Chesse
New member
I thought I saw posted somewhere else about the new law being considered, related to forcing closed neighborhoods ("countries" and barrio cerrados) to remove their physical barriers, but couldn't find it again, so I repeated part of another post from another thread here to see if anyone finds this interesting.
The reasoning for this new law is that the closed neighborhoods block too much traffic by not allowing cars to pass through and they must go around. That may be the case in the city, although I've never actually seen a country in the city. But out in the suburbs, I never noticed a problem when I was driving around. Hell, there are not many roads out there to begin with, certainly not many paved roads. Maybe they are talking about places like NorDelta and Tigre, Olivos, etc. I don't do too much driving around there, although in Tigre I have and haven't noticed a great issue although I saw many countries.
I think this is some kind of social brown-nosing being done by Cristina to garner more poor votes. Most of them are envious of the rich in a socialist way (i.e., envious and despising at the same time). They resent the wealth, they resent the isolation that the rich put themselves into (and I'm not even saying there isn't some valid reason for them to feel this way, here, at least to an extent).
One quote from the second article:
"Además, comparó esos complejos habitacionales con los "ghettos" y "las ciudades medievales" que separaban a los que vivían bien de los que no participaban de la vida urbana y quedaban fuera de los muros, corriendo muchos riesgos", afirmó."
"In addition, he compared these housing complexes with the 'ghettos' and 'medieval cities that separate those living well from those who do not participate in urban life and were left outside the walls, running too many risks,' he said"
But imagine what a big thing this is! Houses in the suburbs of any level beyond lower middle class are usually surrounded by walls out there, either individually or as neighborhoods. Why? Because there is a lot of thievery and an even lesser police presence than in the city. EVERY closed neighborhood has renta-cops (with guns) that attend the entrance(s) to the neighborhood and patrol the neighborhood regularly. They are rotated out every couple of weeks to avoid guard collusion in robberies.
When I was living out there in a closed neighborhood, we would have confirmed invasions of the perimeter at least a couple of times a month. A couple of times a week we would get a report from the security people that detailed security issues of the neighborhood. Most of the time it was unconfirmed breaches or animals, but at least twice a month they chased people off. Not once in nearly two years did we have an actual robbery, although the neighborhood on the other side of the street did (it was about 3 times our size).
It sucks to have to live that way, but Argentina isn't ready for the kind of neighborhood I had in the States. The streets there were open to the public, it wasn't gated or fenced in, except on the side with the cow pasture (we had woods along two sides of our closed neighborhood in Tortuguitas). But people didn't generally drive through the neighborhood in the States, for two reasons: one, they are planned (at least in the suburbs) so that they don't need to be used for through traffic and two, people in the States (well, at least in Houston) wouldn't drive through a neighborhood like that except in emergency because they respect the privacy of the inhabitants.
Plus, we didn't need more than the county constable driving through there a couple of times a night to make us feel secure. We had a real low crime rate in a neighborhood of almost 600 upper middle class homes, something like 4 actual burglaries a year. I never was broken into.
We had 50 lots, about 45 houses, in the closed neighborhood in Tortuguitas. It was a small one, sure. All around us were lower middle class homes open to the public streets, as well as upper middle class behind walls and a few countries. Yet still we had a criminal element. I know where they came from - not too far away.
To me, this is a direct assault on property rights. People in those neighborhoods paid for EVERYTHING on that land, including the walls and the roads. They are responsible for maintaining it. They sunk large chunks of money into a place they wanted to consider safe for their kids to play in and relatively safe for their possessions. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with their lifestyle, or think they're idiots for it, whatever. They should be able to spend their money as they see fit.
Who's going to pay for the road maintenance now? How are the renta-cops going to secure their perimeter? How are the kids going to play in the neighborhood with traffic running through all the time?
Call it eminent domain if you want - I'm equally opposed to that.
I see this as precursors to the government stepping in and making things "more fair" for the poor at the expense of the "rich" (or at least those that live well - though I don't count myself in the former group, certainly I am in the second).
