studying to be a nurse, and the other is a grant writer. Obviously these women aren't slow leaks. The real issue is that whether you live in the housing projects or not, if your children are left unsupervised and left to care for themselves, they will most likely fall prey to the streets and end up in the newspaper for robbing, murdering, selling drugs to, or raping someone. It's common sense. Supervise your kids, people! Why were these teenagers running around unsupervised in this part of downtown Charleston anyway? Even if the parents truly believed that the kids wouldnt commit crimes, were they not afraid that one might be committed against their kids? UGH!
December 1, 2007 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ThePhink (anonymous) says...
So bankz when she signed the lease she had no intentions of following it? That is pretty mush what you are saying.
When I signed my mortgage it clearly states I am to pay $---.-- a month. If I don't my ass is on the street.
When they signed a lease it clearly stated if anyone in the household commits a crime the HOUSEHOLD will find their ass on the street.
So basically you are saying sign whatever you want then do whatever you want.
You also said she ia "working to provide". How can she work (if she really does) when she can't keep her legs out of the air long enough to keep a job.
On top of it the "community" supports her. No wonder the "community" is in such trouble.
December 1, 2007 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bankz (anonymous) says...
ThePhink you do not make sense, how about you sit down and think about what you wanted to say and repost something with substance. thanks
December 1, 2007 at 10:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ThePhink (anonymous) says...
Bankz, you do not understand. You don't get it. Something is not right in your head for you to think like you do. I know that can't be your fault because it has to be someone else's fault. Nothing is ever your fault. Always placing blame. What a way to live.
December 1, 2007 at 10:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
locallady (anonymous) says...
Did the little thugletts not know that if they became criminals they would cause the whole family to pay? Why didn't the brats step up to the plate and get a JOB instead of making the CHOICE to brandish a pellet gun and start robbing people. I am sure they would have used a real gun if they could have stolen one. Any one of those boys could have been doing something worthwhile. Isn't the public library about the same walking distance away?
December 1, 2007 at 10:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bankz (anonymous) says...
ThePhink i thought i told you to think about what you say before you say. I do not blame you for being stupid, I blame your parents.
December 1, 2007 at 10:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KnowAllSeeAll (anonymous) says...
Why is anyone surprised that this is happening, in Charleston, in this day and age?
December 1, 2007 at 10:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
preachlove (anonymous) says...
While I feel the situation that these families have found themselves in is regrettable, the Housing Authority does have rules and to get free housing the rules must be followed. I truly feel for the children, not only because of the possibility of being on the streets, but what kind of mothers are these, that if they know they can't afford these children and their is no father figure around to help them raise the kids, WHY KEEP HAVING BABIES?
I never wanted to believe that there were so MANY of these women living in these Government housing areas having babies to get the FEW ADDITIONAL DOLLARS that the Government provides. Sorry to be crass, but is the sex just that good that ONE has to jump in bed everytime without protection? I'm not a woman, but I have lived with a pregant wife and I know it is no picnic enduring 9 months of pregnancy and having a baby.
What the Government should do is pass some new rules and inform these women that there will be NO ADDITIONAL MONEY for ADDITIONAL BABIES. Since we, the TAXPAYERS are fitting the bill, these women should be attending mandatory parenting and birth control classes.
Some other poster mentioned raising 7 children - Back in the 70s, when my parents were raising me and my two sisters, my father had his hands full just keeping me in line. But this is a different era, we have a VERY different society with children facing MANY MORE negative influences AND WITHOUT the solid parenting that was present in the 60s and 70s. During this period, black families were strong and responsible and fighting for their civil rights. This situation is definitely a major reason for the downfall of a lot of black families in this country.
It is a MAJOR HURDLE raising that many children in today's society. With the environment that these children are growing up in, their futures look bleak. I try to be an optimist, but must believe that this is happening throughout the country in many cities. No wonder crime is out of control; these children have no guidance.
With all of the opportunities today, these people can do better. I have 2 teenagers in high school; they both have jobs. Simply put, if you need money - WORK!
This whole thing just blows my mind! Mercy!
December 1, 2007 at 10:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ThePhink (anonymous) says...
Okay so when you can't think of anything to say you just start name calling. Maybe you were already cracked over the head yourself.
