Comments on: Tucson To Get First Lesbian Housing Development

By: barbara

barbara — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:57:14 +0000

This is a dream come true for lesbians who just want to be around women like themselves. We live in a world of lonliness because of being different from most people. This will help make up for it.

By: boltgirl

boltgirl — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:56:34 +0000

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out in a place like Tucson, which, as Jim pointed out, doesn’t really have identifiable gayborhoods despite having a few clusters of gay-friendly businesses. I wonder if they’ll get the hundred deposits they set as the minimum to make the project a go, and if that means Risky Business will no longer be a reliable place to get a table on a Friday night.

By: Janet

Janet — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:09:09 +0000

Hey – this sounds like a great thing! Olivia has always been in the forefront of creating new possibilities for us in the women’s community. I for one will be calling to see if I can be part of this. For those of you who don’t know Olivia, they do incredible travel for women and have been around over 30 years. It’s just another miracle they are putting together for us. So thanks, Olivia…for taking another incredible leap of faith for us. I don’t think Olivia plans to exclude or ghettoize…sometimes it’s just more fun and meaningful to have a special space. Now a living community. It’s just more fun that way!

Janet

By: Jason D

Jason D — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 17:47:10 +0000

“As to Jason D, they’re all still located in Chicago”

And this community will be placed in Tucson. Nothing indicates they are starting some lesbian town on the outskirts.

” and the amount and diversity of the ‘hoods are enough to drive an idea of equality of many.”

How does that also not apply to the situation in Tucson? I don’t see the difference.

” seclusion of one group, I think, drives a different message”

Such as the Amish? I don’t see a lot of people up in arms about forcing some artificial diversity on Amish country.

I just don’t think that every time a group of people decide that they’d like to live together that this is some type of isolationist attempt, or some sort of bigoted decision.
And it says right in the article, anyone can buy a home, but the company has decided to target lesbians. That’s hardly seclusion.

The goal of diversity, from my understanding, is to be open and accepting of others. But THIS almost sounds like, “oh, you can’t buy houses together in the same area because you have something in common.” I don’t think the goal of diversity is to keep people who have common interests from freely associating with each other.

By: Jaft

Jaft — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 04:33:44 +0000

I kinda have to agree with the first two posters. While not a ghetto, during times of opression, banning togetherm sticking together, etc. makes sense and has a sense of pride. But as acceptance settles in, integration should be the main idea. I think another entry on here noted that some area was so gay friendly because gay residents were so numorous, spread out, and not clustered. People need that day-to-day interaction with gay people to remind them we’re normal, as odd as that sounds. Going into a seperated community is moving against that, in my opinion, though you have the right to live were you wish.

As to Jason D, they’re all still located in Chicago and the amount and diversity of the ‘hoods are enough to drive an idea of equality of many. seclusion of one group, I think, drives a different message

By: Trevor

Trevor — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 01:32:20 +0000

Give me a remote island in southeast Alaska and I’ll start my own little gay community.

By: fannie

fannie — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:22:26 +0000

I know this development is for people of all ages, but personally, if I had the means to live in a beautiful home where being gay was accepted, I like the idea of living in gay/lesbian housing when I’m old. Older gays and lesbians are often isolated. Although, I certainly wouldn’t live in a state with a anti-gay marriage amendment if I could choose.

By: Jason D

Jason D — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 02:24:05 +0000

Hate to point out the obvious, but folks are free to live wherever they choose. If someone wants to start a welcoming but lesbian-centric sub-development, and people want to buy homes there, I don’t see what the problem is.
It’s funny, I live in Chicago. It has various neighborhoods started by certain members of various ethnic groups. There’s Chinatown, Greektown, Boystown attracts the young hip gays, Andersonville the lesbians and gay men who’ve retired from the party scene as well as young families. Ravenswood and Humbolt Park are primarily latino, The artists & indie types live in Logan Square and Wicker Park. Anybody and everybody is permitted to live wherever in the city they can afford to, but everyone knows and acknowledges the history and populations of these various neighborhoods. They started organically, no one really mapped out the areas, but I don’t see what the hub-ub is of creating a lesbian-friendly environment — why this would be considered “ghetto” in some weird way, i have no idea.

By: Patrick ONeill

Patrick ONeill — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:19:21 +0000

All that I can say is that any lesbian couple that spends their money buying a house in a State that is planning on amending their constitution to take away their rights gets what they deserve.

Buyer beware.

This looks like it would be a great idea in California or Mass or ….

But just because Tucson is friendly doesn’t mean that the State is

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:44:38 +0000

no, it’s just making sure that hwen you are old, you can live iwth people whom you are ocmfortable with. Getting old is enough without adding homophobia to the mix.