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.
Hmmm how so? Usually an area that has section 8 housing is not deemed as nice as other areas and the rents are lower
If you're a landlord, it doesn't make sense to offer a lower rate than the amount that you could collect from a section 8 tenant. So section 8 crowds out cheaper accommodation.
If you're a landlord, it doesn't make sense to offer a lower rate than the amount that you could collect from a section 8 tenant. So section 8 crowds out cheaper accommodation.
Section 8 housing is based on Fair Market value for rent with the person paying 30%, if it's above the fair market value the renter has to come up with the difference in addition to 30%.
My post is based on most do not want to live in an area with section 8 housing, so landlords if they charge more then the prevailing rate of sec 8 the apt will sit empty when in a more sought after area he could more then likely charge more.
Section 8 housing lowers property values, that is why people fight so hard against one in their neighborhood
Now the voucher system is scattered all over the place provided landlord accepts them
I'm not an expert on Newark's history, but its story seems to have elements of a story all too common in many U.S. cities at the time. It's not so much that "the whites" left. It's that the investment left. The corporations left for cheaper office space in the suburbs. The workers followed. Fewer people, fewer businesses, less tax revenue in the coffers. Streets swept less often, street maintenance deferred, upkeep of schools deferred. More people who can leave do. Fewer jobs for those who remain. It's a downward spiral. The riots didn't cause Newark's demise. Newark was declining for years before the riots. The riots happened in 1967, and Newark had been in decline since about 1950. As someone above said, the riots were a symptom.
It's interesting to study this period in American history. America was in the "modern" age. It was to be a time like none other before. We had the GI Bill. We had affordable suburban housing for middle class families that they could OWN themselves. We didn't have much of that before. Mid class families could have their own house in the modern suburbs with a GM car in the driveway and a Westinghouse washing machine. We didn't need trains and streetcars anymore. Dad could just drive to work in a suburban office park. It was a new world. And look at that, man is walking on the Moon! And when the old cities crumbled because people and companies with money went elsewhere, the answer was to get rid of them. Knock all of the old buildings down and start over. Urban renewal it was called.
I studied one city which embraced Urban Renewal with alarming gusto. Norfolk, VA after WWII was a city suffering similar problems (disinvestment in the city, businesses and people going to the suburbs). Norfolk decided to reinvent itself. Since urban was out of fashion, they got rid of the urban and replaced it with things that looked more suburban. It was better to become a suburb and attract growth again than to die.
I am surprised no one else alluded to this post, because it is by far the best one in the thread. It brings attention to what really occurred. Urban planners know of this. There are such terms as "Peak Land Value Intersection" that are bandied about in planning board meetings, that have meaning to future business investment, as it pertains to zoning. Business owners, in turn, respond. They re-locate their businesses into the most cost-effective areas so as to run businesses more profitably. Also, there is the added incentive of moving the business closer to the CEOs and board members homes. They typically did not live in these cities, but rather, wealthier exurbs.
I agree it's been an ugly cycle for generations...how do we stop it ?? I wish I had the answer. Perhaps a time limit should be established as to how long you can live there as it should be a stepping stone...5 years max???
Correct! and any drug convictions or any illegal activity and you are out on the streets with a free card board box to live in
Actually, it's not just the poor who get housing subsidies.
Look at the mortgage interest deduction. But you don't see many people complaining about that on here.
because getting rid of that would only amount to increased wasteful government spending. i am philosophically opposed to that deduction, but i dont think its right to lose that deduction while everything else remains the same.
Why don't you try to get it then if it's so great?
We can't qualify as I went to school and got an education and a professional career instead of buying fancy bling or doing drugs so I can take care of my wife, house and someday my kids and not some welfare leeches.
I'm glad to hear that. I have not been to Newark in years.
Do you think Corey Booker has had any influence on the positive changes?
In the very least Booker is new blood. Sharpe James did some good things for Newark but also did some major damage (that's why his new home is a federal prison cell).... Booker seems not to be as much of a lapdog as James was. At least Booker has not been prosecuted yet. And that is a major positive compliment for a Newark politician. I think most of the mayors of the last century in Newark were found guilty of something. James was, Gibson was, and Addonizio was too. I'd have to look up the pre-Addonizio years to be sure, though.
I'm glad to hear that. I have not been to Newark in years.
Do you think Corey Booker has had any influence on the positive changes?
NO. I think sharpe james did but then he got greedy and started all his illegal nonsense. In newark you need to know which wheels need to be greased for project to move and the nj pac, arena, 1180, richardsons loft all cam from James while booker wants to play the nice guy but unfortunately his efforts get dead locked
I am surprised no one else alluded to this post, because it is by far the best one in the thread. It brings attention to what really occurred. Urban planners know of this. There are such terms as "Peak Land Value Intersection" that are bandied about in planning board meetings, that have meaning to future business investment, as it pertains to zoning. Business owners, in turn, respond. They re-locate their businesses into the most cost-effective areas so as to run businesses more profitably. Also, there is the added incentive of moving the business closer to the CEOs and board members homes. They typically did not live in these cities, but rather, wealthier exurbs.
well, i see it started off by saying that corporations left for cheaper office space in the suburbs. i havent given it much thought, but i dont think that makes logical sense. office space in manhattan is very expensive but businesses still pay super high rents there. however, if the environment becomes such that it is pointless for business to be there then they wont pay the rents.
so i dont think business left first, i think the environment went south first.
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.
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.