All I can say is my mortgage gets paid, my kids don't rob and steal and the one old enough to work has a job. Sounds like my parents done a better job of raising me and I did a better job of raising mine that your parents did with you. If you have children or ever have children they will be worse off than ThePhink, ThePhink's parents or ThePhinks children. And you call me stupid? That is the sad part. You don't know or care how ignorant you really sound.
You can blame my parents for me being stupid but we can't blame these parents for raising STUPID criminals. You would have to be STUPID to go around robbing people with a bb gun. That would not have worked too well in my part of town.
December 1, 2007 at 10:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KnowAllSeeAll (anonymous) says...
And why do the posters insist on calling each other names? If you wouldn't do it to anyone's face, why do you insist on doing it with the anonymity (sp?) that the internet provides? Get over yourselves.
December 1, 2007 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bankz (anonymous) says...
preachlove i somewhat agree with you, but you are not with your kids 24 hrs a day. No matter what you have taught your child it is their decision to do the right and wrong thing. If they choose to do the wrong thing it is not because your mom had 7 kids and worked. IT IS THE CHILDS FAULT DO NOT BLAME THE PARENTS. PUT THE CHILDREN IN JAIL FOR SOMETIME TO TEACH THEM A LSESSON.
December 1, 2007 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
carolinabeachgirl (anonymous) says...
Bankz, you blame thephink's parents for what you believe is his/her stupidy but you don't blame these women, who aren't smart enough to use birth control or abstinance, for failing to teach their children that it's wrong to be a criminal? Are there only certain things that can be blamed on a parent?
December 1, 2007 at 11:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bankz (anonymous) says...
KnowAllSeeAll you are right calling names is not going to get me anywhere unless Thinkpink wants to discuss face to face.
December 1, 2007 at 11:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cypress (anonymous) says...
5 mothers 25 kids all on public housing.
isn't that great. BREAK THE LAW PAY THE PRICE
December 1, 2007 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bankz (anonymous) says...
carolinabeachgirl why are we going to blame the parents at this time, whats done is done and we cannot return the children. They are here now and they(The children) need to be held responsible for their actions and not the parents.
December 1, 2007 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
carolinabeachgirl (anonymous) says...
I think that in this particular situation the parents have to be held accountable. When each mother signed the lease they were acknowledging the conditions of the lease. The terms of the lease have been violated and the housing authority is well within their rights to evict. The housing authority should be supported in this decision. It's not has if they have arbitrarily targeted these families. The housing authority should continue to clean hosue across the board. There are other families just as deserving for public housing assistance that can follow the rules.
December 1, 2007 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bankz (anonymous) says...
I do not think they signed the lease with the intention of their son committing robbery.But you are correct the housing dept. does have rules and they should be followed.
December 1, 2007 at 11:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
bankz:
I don't have to be around my kids 24/7 to keep them in order because when I am around them I have instilled discipline from day 1 (EVEN BEFORE THEY STARTED WALKING!). My teen kids are busy with things like school, church, part time jobs, and some activities we get involved with together. These mothers are simply irresposible and don't deserve to be allowed to live in public housing any longer. Maybe cold, hunger and homelessness will convince them to do the right thing and discipline their kids.
December 1, 2007 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
bankz:
AND I've taught them to choose friends who are going in the right direction. I also reserve the right to cut friends who I think would be bad influences from their lives.
December 1, 2007 at 12:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wonderdog (anonymous) says...
The perps are between the ages of 14 and 16. They are minors; by law the parents are responsible for them. Yes, the perps should have known better, but what kind of examples have been set for them in the home? It does not appear that personal responsibility is present or being taught in the home.
To say that these kids (and not the parents) are responsible for their actions, it only follows that logic that they should be tried as adults and not sentenced under the youthful offenders act........right?
December 1, 2007 at 12:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bankz (anonymous) says...
sjmehlhose even though you instilled all of those so call values in your children, they do not mean a hill of beans when they leave your domain, who knows what they do when they are alone. I have children and i do not put anything past them. I am not so far gone from reality to think my children will never do anything bad.
In my home I instill SELF RESPONSIBILITY. Meaning being responsible for what you do. If my child does something while i am away working and i was not there to see if it was done or not, how can i say without a shadow of a doubt that my child did not do it. I can't. That is where self responsibility comes in.
