Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago Suburbs
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-30-2013, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Chicago, Tri-Taylor
5,014 posts, read 9,387,810 times
Reputation: 3982

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasily View Post
People are free to live where they can afford to live, and I see no reason why a community should be forced to provide affordable housing to all (which I'm guessing is one of the subtexts here) ... The net effect of which can be lowered property values and increased crime. If you can't afford to live in a high-end community, move to a community where you can afford the mortgage/rent.

I'm looking at places to live in SC and many are off my list because there's no way I could ever afford living there (I'On, for example). I would never think of complaining about the "unfairness" of it all ... But then, I'm not a progressive with an axe to grind. I don't begrudge the successful their incomes; almost all of them earn it, no matter their race. Just my opinion.
There'd be no subsidized housing by your logic. Section 8 voucher holders, by definition, cannot afford the places they live but-for their governmental assistance. As it stands, that housing is in Calumet City, Harvey, Dolton, Riverdale, and the south side of Chicago because of the amount of the vouchers. But why should communities like these be forced to accept it but not places like Wilmette? If we're going to have subsidized housing, it should be more fairly distributed, IMHO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-30-2013, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Greenville, SC
6,219 posts, read 5,895,851 times
Reputation: 12159
So you're suggesting the feds should force all states and local communities to force their landlords to take Section 8 vouchers, particularly high income communities like Wilmette?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Chicago, Tri-Taylor
5,014 posts, read 9,387,810 times
Reputation: 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasily View Post
So you're suggesting the feds should force all states and local communities to force their landlords to take Section 8 vouchers, particularly high income communities like Wilmette?
Are you suggesting maintaining the status quo and isolating the low income voucher holders in poor communities with substandard schools and high concentrations of poverty? Do you think a Calumet City home owner who is paying a mortgage is happy with the large number of Section 8 residents who cannot afford to live there without governmental assistance? I'm just curious how people think through this issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Chicago, Tri-Taylor
5,014 posts, read 9,387,810 times
Reputation: 3982
I should clarify, as a lot of people obviously don't know how Section 8 works. Section 8 refers to a voucher program where a low income person gets a voucher to rent a home or apartment where they choose. The amount of the voucher is based on a the area's median income. In Cook County, the standard voucher amounts range from $853 for a 1 bedroom up to $1,720 for a 6 bedroom.

As I said before, a voucher holder is already living in an apartment or house he or she "cannot afford." The voucher holder is only required to pay 30% of her monthly income towards rent, but that amount also can go towards utilities. And if the voucher holder is not working, as is often the case, the housing unit will be fully subsidized.

Because the vouchers are only for so much money, what has been happening is that the vouchers are all ending up in certain communities with rents at or below the voucher amount. These communities often have crappy schools, high crime, and high poverty concentrations. Since more affluent communities have higher rental rates, or low rental concentrations, they effectively avoid having to deal with subsidized housing, even under the voucher program.

Now, the good news (in my opinion anyway though maybe not yours ;-) ) is that the Cook County Housing Authority has a program called "exception rents." The ER program bumps up the amount for the County's more affluent communities, such as Riverside, Winnetka, Burr Ridge, Western Springs and, of course, Wilmette, heh. Those amounts range from $1,023 for a 1 bedroom up to $2,064 for a 6 bedroom house. And the Cook County Human Rights Ordinance was recently amended to make it unlawful for a landlord to refuse to rent to someone based on voucher status.

These are steps in the right direction but many of these communities do not have a lot their rental rates are above the ER rates, so the ER program is likely of limited use. And I wonder how many two bedrooms are available for the ER rate of $1,149 in, say, River Forest. I'll go out on a limb here and say not many.

So, is the system fair? Is it helping end the cycle of poverty many face? Should we just end it and let people fend for themselves because they "can't afford" housing in the areas where they're living? Will affluent people still support subsidized housing if it starts moving next door to them? This is really what I want to know.

Last edited by BRU67; 07-30-2013 at 11:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Greenville, SC
6,219 posts, read 5,895,851 times
Reputation: 12159
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRU67 View Post
Are you suggesting maintaining the status quo and isolating the low income voucher holders in poor communities with substandard schools and high concentrations of poverty? Do you think a Calumet City home owner who is paying a mortgage is happy with the large number of Section 8 residents who cannot afford to live there without governmental assistance? I'm just curious how people think through this issue.
You didn't answer my question: do you want the feds to impose "fairness" on society? And if not, what *are* you proposing?

Again, if the Calumet City home owner doesn't like living there, he/she can move somewhere where you don't have a large number of section 8 renters. This is still a free country ... At least for now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Chicago, Tri-Taylor
5,014 posts, read 9,387,810 times
Reputation: 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasily View Post
You didn't answer my question: do you want the feds to impose "fairness" on society? And if not, what *are* you proposing?

