U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-08-2010, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Beautiful Pelham Parkway,The Bronx
6,628 posts, read 11,578,423 times
Reputation: 4221

Advertisements

One of the strange things about the section 8 situation is that there are actually many,many thousands of middle class people who qualify for it but don't apply or receive it. The "average" rents in NYC are so high that many,many working families with incomes in the 20,000 or 30,000 and higher range are eligible for at least some assistance but they are unaware and don't(won't) apply.

Some of the people who have contributed to this and other similar threads, complaining about people on section 8, are probably eligible themselves.It's just a matter of what your income is when compared to the average rents in whatever metropolitan statistical area you reside. Anyone in NYC who is actually paying 50% of their income on rent is probably eligible, because it is geared toward people not paying more than 30% of their income on rent.


http://www.ehow.com/how_4926350_calc...tion-rent.html

Last edited by bluedog2; 11-08-2010 at 10:39 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2010, 10:47 AM
 
2,951 posts, read 2,198,712 times
Reputation: 2171
Quote:
Originally Posted by SobroGuy View Post
I will say that the rents are about $200-$300 above market rents for the Bronx (in general). I can imagine that with the economy down, having extra income would make a difference for some Landlords, so I could see it having some effect in the Bronx.

Unfortunately it's like making a deal with the devil for NYC. Although NYC saves money by upping the section 8 payments and getting LLs to take these people because it costs the city more than double to house them. BUT it puts more pressure on working/middle income families who can't compete with the higher rent section 8 tenants, so they leave NYC, and section 8 tenants swarm in and multiply in a domino effect.

As a result, overall it is a negative for NYC, and will just reinforce a city of the haves and the "have-nots"....those that are wealthy, and everyone else on subsidized programs. And it pisses me off.
I agree. I now understand the concept of the coop and why certain areas are so expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 11:04 AM
 
8,752 posts, read 9,671,729 times
Reputation: 4168
Bluedog being middle class is not an income of $20,000-$30,000 per year HOUSEHOLD income. That's not even working/blue collar. That is $10-$15 per hour, and if you are actually attempting to support a family on that income, you are lower class at best..and section 8 is tailored for these working poor, and non-working poor.

The fundamental problem here is this: We have families that ARE working/middle class with household incomes of $60,000-80,000 who are unable to compete with section 8 rent paying tenants because section 8 pays artificially higher rents. Furthermore, why would a working/middle class household stretch to pay the rent only to be surrounded with section 8 tenants? Who wants to work hard and live there?

As a result, we have people seeing the value proposition (Or lackthereof) and getting the heck out of here. And it simply reinforces even more section 8 tenant flooding in to replace them. It's just a really toxic situation for "regular" working NYC people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 11:40 AM
 
54 posts, read 25,158 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog2 View Post
If the section 8 rents were set below the citywide averages then it would be even worse for The Bronx because The Bronx would then become the ONLY place where section 8 people could possibly live. Most of Manhattan and a big chunk of Brooklyn and Queens are already off limits because the rent standards that are too high for The Bronx are way too low for there.

Bronx happens to have the largest supply of below average rents.

The only way to correct this problem (other than to eliminate the program) would be to raise the section 8 standards even higher (to the highest citywide (Manhattan) rents) instead of citywide averages....to make the payments 2,200/mo for a stiudio and 3,000 for a 1 br. Then, lots more people would be eligible and the section 8 people could live anywhere they want in the city and they wouldn't all be piled into just a few areas where the rents happen to be low.Everyone could live in Manhattan if they want.

Not excatly true and I'll tell you why. First, there are other rent programs for low income people that exist other than Section 8. You have the HASA Program that's for people with AIDS, you also have the Work Advantage Program that's for homeless people in a shelter.

The Work Advantage Program for example pays the maximum $950 for a 1 bedroom apartment. A far cry from the $1,250+ Section 8 pays. The average 1 bedroom apartment in the Bronx goes for about $1,100. Give or take.

So when a Work Advantage tenant calls a Bronx landlord for an apartment, chances are the landlord will likely NOT rent to them because their voucher amount falls BELOW what the landlord can actually get from a regular working tenant with no program. Hence there is NO incentive for a Bronx landlord to rent to a Work Advantage tenant due to their LOW VOUCHER amount.

Now just imagine if the Section 8 voucher amounts were identical to the Work Advantage program (which they should be)...you'd have LESS Bronx landlords accepting Section 8 tenants as they can simply get more for rent renting to a regular working person with no program, hence LESS low income Section 8 residents living in the Bronx resulting in a much more desirable borough to live in with a significant drop in all the riff-raff Section 8 tenants usually bring along with them.

However, that isn't the case. Section 8 voucher amounts go above and beyond the actual Bronx market rents which appear financially attractive to Bronx landlords looking to up their rent rolls.