December 1, 2007 at 1:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
burton (anonymous) says...
My community used this same law to get a drug dealing family evicted. Even after they knew they were going to get convicted they continued to sell drugs. I have no sympathy. They knew what the rules were before they signed the lease agreement.
For those of you that have sympathy for this family, you don't know how a family like this causes havoc on a community. I live in the hood and see it everyday. We always forget about the law abiding folks that live in the hood who are in the same situation as these ladies or worse but who choose not to sell drugs or commit crimes. I'm sick of all the excuses!!
Put them out and put in people that will obey the rules and who will be a positive influence to their community and neighbors. Life is about choices and consequences. They choose to disobey the rules and now they have to suffer the consequences!
December 1, 2007 at 2:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mac0cm4 (anonymous) says...
How many kids? Daaaaaayum. So, I guess they never did figure out what causes kids, eh? Must be in the water...
(rolls eyes)
December 1, 2007 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
10216340 (anonymous) says...
Justme2 said - "This is a public disgrace to do this to the families. Give them a chance to work on whatever needs work"
Excuse me.....they had a chance "to work on whatevery needs work". It's called raising your kids right. Instead these stupid women took the opportunity to create more kids (25 between 5 women....hello). Now they have more than they can handle and end up living on my (and your) money and still can't raise their kids to be upstanding, law abiding citizens. I say get the heck out of the housing development and it will be safer for everyone there.
No matter how long I live I will never understand stupid women who keep having kids. I knew when I was a teen that I wasn't going to get caught up in that trap. Gee....guess what I did......kept my legs tight together at all times.
I now have a 15 year old son and you can bet your very last dollar that I know where he is and with whom at every moment of the day.
Try some good old responsibility. You will be amazed at what your kids will learn along the way.
December 1, 2007 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yeahright (anonymous) says...
Great post Burton. So nice to hear(read) some common sense.
December 1, 2007 at 2:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
preachlove (anonymous) says...
Bankz - No I'm not with my kids all day, but I try to instill in them values that will help them out in the future. Are my kids angels, no. As parents, we don't know what our kids are doing when we're not around. I found out what one of my sons was doing, I QUICKLY put a stop to it. That's called being a loving, concerned and responsible parent. I informed my son, if he wanted to live under my roof, he'd better change his ways. I also told him that jail is not where he wanted to spend his days and nights and I made him take a tour the jail with me.
As for these mothers, I stand by my post that the Government should make new rules and not give ADDITIONAL MONEY to these women for having MORE BABIES. I read about a welfare queen in New York City a while ago - she was a baby making machine. For these selfish women having all of these children for that 1st of the month check - I say you reap what you sow. In the long run, all of the children will suffer one way or another by not having what they need, not just materially, but also the attention that is required from a parent.
And let's be honest here, I don't know what the rules are now, but in the past I have heard of women on welfare selling their food stamps to get money for drugs and other things. I know this as truth.
Hey Burton - How true! Although, I have never lived in public housing, I have been in those areas and seen the GOINGS ON and to me, it's amazing to me how some of those kids grow up to be college graduates and lead successful lives. At least, there is some hope.
December 1, 2007 at 3:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hondais1 (anonymous) says...
laine61 - "The mothers aren't the ones who commited the crimes. They are hard-working and trying to do the best they can. Maybe if there was some kind of program for those kids they wouldn't have been on the street. But that would have been too logical."
There was some kind of program for those kids--it's called "school"! When you go to school at that age, you have "homework". When I was that age, I went to school every day and didn't have time to do anything in the evening/night except my homework. I also had chores to do in the afternoons. Both of my parents worked outside the home, but I can promise you that they always knew where I was and what I was doing so I didn't have the chance to get into trouble. If the mothers cared at all about their children, they would have taken the time to know where they were and what they were doing. I did the same with my children and although they weren't perfect angels, none of them ever did anything that would cause them to be put in jail. In this case, the parent(s) should definitely be held accountable for the actions of the child(ren).
December 1, 2007 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bankz (anonymous) says...
Ok! your child rapes someone, how about we put you (the parent) in jail and the child goes to counesling.
That is a great idea. And preachlove you do not know everything your children have done. People do lie.