Again, if the Calumet City home owner doesn't like living there, he/she can move somewhere where you don't have a large number of section 8 renters. This is still a free country ... At least for now.
What I want doesn't really matter because I'm not a policy maker. That also avoids the subject. My question was directed to you because I wonder what people are thinking when they spout off the "free country" stuff. So, you seem to be saying that the person who lives in the lower middle class suburb, who is probably surrounded by foreclosures and underwater on his mortgage, should just move? How? You have to be kidding me. Tell me you're kidding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Greenville, SC
6,219 posts, read 5,895,851 times
Reputation: 12159
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRU67 View Post
So is the system fair? Is it helping end the cycle of poverty many face? Should we just end it and let people fend for themselves because they "can't afford" housing in the areas where they're living? Will affluent people still support subsidized housing if it starts moving next door to them? This is really what I want to know.
Housing subsidy programs date back at least to the 1960s and the heady days of the Great Society whose goals were the elimination of poverty and racial injustice. You tell me: how's that workin' for us? Last I checked, we still have a large underclass in this country almost 50 years later, mostly black and multigenerational. Rather than eliminating poverty, the Great Society institutionalized it.

You ask about people not being able to afford housing in areas where they live ... Wilmette is 0.8% black and 3.3% hispanic. It's basically a bunch of well-off white and asian folks, and I wouldn't be surprised if most of the blacks and hispanics who live there are solidly middle class. Are you saying the feds should forcibly move poor folks into Wilmette so they can commute many miles to work and to buy groceries they can afford? Guess they'd then have a ready source of house help ... In the old days they called that "slave quarters".

Regarding affluent support of subsidized housing, rich progs love the poor as long as they don't live next to them ... Just like they're all for wind farms as long as they don't have to look at them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Greenville, SC
6,219 posts, read 5,895,851 times
Reputation: 12159
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRU67 View Post
What I want doesn't really matter because I'm not a policy maker. That also avoids the subject. My question was directed to you because I wonder what people are thinking when they spout off the "free country" stuff. So, you seem to be saying that the person who lives in the lower middle class suburb, who is probably surrounded by foreclosures and underwater on his mortgage, should just move? How? You have to be kidding me. Tell me you're kidding.
If you have no alternatives to offer, policymaker or not, what's the point of your post?

Reread what I wrote. The homeowner who lives in Calumet City who doesn't like the section 8 types has the following options: stay put, buy a gun for self defense, and make the best of it; or find a way to move to another community that he/she can afford. That may involve not being a homeowner any more, and possibly walking away from a house that he/she is under water on. Things are tough all over, and most of us have had to make hard decisions. I lost my job when the economy went south and was unemployed for a year and a half, living on unemployment and food pantries. I very near ended up on the street because few want to hire someone who's 60+. The hypothetical Calumet City guy wants to move because he doesn't want to live near the "poor folks". Not the same thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Chicago, Tri-Taylor
5,014 posts, read 9,387,810 times
Reputation: 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasily View Post
Regarding affluent support of subsidized housing, rich progs love the poor as long as they don't live next to them ... Just like they're all for wind farms as long as they don't have to look at them.
Well, on this point we both agree. So that being the case, I was never sure that the proper solution was to replace the housing projects with a "housing choice" program that just continued to isolate proverty in areas where these supportive individuals still do not have to deal with it, and harmed those who lived in those areas in the process, who are also vulnerable. I don't think it's enough to say "life's tough" on that one, especially if it results from a program which we are being told will aleviate poverty. A program we're all paying for.

I mean, if you support something and think it works, you should also be willing to live next to it and help it work. IMHO. If that happened on a large scale, we might see reform of institutionalized poverty, which I think we both also agree is needed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Chicago, Tri-Taylor
5,014 posts, read 9,387,810 times
Reputation: 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasily View Post
If you have no alternatives to offer, policymaker or not, what's the point of your post? The hypothetical Calumet City guy wants to move because he doesn't want to live near the "poor folks". Not the same thing.
The guy might not dislike poor folks. He may want to move because there are 900-1,000 vouchers in his community and, as you said in an earlier post, is suffering from decreasing property values and increased crime as a result of the concentration. So one solution might be to make sure we get a more even distribution. We could, for example, key the voucher amount to the rent in the given community where the holder chooses to live. The ER program sort of does this in Cook County, though I do not know how they arrived at their rent levels.

That may seem unfair at first but vouchers are inherently against the free market. And if we're going to do it, why not make sure that it's a true "housing choice" as the program purports to be? As you point out, the choice will be limited by other factors, such as job proximity (the truly isolated north shore might not be impacted). But at least in that scenerio, we won't be concentrating it as much as now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago Suburbs

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top