So IMO, the answer is NOT to raise the Section 8 voucher amounts but to actually LOWER them so that they don't appear to be so financially attractive to landlords. Doing it this way, you steer low income Section 8 people away from the 5 boroughs (yes, including the Bronx) which is in dyer need of a social economic demographic change to transform the Bronx into a desirable borough with a lesser presence of low income people that depress it and blight it.

Using the recession that we're in is an excellent opportunity to convince Section 8 people (w/o them complaining and crying) that the voucher amounts must be reduced due to the poor economy. The timing of using an excuse like this is perfect as it is more believeable due to this recession. They've already froze new Section 8 vouchers, why not take it a step further and strike while the iron's hot and reduce the voucher amounts. We're in a perfect storm to do so and it's justifyable as well. Hope polictians are reading this.

Last edited by ConservativeBXguy; 11-08-2010 at 11:58 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Beautiful Pelham Parkway,The Bronx
6,628 posts, read 11,578,423 times
Reputation: 4221
Quote:
Originally Posted by SobroGuy View Post
Bluedog being middle class is not an income of $20,000-$30,000 per year HOUSEHOLD income. That's not even working/blue collar. ....
Look,I'm not promoting section 8 or trying to deny the problems that the system creates.I threw out the 20,000 to 30,000 as an example only.The income limits are actually higher for bigger families.It's actually possible to get on section 8 with an income of over $50,000 if you have a lot of kids.
And I agree that $50,000 is not middle class for a family in NYC, but it is middle class for a lot of people in other parts of the country.

My only point was that there are a lot of people who are eligible for section 8 who are totally unaware that they are eligible.The fact that the family income limit for section 8 is $52,000 and the median household income in The Bronx is about $44,000 should tell you that probably at least 1/2 of the families in The Bronx might be eligible.Contrary to popular belief,the percentage of Bronx families( or families anywhere in the country for that matter) on section 8 is nowhere near the percentage that are eligible.

I agree that the families with higher incomes, like $60,000 are screwed.And it's stupid that a family with a $52,000 income would qualify but the same size family with an income of just 8,000 more would not.I'm not here to defend the way things are set up.

I would,however,rather have a system that functions like section 8 rather than the system of NYCHA projects.Projects are much more draining on our wallets and much worse on our society.

It's not really the concept behind section 8 that is the problem.It's the way it has been allowed to to be perverted and manipulated by individuals and governments that is the problem.Believe me,the city of New York is perverting and working the Federal section 8 loopholes to it's advantage much more than any individuals are.And our mayor is completely and totally aware of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 12:14 PM
 
556 posts, read 861,609 times
Reputation: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog2 View Post
Believe me,the city of New York is perverting and working the Federal section 8 loopholes to it's advantage much more than any individuals are.And our mayor is completely and totally aware of it.
I agree with with most of what you said. But can you expain this point a little further?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Confines of the 101 Precinct
10,356 posts, read 18,817,098 times
Reputation: 3791
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConservativeBXguy View Post
Licensing is not the answer neither is regulation. Besides, how does having a license help a landlord choose a Section 8 tenant over a regular working tenant? No license can do that. It's an individual decision. Usually based on money.

The problem in this case lies in the City artificially inflating the Section 8 rental payments to PURPOSELY entice landlords to rent to a Section 8 tenants.

The City is using money as bait to trick landlords into renting to low income people. But the adverse effect is you price-out the working middle class who are not on any program because they can't compete with those high rent prices. And then you wonder why the middle class is shrinking in NYC...hmmm.
You missed my point. Having a license will bring some professionalism to the industry and will hopefully deter slumlords from engaging in such practices as taking in Section 8 tenants just to collect a paycheck. Doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers and numerous other practices all must be licensed and they face ramifications such as having their license revoked if they engage in unscrupulous practice. Why should the slumlord have the right to even own mutiple dwelling properties in the city if they cant manage their upkeep? If there was a license to own multiple dwellings, it would be revoked and then they could not own property in the city anymore. Why would I want somebody like that in my neighborhood causing the cancer to spread without regulation? And lastly, why trust some unprofessionsal with the great responsibility of providing people a place to live? There's more to being a landlord than just making money and some people lose sight of this....Not saying all landlords, but some do. Landlords have been using Section 8 as a cash cow even before this increase, and letting the buildings rot. If there were some type of way to even prevent people like this from owning property without any regard for the neighborhood or its denizens, then things would be different in the Bronx. And across the city as well.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence

Forum TOS: http://www.city-data.com/forumtos.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 12:20 PM
 
2,951 posts, read 2,198,712 times
Reputation: 2171
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConservativeBXguy View Post
Not excatly true and I'll tell you why. First, there are other rent programs for low income people that exist other than Section 8. You have the HASA Program that's for people with AIDS, you also have the Work Advantage Program that's for homeless people in a shelter.

The Work Advantage Program for example pays the maximum $950 for a 1 bedroom apartment. A far cry from the $1,250+ Section 8 pays. The average 1 bedroom apartment in the Bronx goes for about $1,100. Give or take.

