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.
Idiocy but that's the Left for you. What these type of programs do is actually make the situation worse. The people lucky enough to get an apartment will most likely never move or will do so for a long time. So you won't be helping many poor people at all. However you can't tell liberals anything since they know everything.
I want Section 8 to have time limits just like TANF.
The investor - usually a bank - buys tax credits from the developer usually for less than a $1.00/credit. The developer then uses the money from the sell of those credits to construct a building either for low-income housing (the credits sale typically cover 80%-90% of costs), or as part of a market rate project where 20% of the units are set aside for low income households (in this case the credits cover 50% of the cost of the affordable units and nothing for the market rate units). The units have to remain affordable for a for at least 15 years, and can only be rented to households that make anywhere from 50% to 150% of median household income in high cost of living areas.
Everyone who lives in these units has to have a source of income, and must pass criminal background and credit checks. Some developers/landlords will accept Section 8 vouchers, but most either don't or limit those because it's a separate set of regulations and comes with it's own issues.
That's how the program works. But why would a rag like the Washington Examiner publish facts when "OMG! The poors are living in luxury!!!" is a more entertaining read?
Is that why affordable housing is unattainable by those below 50%?
The LITC for large developments is not the same as Section 8.
The cost of obtaining, applying for, and administering the tax credit (called syndication) for a development that sets aside units under market rate is not cost effective for anything but bigger projects.
In order to be compliant, the developer sets aside a percentage of units that they market at a reduced rate. They get a tax credit based on the cost of building or rehabbing the units. The tax credit is spread out over 10 years. They must prove compliance for 15 years, ie they must rent the set aside units to people with an income below a certain amount for that time, and continually prove it.
The developer usually sells the tax credit up front to institutional investors for les than it's worth, because generally the developer does not meet the tax burden that would make the credit worth applying to their own business. There's a market for tax credits, administered by tax credit attorneys, that generally involve big corporate entities like banks. The developer sells the tax credit at the going rate, say 93 cents on the dollar, and the uses the money to finance the construction or rehab of the property.
The government does not pay rent for the tenants. Anybody can rent an affordable unit, as long as they meet the income cap and credit requirement, background checks etc. They don't apply through the government, they apply with the property manager and are screened just like any other tenant. There are not any vouchers involved. The govt does not choose the tenants or provide applicants. The units set aside are not allowed to be of lesser quality than any other unit in the building.
This is how many senior complexes are financed, as well as other specialty developments like artist lofts.
It is an extremely difficult and expensive process. It's not something that a small landlord with three apartments would find cost effective.
There are a limited amount of tax credits allocated per year, and it's very competitive. Often developers use it in conjunction with the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit to rehab buildings that would otherwise be way too pricey to attempt. It's a great tool for rejuvenating urban industrial neighborhoods that have fallen into blight and disrepair, for example.
You don't know what you are talking about. It happens in every market. If you have people who rent in your neighborhood, you more than likely have at least one HCV tenant.
Your article is from 2000. Since that time, public housing locations (aka - the projects) have been demolished on a large scale due to it being proven that HCV (aka Section 8) reduces generational povery and deconcentrates poverty in major metropolitan areas especially. I work in this industry. I am well aware of the prior and continuous studies and trends for HCV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
30% of their income isnt just for rent, its the total, including utilities..
When I ran rental units and I had section 8 tenants, we always just inflated the rental rate, had the government pay the rent, and we wrote off the tenants obligation monthly.
That is true about utilities, etc. And many landlords do exactly as you state above, inflate the rent for their location because it is guaranteed money from the government. Please note that just because I worked and continue to work in this industry doesn't mean that I am not well aware of the negatives of the program. And FWIW, I agree with other posters in that I don't think people should be able to live in homes with vouchers forever. I think the elderly and disabled should have unexpiring terms, but families should not be able to live in them more than 10 years IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Simply moving those who are impoverished out of 1 area into another, doesnt benefit anyone. It brings crime to other areas that wouldnt normally have had it for example, thereby increasing the tax obligations, and often times causes areas to create a rental tax, to help offset the new costs to the public.
Public housing is being demolished simply because much of the housing costs are being paid by the federal government from other programs. A large portion of section 8 for example is funded by the feds.
local municipalities have privatized public housing in order to give incentive to developers and allow them to get tax breaks which simply reduces the obligations of the local governments.
its not because its a success, its because tax policies give incentives to do so.
Most recent studies has shown that the first portion of your comments are incorrect. Crime has decreased nationally and especially in the major urban areas that initially started demolishing family public housing in lieu of issuing vouchers. In Atlanta in particular, they were the first to demolish public housing in the country prior to the 1996 Olympics, crime has fallen dramatically in all the areas where public housing used to be located. Crime has not risen in the areas where current voucher holders reside. Most of the public housing locations were re-built with LIHTC developers and there were 20-30% of units were set aside for lower income residents. Those locations also have experienced a sharp decline in crime along with more higher income persons moving to the areas and schools have also improved in those areas. So it was a success.