Be careful here, you never know what may happen. Am I over-reacting here? Maybe someone has an angle on this that makes sense of it?
The reasoning for this new law is that the closed neighborhoods block too much traffic by not allowing cars to pass through and they must go around. That may be the case in the city, although I've never actually seen a country in the city. But out in the suburbs, I never noticed a problem when I was driving around. Hell, there are not many roads out there to begin with, certainly not many paved roads. Maybe they are talking about places like NorDelta and Tigre, Olivos, etc. I don't do too much driving around there, although in Tigre I have and haven't noticed a great issue although I saw many countries.
I think this is some kind of social brown-nosing being done by Cristina to garner more poor votes. Most of them are envious of the rich in a socialist way (i.e., envious and despising at the same time). They resent the wealth, they resent the isolation that the rich put themselves into (and I'm not even saying there isn't some valid reason for them to feel this way, here, at least to an extent).
One quote from the second article:
"Además, comparó esos complejos habitacionales con los "ghettos" y "las ciudades medievales" que separaban a los que vivían bien de los que no participaban de la vida urbana y quedaban fuera de los muros, corriendo muchos riesgos", afirmó."
"In addition, he compared these housing complexes with the 'ghettos' and 'medieval cities that separate those living well from those who do not participate in urban life and were left outside the walls, running too many risks,' he said"
But imagine what a big thing this is! Houses in the suburbs of any level beyond lower middle class are usually surrounded by walls out there, either individually or as neighborhoods. Why? Because there is a lot of thievery and an even lesser police presence than in the city. EVERY closed neighborhood has renta-cops (with guns) that attend the entrance(s) to the neighborhood and patrol the neighborhood regularly. They are rotated out every couple of weeks to avoid guard collusion in robberies.
When I was living out there in a closed neighborhood, we would have confirmed invasions of the perimeter at least a couple of times a month. A couple of times a week we would get a report from the security people that detailed security issues of the neighborhood. Most of the time it was unconfirmed breaches or animals, but at least twice a month they chased people off. Not once in nearly two years did we have an actual robbery, although the neighborhood on the other side of the street did (it was about 3 times our size).
It sucks to have to live that way, but Argentina isn't ready for the kind of neighborhood I had in the States. The streets there were open to the public, it wasn't gated or fenced in, except on the side with the cow pasture (we had woods along two sides of our closed neighborhood in Tortuguitas). But people didn't generally drive through the neighborhood in the States, for two reasons: one, they are planned (at least in the suburbs) so that they don't need to be used for through traffic and two, people in the States (well, at least in Houston) wouldn't drive through a neighborhood like that except in emergency because they respect the privacy of the inhabitants.
Plus, we didn't need more than the county constable driving through there a couple of times a night to make us feel secure. We had a real low crime rate in a neighborhood of almost 600 upper middle class homes, something like 4 actual burglaries a year. I never was broken into.
We had 50 lots, about 45 houses, in the closed neighborhood in Tortuguitas. It was a small one, sure. All around us were lower middle class homes open to the public streets, as well as upper middle class behind walls and a few countries. Yet still we had a criminal element. I know where they came from - not too far away.
To me, this is a direct assault on property rights. People in those neighborhoods paid for EVERYTHING on that land, including the walls and the roads. They are responsible for maintaining it. They sunk large chunks of money into a place they wanted to consider safe for their kids to play in and relatively safe for their possessions. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with their lifestyle, or think they're idiots for it, whatever. They should be able to spend their money as they see fit.
Who's going to pay for the road maintenance now? How are the renta-cops going to secure their perimeter? How are the kids going to play in the neighborhood with traffic running through all the time?
Call it eminent domain if you want - I'm equally opposed to that.
I see this as precursors to the government stepping in and making things "more fair" for the poor at the expense of the "rich" (or at least those that live well - though I don't count myself in the former group, certainly I am in the second).
Be careful here, you never know what may happen. Am I over-reacting here? Maybe someone has an angle on this that makes sense of it?
