Section 8 Housing

[??????????]

No, what I meant is, put a public housing bloc in an area with some relatively posher housing, and a couple of people leave. Do that in America, and almost everybody leaves.[/slight exaggeration]

Like in Paris?

[patrick1]

I suspect there are quite a few NIMBY's in the crowd.   People love to support this stuff from a distance.  Growing up my landlord decided to rent the upstairs apartment to a bunch of section 8'ers.  I am sure this is not exclusive but they were lazy, noisy and dirty bastards who sponged off the state.  It was kind of funny and befitting when it took my landlord over a year to get them evicted.

[David S]

There is no constitutional provision for the federal government to be involved in anything like Section 8 housing, so if its to be done it should be at the state or local level.

In Taylor Michigan there was a public housing building which accounted for most of the police department's calls. This despite the fact that only a tiny percentage of the city's people lived there. This might explain why other people don't want to live near one.

[David S]

No, what I meant is, put a public housing bloc in an area with some relatively posher housing, and a couple of people leave. Do that in America, and almost everybody leaves.[/slight exaggeration]

Oh yes, Americans fear a black (and a poor).  But my point was that in the US such white flight is highly subsidized by infrastructure investement - the roads, utilities, and such are subsidized by the existing customer, and in addition home loans are highly subsidized as well by quasi-governmental corporations known as 'Fannie Mae' an 'Freddie Mack', as well as the tax code, which allows deduction of interest.

If people have to pay taxes on earned interest, why can't they have a deduction for interest they have to pay?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would like to hear more about these.

When the slums were demolished (a long time ago now) local authorities built a hell of a lot of new housing, almost always as far outside the city centre as possible (the dominant planning ideology at the time was essentially that of the Garden City and planned suburbanisaton; that ideology is back in fashion with all the Thames Gateway stuff) and became the landlord of those new estates. Today close to 20% of households live in houses rented from either the local council or some form of social housing authority (it used to be a higher % but there was a Government drive to get people to buy their council houses in the '80's).
Public housing in the U.K has only rarely followed the American model of tower blocks; the tower block phase came in the '50's and '60's due to political pressure from central government to speed up construction (tower blocks being dead cheap to construct after all). Many of the problems associated with tower blocks in the U.S have been noticed here (although not as seriously) and thankfully the era of the tower block is long gone.
Anyways, an interesting legacy of the construction of the council estates is the fact that only 8.7% of households live in houses rented from the private sector. In addition to that there are hardly any old fashioned urban tenements left; those not taken out by the Luftwaffe were demolished in the Socialist fervour of the post-War period.

[minionofmidas]

No, what I meant is, put a public housing bloc in an area with some relatively posher housing, and a couple of people leave. Do that in America, and almost everybody leaves.[/slight exaggeration]

Like in Paris?

Ah, good point. Paris is pretty bad in that respect too.

Although I don't think there are any 90% nonwhite suburbs of Paris ... might be wrong though.

[WalterMitty]

generally positive.

oversight is usualy lax though, which leads to a lot of problems with drugs and such.

they need more caseworkers

[Inverted Things]

Nice program, but don't want the federal government in it. Beats the hell out of rent controls, which as some have already pointed out, suck.

[??????????]

Nice program, but don't want the federal government in it. Beats the hell out of rent controls, which as some have already pointed out, suck.

Agreed. But I certainly wouldn't want to be a manager or owner of any type of apartments with the very poor as tenants. Most very poor are rather ignorant and lazy and will destroy a nice home or apartment in a few years. They really should get such damage taken out in their welfare or foodstamp checks.

[opebo]

Nice program, but don't want the federal government in it. Beats the hell out of rent controls, which as some have already pointed out, suck.

Agreed. But I certainly wouldn't want to be a manager or owner of any type of apartments with the very poor as tenants. Most very poor are rather ignorant and lazy and will destroy a nice home or apartment in a few years. They really should get such damage taken out in their welfare or foodstamp checks.

They do, StatesRights.  If they damage anything to any great or consistent extent, they are kicked out of the Section 8 program and must go homeless.  As you can imagine given this harsh punishment, they generally keep the properties in top shape.  My father and I looked at many such properties in the 1990's, and on the whole - while of course slums, as are any housing for the lower class - the interiors were will kept by the unfortunates within.  I won't get in to your bigoted comments about ignorance and laziness as they are no doubt motivated by your well known hatred of a black.

