Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
View Poll Results: Federally backed housing, what do you think?
YES. Get rid of it ALL. If you can't afford market rate rent, you're homeless. If you're homeless during a winter storm, YOU DIE. 24 43.64%
While it's debatable how much assistance we should provide, we SHOULD provide some housing relief to the low income and homeless. 31 56.36%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-17-2011, 11:42 AM
 
24,832 posts, read 37,372,654 times
Reputation: 11539

Advertisements

HUD would be gone.

They are not all grants and loans however, some are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2011, 11:45 AM
 
Location: Houston, Tx
3,644 posts, read 6,310,224 times
Reputation: 1633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
It's handled at the local level but the funds to do this usually comes from the federal government.
And that's the problem. As long as the federal government is in the business of handing out (our) money then there will always be states, counties, and cities ready to take it. It drives up the spending the federal government does because no one ever says "No thanks, we don't need the money". If the money had to be raised locally then a lot of wasteful government programs would be either cut or managed a lot better.
Calvinist is right; the should be handled by cities, not the federal government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 11:47 AM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,139,326 times
Reputation: 3241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Driller1 View Post
HUD would be gone.

They are not all grants and loans however, some are.
I for one would love to see HUD get kicked in the groin repeatedly.

Ever had to deal with them?

Talk about bureacracy....


But other than that, we do need affordable housing in this country. It's not the best environment for it right now, with all the vacant houses for rent, but that's not going to last forever.

Cops, firefighters, nurses...all these people need housing too, and can't afford to spend more than 30% of the income on housing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 11:48 AM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,139,326 times
Reputation: 3241
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerbacon View Post
And that's the problem. As long as the federal government is in the business of handing out (our) money then there will always be states, counties, and cities ready to take it. It drives up the spending the federal government does because no one ever says "No thanks, we don't need the money". If the money had to be raised locally then a lot of wasteful government programs would be either cut or managed a lot better.
Calvinist is right; the should be handled by cities, not the federal government.
Calvinist is wrong.

It's already handled by cities, counties, states and the Federal government altogether.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 11:49 AM
 
1,324 posts, read 1,199,549 times
Reputation: 445
Many would be with family , if not for free section 8 housing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 11:53 AM
 
24,832 posts, read 37,372,654 times
Reputation: 11539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
I for one would love to see HUD get kicked in the groin repeatedly.

Ever had to deal with them?

Talk about bureacracy....


But other than that, we do need affordable housing in this country. It's not the best environment for it right now, with all the vacant houses for rent, but that's not going to last forever.

Cops, firefighters, nurses...all these people need housing too, and can't afford to spend more than 30% of the income on housing.
Oh, yes.

A good share of our work goes though HUD.

I just bid a HUD job.

They asked for a bid on a 80 foot well.

The wells in the area are 340/380 ft.

The home owners old well is 370 foot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 11:56 AM
 
Location: The middle of nowhere Arkansas
3,325 posts, read 3,173,195 times
Reputation: 1015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
Should the government provide ZERO financial aid in the way of housing shelters for the homeless and low income subsidies for housing?

As in, remove ALL requirements, all across the country, for builders to provide a certain percentage of their apartments for low income housing (federally subsidized by the government) and eliminate section 8 subsidies.

Also, get rid of ALL programs that make sure the homeless are housed during summer heatwaves and winter cold snaps.

What do you think?
We provide "housing for the homeless?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 11:58 AM
 
24,832 posts, read 37,372,654 times
Reputation: 11539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutchman01 View Post
We provide "housing for the homeless?"
Sure, if you see a bunch of guys just standing around smoking cigarettes...

You could be near a shelter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Philaburbia
41,991 posts, read 75,279,142 times
Reputation: 66993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
If the states need assistance to do so I wouldn't necessarily be against some sort of Federal Aid.
Which is pretty much how it works already.

Quote:
I also think any church that is worthwhile should be helping those in need. I think instead of taxing people and making the government do it, people should be providing this help through charities.
Will people donate all their tax savings to charities to house and care for the poor?

Didn't think so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
I think it's best if the local government do it and pay for it.
So then your federal taxes go down, but your local taxes go up. Where's the bottom-line benefit?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 12:00 PM
 
48,502 posts, read 96,924,900 times
Reputation: 18305
Basically its federally funded because they are the ones who enacted the laws allowing the funding .But they have shifted to section 8 more and more because they lack any control or politcal will to enforce rules.That shifts the enforcemnt to private owenership of section 8.It's just a example of the real lack of governance today.
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 $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:47 PM.

© 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