So when a Work Advantage tenant calls a Bronx landlord for an apartment, chances are the landlord will likely NOT rent to them because their voucher amount falls BELOW what the landlord can actually get from a regular working tenant with no program. Hence there is NO incentive for a Bronx landlord to rent to a Work Advantage tenant due to their LOW VOUCHER amount.

Now just imagine if the Section 8 voucher amounts were identical to the Work Advantage program (which they should be)...you'd have LESS Bronx landlords accepting Section 8 tenants as they can simply get more for rent renting to a regular working person with no program, hence LESS low income Section 8 residents living in the Bronx resulting in a much more desirable borough to live in with a significant drop in all the riff-raff Section 8 tenants usually bring along with them.

However, that isn't the case. Section 8 voucher amounts go above and beyond the actual Bronx market rents which appear financially attractive to Bronx landlords looking to up their rent rolls.

So IMO, the answer is NOT to raise the Section 8 voucher amounts but to actually LOWER them so that they don't appear to be so financially attractive to landlords. Doing it this way, you steer low income Section 8 people away from the 5 boroughs (yes, including the Bronx) which is in dyer need of a social economic demographic change to transform the Bronx into a desirable borough with a lesser presence of low income people that depress it and blight it.

Using the recession that we're in is an excellent opportunity to convince Section 8 people (w/o them complaining and crying) that the voucher amounts must be reduced due to the poor economy. The timing of using an excuse like this is perfect as it is more believeable due to this recession. They've already froze new Section 8 vouchers, why not take it a step further and strike while the iron's hot and reduce the voucher amounts. We're in a perfect storm to do so and it's justifyable as well. Hope polictians are reading this.
Excellent post! I hope they are reading this too. It affects all boroughs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Beautiful Pelham Parkway,The Bronx
6,628 posts, read 11,578,423 times
Reputation: 4221
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConservativeBXguy View Post
Not excatly true and I'll tell you why. First, there are other rent programs for low income people that exist other than Section 8. You have the HASA Program that's for people with AIDS, you also have the Work Advantage Program that's for homeless people in a shelter.

The Work Advantage Program for example pays the maximum $950 for a 1 bedroom apartment. A far cry from the $1,250+ Section 8 pays. The average 1 bedroom apartment in the Bronx goes for about $1,100. Give or take.

So when a Work Advantage tenant calls a Bronx landlord for an apartment, chances are the landlord will likely NOT rent to them because their voucher amount falls BELOW what the landlord can actually get from a regular working tenant with no program. Hence there is NO incentive for a Bronx landlord to rent to a Work Advantage tenant due to their LOW VOUCHER amount.

Now just imagine if the Section 8 voucher amounts were identical to the Work Advantage program (which they should be)...you'd have LESS Bronx landlords accepting Section 8 tenants as they can simply get more for rent renting to a regular working person with no program, hence LESS low income Section 8 residents living in the Bronx resulting in a much more desirable borough to live in with a significant drop in all the riff-raff Section 8 tenants usually bring along with them.

However, that isn't the case. Section 8 voucher amounts go above and beyond the actual Bronx market rents which appear financially attractive to Bronx landlords looking to up their rent rolls.

So IMO, the answer is NOT to raise the Section 8 voucher amounts but to actually LOWER them so that they don't appear to be so financially attractive to landlords. Doing it this way, you steer low income Section 8 people away from the 5 boroughs (yes, including the Bronx) which is in dyer need of a social economic demographic change to transform the Bronx into a desirable borough with a lesser presence of low income people that depress it and blight it.

Using the recession that we're in is an excellent opportunity to convince Section 8 people (w/o them complaining and crying) that the voucher amounts must be reduced due to the poor economy. The timing of using an excuse like this is perfect as it is more believeable due to this recession. They've already froze new Section 8 vouchers, why not take it a step further and strike while the iron's hot and reduce the voucher amounts. We're in a perfect storm to do so and it's justifyable as well. Hope polictians are reading this.
I agree with a lot of this but another way might be to have different standards for different boroughs rather than one standard for the whole metropolitan area. Maybe the rental payments in The Bronx should be based on the actual rents in The Bronx.As long as The Bronx has below average rents and the payments are based on higher average rents elsewhere, the problem of The Bronx being a magnet will continue.Essentially,we are saying the same thing except I'm thinking the payments should be lowered just for The Bronx.....and maybe raised for Manhattan.
Who do you think would put up the most money in a campaign to defeat such an idea if it were even proposed ? I'd put my money on the real estate industry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 12:33 PM
 
54 posts, read 25,158 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog2 View Post
I agree with a lot of this but another way might be to have different standards for different boroughs rather than one standard for the whole metropolitan area. Maybe the rental payments in The Bronx should be based on the actual rents in The Bronx.As long as The Bronx has below average rents and the payments are based on higher average rents, the problem of The Bronx being a magnet will continue.

I agree that there should definately by different standands for different boroughs as they all individually are different markets from each other with different demographics, socially and economically. This is not a one size fits all environment.
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:



Over $84,000 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 > New York > New York City

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top