[??????????]

Nice program, but don't want the federal government in it. Beats the hell out of rent controls, which as some have already pointed out, suck.

Agreed. But I certainly wouldn't want to be a manager or owner of any type of apartments with the very poor as tenants. Most very poor are rather ignorant and lazy and will destroy a nice home or apartment in a few years. They really should get such damage taken out in their welfare or foodstamp checks.

They do, StatesRights.  If they damage anything to any great or consistent extent, they are kicked out of the Section 8 program and must go homeless.  As you can imagine given this harsh punishment, they generally keep the properties in top shape.  My father and I looked at many such properties in the 1990's, and on the whole - while of course slums, as are any housing for the lower class - the interiors were will kept by the unfortunates within.  I won't get in to your bigoted comments about ignorance and laziness as they are no doubt motivated by your well known hatred of a black.

Which particular black do I hate?

[dazzleman]

Nice program, but don't want the federal government in it. Beats the hell out of rent controls, which as some have already pointed out, suck.

Agreed. But I certainly wouldn't want to be a manager or owner of any type of apartments with the very poor as tenants. Most very poor are rather ignorant and lazy and will destroy a nice home or apartment in a few years. They really should get such damage taken out in their welfare or foodstamp checks.

They do, StatesRights.  If they damage anything to any great or consistent extent, they are kicked out of the Section 8 program and must go homeless.  As you can imagine given this harsh punishment, they generally keep the properties in top shape.  My father and I looked at many such properties in the 1990's, and on the whole - while of course slums, as are any housing for the lower class - the interiors were will kept by the unfortunates within.  I won't get in to your bigoted comments about ignorance and laziness as they are no doubt motivated by your well known hatred of a black.

Which particular black do I hate?

Surely States, you know that anybody who objects to crime, drugs and general riff-raff in their neighborhood does it out of hatred of blacks, even if the people causing these problems are white, as they are in many cases.

I know these trashy people who live in section 8 housing and they are white.  Their landlord went to section 8 because he can rip off the government (that's you and me) by charging above market rent.  Since the neighborhood where they live is going downhill anyway, he doesn't have much to lose by renting to section 8, since he can't attract higher-level tenants in that neighborhood anyway, though it was once a respectable neighborhood.

The woman has 7 children with 3 different men, one of whom she met on the internet and had an affair with.  She doesn't let them go to school most of the time because she doesn't like to be alone in the apartment.  A couple of the older ones are currently in jail.  The man has two kids who don't live with him, and to whom he pays scant attention to.  I could go on, but suffice to say they're not top calibre people.  And they're probably on the better end of the section 8 spectrum in that they don't do drugs or engage in criminal activity, as is fairly common with government-subisidized housing, unfortunately.

[opebo]

Which particular black do I hate?

Any black you should happen to meet, I suppose.

Surely States, you know that anybody who objects to crime, drugs and general riff-raff in their neighborhood does it out of hatred of blacks, even if the people causing these problems are white, as they are in many cases.

Obviously drug usage or sale should not be a 'crime' in a free country, dazzleman.  If there is a 'drug problem' in a neighborhood it is caused by the State outlawing such activities, not by the freedom fighters who attempt to resist such oppression.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why would anyone go through the extra trouble of dealing with Section 8 unless they were compensated better than they would be otherwise?  The reason that section 8 sometimes pays more is because they determine the median rent in a given community without taking race and class into account in the way that a private person would.  For example a landlord may own a house in the ghetto, wehre rents are very low, but Section 8 will pay him a rent that is derived not only from rents in the ghetto but rents for a similar house throughout the metro area.    Seems reasonable to me, and in fact paying such rents are the only way the landlord could have enough income from the property to be incentivized to maintain it, since ghetto 'market rate' rents are too low to maintain the buildings.

[dazzleman]

Why would anyone go through the extra trouble of dealing with Section 8 unless they were compensated better than they would be otherwise?  The reason that section 8 sometimes pays more is because they determine the median rent in a given community without taking race and class into account in the way that a private person would.  For example a landlord may own a house in the ghetto, wehre rents are very low, but Section 8 will pay him a rent that is derived not only from rents in the ghetto but rents for a similar house throughout the metro area.    Seems reasonable to me, and in fact paying such rents are the only way the landlord could have enough income from the property to be incentivized to maintain it, since ghetto 'market rate' rents are too low to maintain the buildings.