December 1, 2007 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
hondais1:
You are dead wrong. It is not the governments job to raise these kids. NO program will keep these kids off of the streets. Only loving, strict parenting works. If my kids say they are going to be somewhere or be doing something, I verify this. As Ronald Reagan said to Michael Gorbachev when asked if he trusted them he responded "Yes I trust you. Trust, but verify. . ." I raise them right with the right values, but I also verify what they are doing and where they are going, and if I find out that they violated my trust, then there are severe consequences.
December 1, 2007 at 4:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wonderdog (anonymous) says...
No one said the mothers of these perps should go to jail - only that they must adhere to the terms of the leases they signed for the (taxpayer funded) housing or face eviction. That is the issue.
Does anyone wonder how the innocent people who were attacked by these punks felt? THEY are the victims.
December 1, 2007 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
This is an issue of personal responsibility. These women don't understand this and maybe doing some time homeless will get their moral compass in order. The type of immorality and lack of personal responsibility got them into trouble, and it's NOT the governments job to bail their sorry carcasses out.
December 1, 2007 at 4:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kaylee (anonymous) says...
A state law needs to be passed - after child # 2 a women needs to get her tubes tied, unless she is married or can afford them without goverment help. Not all but most of these women are having one child behind the other so they can stay in these housing. By the time the last baby is grown the mother is on S.S.I. Or she has her grown child and grandchild living with them. Where does it stop?
December 1, 2007 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
preachlove (anonymous) says...
Bankz - You just don't get it. Read my post. I never said the women should be held responsible for the actions of their children, I did say the Government, and I repeat Government should not give ADDITIONAL MONEY to women having MORE BABIES. Also, I never said I know all the things my children have done, but when I did find out what one of my son's was doing, I TOOK ACTION.
December 1, 2007 at 5:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
To kaylee: there used to be a rule that any woman giving birth at MUSC and was a Medicaid recipient, had to have her tubes tied after child #3. I don't know what happened with this, unless the ACLU declared it a violation of a person's civil rights. I think it was a great idea myself.
December 1, 2007 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bankz (anonymous) says...
preachlove i am sure glad you do not make our nations decisions.
December 1, 2007 at 5:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
preachlove (anonymous) says...
bankz - do you read? I'm not wasting any more time with you. Have a great afternoon.
December 1, 2007 at 6:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bankz (anonymous) says...
you act like asked you to comment to my post. So yes you are wasting your time Preachlove. I really do hope you fall victim to a economic hardship and see who hurries to your aid.
And about your son i doubt he listens, he just know not to tell you the next time it happens.
December 1, 2007 at 6:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
juniemoon1957 (anonymous) says...
Posted by bankz on December 1, 2007 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
preachlove i somewhat agree with you, but you are not with your kids 24 hrs a day. No matter what you have taught your child it is their decision to do the right and wrong thing".
Usually I would not comment, but....my parents were not with me 24/7, but I dang skippy knew what I would get if I did something wrong and it was not pretty. We did not live in fear, did plenty of having fun, but we all knew the limits and what would happen if we went beyond them. Neighbors kept an eye on us and we kept an eye out for each other. Our parents also did not let us hang out with just anyone. Regretfully, if those "children", or so called "children" would have tried to have robbed me, I would have shot them. Yes, I have a concealed weapon permit and I am a very good shot. I also make it habit to carry my weapon especially this time of the year.
December 1, 2007 at 6:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wonderdog (anonymous) says...
Actually, I wish preachlove would run for office. I think if he were to have an economic hardship, he would find it within himself to resolve it.
We need people in government who believe that people should take responsibility for their actions rather than blaming others for everything and expecting the government to pick up the tab for their mistakes, essentially saving them from themselves. Too many politicians cater to one group; it may be corporations with deep pockets for campaign donations or people who live off the hard work of the rest of us taxpayers and vote to keep living that way. I worked with a young woman who said that at age 28 she was tired of working and that she was going to vote for a certain presidential candidate because he would make it easier for her to get on welfare. Her candidate won, and within a year, she quit her job and was on welfare. She was able bodied and very capable of working but knew that the guy who pledged to take care of the poor for votes was her ticket to be a burden on society. There are people who are unable to care for themselves and genuinely need assistance; we should help. I'm too tired from working 50 hours a week to help the lazy and unmotivated.