The problem is that when you have a captive audience, as you do with section 8, there's little incentive to maintain the properties.  That's especially true when the tenants are going out of their way to destroy your property, which is often the case with low-end rentals.

But you're right that often market rate rents in ghetto neighborhoods are too low to maintain the buildings.  That reflects the undesirability of the neighborhood, and the fact that nobody with other options would choose to live there.

[opebo]

The problem is that when you have a captive audience, as you do with section 8, there's little incentive to maintain the properties.  That's especially true when the tenants are going out of their way to destroy your property, which is often the case with low-end rentals.

No, the tenants are not allowed to destroy the properties - any significant or recurring behaviour of that kind finds them evicted from the program and made homeless.  They generally keep up the apartment or house very well given the harshness of this threat.  Also the owner must keep up the property to a very high level as he has to satisfy the sec. 8 inspectors.  Btw, he is compensated for damages caused by tenants. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, obviously.  Another example of class at work in society.

[dazzleman]

No, the tenants are not allowed to destroy the properties - any significant or recurring behaviour of that kind finds them evicted from the program and made homeless.  They generally keep up the apartment or house very well given the harshness of this threat.  Also the owner must keep up the property to a very high level as he has to satisfy the sec. 8 inspectors.  Btw, he is compensated for damages caused by tenants. 

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.  The 'harsh' threats that you describe don't seem to keep section 8 tenants from engaging in crime and generally making the lives of those around them, those who are working to pay taxes that pay these people's rents, miserable. 

There's a reason people don't want to live near government subsidized housing, and it's not just snobbery or racial prejudice, though you obviously equate everything with that.

[opebo]

No, the tenants are not allowed to destroy the properties - any significant or recurring behaviour of that kind finds them evicted from the program and made homeless.  They generally keep up the apartment or house very well given the harshness of this threat.  Also the owner must keep up the property to a very high level as he has to satisfy the sec. 8 inspectors.  Btw, he is compensated for damages caused by tenants. 

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.  The 'harsh' threats that you describe don't seem to keep section 8 tenants from engaging in crime and generally making the lives of those around them, those who are working to pay taxes that pay these people's rents, miserable.

Well obviously the sorts of workers who live near Section 8 housing do not pay much in tax, being poors themselves.  Taxes mostly come from out in your neighborhood.  But I only referred to damages to the property resulting in termination of Section 8 eligability.  I'm not as well versed on the 'crime' issue.  I'm only relating to you the information I gathered when we were considering becoming section 8 landlords.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it is classism, which is different.  Even non-section 8 tenants or homeowners in these areas are poors, and naturally poors are more prone to desperation, 'crime', etc.  Povery is caused by the powerful in society, and it is poverty that causes social problems in poor neighborhoods not goverment subsidies.

[dazzleman]

No, the tenants are not allowed to destroy the properties - any significant or recurring behaviour of that kind finds them evicted from the program and made homeless.  They generally keep up the apartment or house very well given the harshness of this threat.  Also the owner must keep up the property to a very high level as he has to satisfy the sec. 8 inspectors.  Btw, he is compensated for damages caused by tenants. 

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.  The 'harsh' threats that you describe don't seem to keep section 8 tenants from engaging in crime and generally making the lives of those around them, those who are working to pay taxes that pay these people's rents, miserable.

Well obviously the sorts of workers who live near Section 8 housing do not pay much in tax, being poors themselves.  Taxes mostly come from out in your neighborhood.  But I only referred to damages to the property resulting in termination of Section 8 eligability.  I'm not as well versed on the 'crime' issue.  I'm only relating to you the information I gathered when we were considering becoming section 8 landlords.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it is classism, which is different.  Even non-section 8 tenants or homeowners in these areas are poors, and naturally poors are more prone to desperation, 'crime', etc.  Povery is caused by the powerful in society, and it is poverty that causes social problems in poor neighborhoods not goverment subsidies.

Actually, there are some middle class people in these areas whose quality of life is being ruined by the placement of trashy section 8 people in their neighborhood.  I have a lot more concern for these working law-abiding people than I do for those who create problems.

Government subsidies place problem people into what could otherwise be good neighborhoods, so there is the connection between government subsidies and crime/decay.