December 1, 2007 at 6:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wonderdog (anonymous) says...
I also believe that preachlove and others on this board have solid, back to basics perspectives on parenting, and if their/my kids were to get into trouble, it would not happen again.
"I brought you up to be a good person and a contributor to society, not a burden. If you ever do something to bring shame upon yourself and your family, remember one thing: after the police are done with you, you will deal with ME."
December 1, 2007 at 6:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
juniemoon1957 (anonymous) says...
Amen wonderdog....I always said if my neice or my nephews get into trouble they sure better hope the police show up first before their mothers do because they are sure enough going to be "a totein'" an ass whipping in front of God and everybody that they will not soon forget.
December 1, 2007 at 6:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
carolinamommyof4 (anonymous) says...
Bankz ~ did anyone say these families were black? You are calling white people names on here like they are the enemy. Well, it seems that you have stereotyped them (the families) as black.
Bankz Quote-
Who cares about having childern out of wedlock, you act like that does not happen to white people. Sorry to alarm you it does. No one else needs to be at fault but the children who committed the crime.
December 1, 2007 at 7:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
upcountry (anonymous) says...
It appears to me,that this is a no win situation....I wonder if the family leader has considered searching for a new home.
To everything there is AN ORDER ... RULES are developed/created as a guide for daily living.
SADLY, IF the housing authority abide by their established rules/policys, my feelings are that they will.... To make exceptions. OTHERS residents..MUST be afforded the same ruling, unfortunately.... what a heartbreaking sad situation.
Again, I wonder, if any of the families members are actively seeking other housings to relocate their families.
December 1, 2007 at 8:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jumpnjx (anonymous) says...
What I am trying to understand is the fact that people living in taxpayer funded housing, given rules of conduct to live there, and members of their family that live there violate their lease and they are being asked to leave...hmmm, where is there a problem? I fully believe that we live in a democtatic nation, one in which the individual is responsible for themselves, government is not to intrude. We have steadily moved towards Socialism in the United States, spending taxpayer money on social program for votes, while the infrastructure of the nation weakens because the money has been used non-productively. For those who say the children should be made leave, the family should not be penalized...here are some thoughts for ya. What is to keep the troublemaker from "visiting" their family? Isn't it about time that parents be held responsible for the action of their child...each parent is given the "right" to raise their child with their own cultural/familial values, if they screwed up and did not do their job, should I have to suffer because they did not want my input during the crucial years that formed opinions? Should a parent who has excessive numbers of children while unable to care for them be rewarded with taxpayer funds to live on the sweat of the workers, while creating a danger to those same taxpayers who are keeping these people alive, by not doing what is needed to raise their children? We as a people are going to have to begin making some very tough decisions to safe-guard our families, nation, and way of life, otherwise we will end up a third world nation with violence like Haiti. I don't want that for my children or grandchildren, so for those who say throw more money at the problem, how about writing out a check and taking it upon yourself to do so, I don't want to.
December 1, 2007 at 10:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
afternoondelight (anonymous) says...
Get 'em out of there.
There are a few decent rule following, law abiding residents who deserve a peaceful place to live.
December 1, 2007 at 10:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mizzmadison (anonymous) says...
Just reading some of these comments, tells me that we are living among some of the most racist freaking pigs! Many of you hide behind a computer screen and type some of the most hateful comments one can ever imagine! Hell, some of you only comment on stories that involved black people! Facts: only six comments about the guys who slipped his co-worker the date -rape drug, seven comments regarding the missing funds from Berkely County, and why are you guys not applading the students at Academic Magnet School for their great accomplishments? Instead, some of you bit^& about how many kids these woman have! Yeah, I pay taxes too, but does that give me the right to tell someone how many kids they should have? Hell No! Poorboy: you need to bring your azz on St.Margret where I live, just to see how many young white girls are dropped of by their parents who are to ashamed to even visit their daughter at The Florence Crittion Home for unwed girls. The only difference is the white girls give their child up for adoption, and go back to their perfect world like nothing never happened, whereas the black girls take their child home with them. Does that make them any better???? No, they spread their freaking legs too, and got pregnant! So, please shut the hell up about that garbage!
bankz, your comments are so true, you never know what your child will do behind your back! It is so sad that some of you have so much hate in your heart for people of color. At the end of the day, we all bleed the same damn color (RED)!