Clearly, you are not well-versed on the crime issue, as evidenced by your statements.  While poverty does augment some social problems, it is generally social problems that cause poverty to a large degree.

[John Dibble]

I have to wonder if opebo would be willing to move in next to some Section 8 housing to prove that he's not a classist. My guess is he'd be running with his tail between his legs in a matter of weeks.

[dazzleman]

I have to wonder if opebo would be willing to move in next to some Section 8 housing to prove that he's not a classist. My guess is he'd be running with his tail between his legs in a matter of weeks.

I guarantee you guessed right.  Righeoutness is always strongest in those insulated from the effects of what they support.

[David S]

More a question of architecture, flat size etc. ... although America's established pattern of White Flight doesn't help.

The white flight is more highly subsidized than the housing of the poors!

Speaking of white flight, it seems to me that your own "white flight" has put more  miles between you and your home city than anyone else on the forum. Thailand is about as far as you can get from St. Louis without living in the ocean or leaving the planet.

[opebo]

Actually, there are some middle class people in these areas whose quality of life is being ruined by the placement of trashy section 8 people in their neighborhood.  I have a lot more concern for these working law-abiding people than I do for those who create problems.

There are many, many 'working, law-abiding' people who are very poor, dazzleman.  And those are the sorts of working people in these neighborhoods, as they cannot afford to move out, unlike the lucky few with middle class jobs.  Have you never heard of the working poor, dazzleman?  Don't you notice the people who sell you things in the stores, serve your food, etc.?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am extremely 'well-versed' in the 'crime issue', dazzleman - it is you who simplify it in your ignorance.  Of course you have it completely backwards - it is poverty which causes crime and other social problems, not the converse.

I have to wonder if opebo would be willing to move in next to some Section 8 housing to prove that he's not a classist. My guess is he'd be running with his tail between his legs in a matter of weeks.

As a matter of fact, Dibble, most of the places I have rented have been somewhere near Section 8 type neighborhoods.  I generally rent in the older more fashionable areas of the city, which, while quite prosperous, are near or interspersed with poors.  This is certainly highly preferable to living near a lot of bores in the suburbs (commuting is actually far more dangerous than crime anyway.
I've almost always lived in the westernmost or Southwesternmost parts of St. Louis City (the small area on the right side of these maps of the metro), or in the older suburbs just to the west/southwest of the City line.

[opebo]

More a question of architecture, flat size etc. ... although America's established pattern of White Flight doesn't help.

The white flight is more highly subsidized than the housing of the poors!

Speaking of white flight, it seems to me that your own "white flight" has put more  miles between you and your home city than anyone else on the forum. Thailand is about as far as you can get from St. Louis without living in the ocean or leaving the planet.

That's a very good point!  Though I'm mostly fleeing my fellow whites (the prudes) rather than blacks.  And where I am is about as different from American suburbia as possible!

[TeePee4Prez]

Maybe I should say "Mixed" rather than "Neutral" with regards to Section 8 housing.  Many of the points dazzleman brought up such as drugs and loud music blasting out of a Cadillac Escalade at 3 o' clock in the morning I witnessed firsthand.  I also realize between the cracks there is a mother with small children trying to better their situation and only needs Section 8 as a temporary measure.  I think there should be a maximum number of tenants per block and caseworkers to police the program to weed out any abuses. 

I also realize that there are some Archie Bunkers in this world who like to say the "blacks" are the problem and associate Section 8 with the blacks and John Street, blah blah blah.  The media does in fact make African Americans the scapegoats and working class whites wrongly buy into the propaganda while all the long there are whites in working class neighborhoods such as Bridesburg or Tacony in NE Philly who are on the program themselves, but no one suspects them of being on Section 8 because they are white.  Some of these people drink all hours of the night, smoke their Marlboro Reds and blast their music as well.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Negative, the motels along the highway in my town have been turned into Section 8s for the last few years, and the impact has been terrible.  Crime has gone up here, almost 85% of the crime coming out of those motels.  We have crackheads wandering around asking for money all the time and harassing local businesses.  Where I work, some f'ed up moron who lives in one of them came into the store, harassed customers, and didn't leave until we has to get forceful with him.  Cheap housing attracts crime and other bullsh**t so Section 8 housing should only be put up in areas that suck already.