December 1, 2007 at 11:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jumpnjx (anonymous) says...
Are the women and children in the news item above African-American? The article didn't say and I don't care if they are purple, orange, green or blue, the fact is that I see a threat to our nation and to the heritage of our people (Black, White and Brown) and commented on it. Get off the race treadmill and lets be realistic about dealing with the disintegration of America, addressing what is really wrong without making excuses for it or throwing clouds of dust up to obscure the issue. My tax dollars should not supplement someone who perpetuates the problems America is facing, its kind of like giving them a wage to terrorize the rest of us. I don't care what color you are, all I ask is that you parent your children so they don't terrorize society or be a predator on society...if you don't, you shouldn't ask society to fund you while you live a life of irresponsibility.
December 1, 2007 at 11:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
mizzmadison:
All I saw in the article where examples of bad behavior, lack of character and anti-social upbringings. I don't care about their color, I'm concerned about their character. That is what I judge them upon. I happen to have a niece in my own family (who happens to live in another state) who is doing what these people are doing, and I have NO RESPECT for her either (she is low class trash), and she is related to me.
I think we have gotten beyond race (and the article didn't even say whether they were black or white). You are assuming that they are black. Did it ever occur to you that these people might be white? What about what Dr. Martin Luther King said when he hoped for a day when you were judged upon your character and not color? That is what we are doing. We are looking beyond race and see bad bad character. Get over your racism.
December 1, 2007 at 11:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
mizzmadison:
I think it is you who are the racist. You assume that because they are involved in criminal behavior that they must be black. Maybe they are white, or some other race.
December 1, 2007 at 11:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
laine61 (anonymous) says...
hondais1,
I too, had school and homework, which I did before I left school. But school isn't the only answer. Some parents are truly afraid to discipline and control their children because they are afraid of what may happen. True, the kids should have been at home, but maybe mom thought that the kids they were with could be trusted and that her kids would not get into any trouble. I allow my son to go with his friends trusting that he will know better than to get into trouble, but peer pressure is a b****! But, rules are rules. I say give them some time to at least find other suitable living arrangements. Don't just put them on the streets. The moms are trying to win a game with a terrible hand!!!
December 2, 2007 at 12:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scwendy (anonymous) says...
They signed the lease. It should be enforced period.
kaylee- Are you suggesting that it is okay for a married couple to continue to have children if they cannot afford to support them but NOT okay for a single parent to do the same?
I don't disagree with it NOT being appropriate to have more children if you cannot support them without government assistance, but I feel that is the case whether you are married or single.
December 2, 2007 at 7:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bankz (anonymous) says...
tripsa I am here i just decided it does not benefit me to discuss anything with people like you. When i called you stupid i meant it and i still mean it. Like i said i hope you fall vicitim and ask for help and see what happens.
What goes around comes around.....Karma is a MF.
December 2, 2007 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tj66 (anonymous) says...
if more parents were held responsible for their kidsss,there might be less crime,if they let these women stay,all it will do is show people that they can do what they want and not get kicked out,but having these women leave will show other people that hey do something wrong and we will get kicked out
December 3, 2007 at 6:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyfigueroa (anonymous) says...
"A state law needs to be passed - after child # 2 a women needs to get her tubes tied, unless she is married or can afford them without goverment help."
"there used to be a rule that any woman giving birth at MUSC and was a Medicaid recipient, had to have her tubes tied after child #3. I don't know what happened with this, unless the ACLU declared it a violation of a person's civil rights"
South Carolina governor apologizes for forced sterilizations
January 9, 2003
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges Wednesday made the state's first apology for decades of forced sterilization that robbed more than 250 people of their ability to have children. Advocates say the apology closes a sad chapter in South Carolina's history _ and helps people learn from past mistakes. Liz Patterson, a former U.S. congresswoman who led the drive to repeal the sterilization law her father signed 50 years earlier while governor of South Carolina, said she appreciated Hodges' apology. "It's part of our history," she said. "It shows we've made progress." No one encouraged Hodges to make the apology, said spokeswoman Cortney Owings. "Gov. Hodges felt it was time to issue an apology to the victims and their families," Owings said. Hodges hopes the apology will educate South Carolinians about a time in history they may not be aware of and make them more accepting of their differences, Owings said. From the 1930s through the 1960s, the state forcibly sterilized people _ mostly blacks and women _ to prevent them from bearing "unfit" children, records show. The practice was signed into state law by Gov. Olin D. Johnston in 1935 and was guided through the Medical Affairs Committee by Strom Thurmond, who was a freshman senator. It remained on South Carolina's books until 1985. During that time, 30 states had similar sterilization laws. The law authorized mental hospital and prison administrators to sterilize _ without the person's consent _ any man or woman diagnosed with "insanity, idiocy, imbecility, feeble-mindedness or epilepsy." South Carolina's law was repealed in 1985. Other states, including Virginia and Oregon, have issued similar apologies. Advocates applaud Hodges for his apology. Some of them can recall a time when viewing people with disabilities as inferior was common.
the problem with using the armed arm of the govt. to dictate who can have children and how many is quite evident in the aboved referenced article. where does it stop?
married but poor? you had one disabled child so we can't allow you to have another? sterilize the disabled child? divorced? you're over the age of 40? reformed alcoholics/drug addicts?
December 3, 2007 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MDW (anonymous) says...
I hope the P&C follows up and lets us know what became of all this.
December 3, 2007 at 4:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Stonoguy (anonymous) says...
Let's make a deal....if these mothers have their tubes tied then they can stay!! Sounds fair to me!
December 4, 2007 at 10:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mppowell (anonymous) says...
eyfigueroa,what do you think should be done with a single parent who receives gov't housing and funding and continues to have children?Especially if they can't show that they're making an effort at a better education/job? We all know that sterilization is wrong.But should I go out and get a 2nd job so that I can have more of my taxes pay for a baby-making factory?Where is your suggestion for change? Mine would be that any children that are conceived AFTER a person is in public housing will directly affect the subsidies received by the parent i.e less aid.And a limited lease term should be instituted for able-bodied parents,regardless.
December 12, 2007 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mppowell (anonymous) says...
Bankz-do your parents know you're not in school right now? If you continue skipping grade school, you'll never be able to have the adult conversations you seem to be craving.And this is addressed to everyone of you that thinks it's wrong to put these people on the street. These tenants knowingly signed a contract that gives them MUCH cheaper housing than what the majority of us receive.The contract was very clear. You people are acting like these kids just committed some minor little misdemeanor.They pulled a weapon on someone for chris's sake!If these kids had access to a gun(which would be all that easier to get in their community,if rules like this aren't enforced)then this robbery victim could have been shot and murdered.People like Bankz rails on about personal responsibility but don't understand that people's actions in this world affect others.And maybe if some little thug jr sees his mom and siblings on the street because he wanted to rob someone for fun,he'll have a better sense of what personal responsibility really means.Also this crap about everyone having "bad apples" in their families and how a whole lot more people would be on the street is misleading.Because we didn't all sign leases for discounted rent that asks that our kids don't commit felonies,now did we?And why is that I suppose?And those of you that don't think that rules apply to you should try not paying your taxes or doing whatever you want at work and expect to not see the results.And this rally is a joke.What is this church doing to help with job placement and after school programs?The same thinking that makes this rally seem like a good idea is the same thinking that sees no problem in the gov't paying for their housing while they continue pumping out kids.After all, they gotta plan for retirement somehow.
December 12, 2007 at 3:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mppowell (anonymous) says...
Is it worse to kick out the family whose child committed a FELONY or to deny the next 5 families the same opportunity at housing because the previous family wasn't evicted? You talk about putting people on the streets that are going to commit crimes now? Where do you think the 5 families waiting to get in are coming from?I think alot of you are letting personal feelings and emotions cloud your judgement on this.After all, a man could have been murdered because of this robbery and a family could be at their (unsubsidized)home wondering why their father was shot and robbed and how mommy will now pay for everything.What a cruel twist of fate if the victim was shot and his family was denied public housing because of no vacancy?But let's not think about these things!We need to be concerned with how these women are going to bring christmas to their 25+ kids!Jeez,what they spend on gifts each year is probably a down payment on a house.
December 12, 2007 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.