Public housing is not the same thing as tax credits. And most locations that accept tax credits do not take the place of public housing at all. Public housing residents would not be eligible to live in "affordable" communities built via tax credits. If you see something that says "affordable housing" or "workforce housing" know that those areas require a minimum salary depending on the property location. Most of those locations require incomes that are well above that of someone who would qualify for public housing or the voucher program.
I worked in Atlanta for companies that had a hand in demolishing public housing and rebuilding mixed-income communities. Many of which transformed those areas for the better. In downtown Atlanta near Georgia Tech there is an apartment community called "Centennial Place" that used to be the notorious "Techwood Homes." Crime rates were atrocious in this area and it is now picturesque and many GA Tech students stay in Centennial Place. It is a beautiful part of downtown Atlanta now right across the street from Coca-Cola headquarters.
One of the other early successes was a housing project called "East Lake Meadows." This location was one of the more crime ridden public housing locations in Atlanta and had the nickname of "Little Vietnam." It is now called "The Villages of East Lake" and its development has turned around the East Lake neighborhood. More commercial investment has taken place. School test scores have increase and crime has fallen dramatically. To live in East Lake you have to make at least 60% of the adjusted median income in Atlanta, which is over $64K per year. Please see below for their income guidelines for the 20% set aside units:
Quote:
LIH properties generally reserve 20% of their units for families making less than 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and 40% for families making less than 60% of the AMI. The current AMI for Villages of East Lake is $64,400. To qualify for housing, your family's combined income should fall below the 60% Income Limit figure.
If you qualify for Villages of East Lake, your rent cannot exceed roughly 30% of your monthly income. The Income Limits & Rent Estimates table estimates the maximum monthly rent you would pay based on your household size and income.
Income Limits and Rent Estimates
Income Limits and Rent Estimates # of Bedrooms
50% Income Limit 50% Est. Rent 60% Income Limit 60% Est. Rent Studio $22,540 $564 $27,048 $676 1 Br $24,150 $604 $28,980 $676 2 Br $28,980 $725 $34,776 $869 3 Br $33,810 $845 $40,572 $1,014 4 Br $38,640 $966 $46,368 $1,159
Most former public housing families did not and do not make $22K per year. Atlanta has a very high poverty rate where the average income for a family of 2 in poverty is a little over $13K per year. So those people would not qualify for this location.
The regular rents for this locations is as follows:
St. Andrews One Bedroom Garden $795 - $895 1 Bathroom 926 Sq. Ft.
Bay Hill - One Bedroom Villa $815 - $915 1 Bathroom 1026 Sq. Ft.
2 Bedrooms
Castle Pines - Two Bedroom T.H. $840 - $940 1.5 Bathrooms 1200 Sq. Ft.
Southwind - Two Bedroom Garden $869 - $969 2 Bathrooms 1165 Sq. Ft.
Saw Grass - Two Bedroom Garden $899 - $999 2 Bathrooms 1282 Sq. Ft.
Forrest Oaks Two Bedroom Villa $915 - $1015 2 Bathrooms 1322 Sq. Ft.
3 Bedrooms
Woodlands - Three Bedroom Garden $985 - $1085 2 Bathrooms 1544 Sq. Ft.
Summerlin - Three Bedroom Garden $995 - $1095 2 Bathrooms 1400 Sq. Ft.
Cotton Wood - Three Bedroom Villa $999 - $1099 2 Bathrooms 1585 Sq. Ft.
4 Bedrooms
Westchester - Four Bedroom Garden $1287 2 Bathrooms 1812 Sq. Ft.
East Lake Four Bedroom T.H. $1130 2.5 Bathrooms 1650 Sq. Ft.
As you can see, the studios are not offered to the general public. Those are a large percentage of the 20% set aside for the lower rents. Most of them are rented out to seniors or disabled individuals who live off of SS or SSDI.
There's no such thing as zoning for public housing. There's zoning to allow for multi-family, but it's illegal to exclude housing based upon income.
Not at all true, there are variances allowed on deeds which restricts what type of development can occur on lots that are sold..
For example, a developer might say that homes must be at least 6,000 SF in size, must have 3 car garages, garages must be in the back of the house, must have at least 5 bedrooms etc..
This puts the houses outside of the income range of many, which of course means renting them out isnt affordable.
Not at all true, there are variances allowed on deeds which restricts what type of development can occur on lots that are sold..
For example, a developer might say that homes must be at least 6,000 SF in size, must have 3 car garages, garages must be in the back of the house, must have at least 5 bedrooms etc..
This puts the houses outside of the income range of many, which of course means renting them out isnt affordable.
why do you care so much about what other people do.
theres plenty of things you take advantage of and i wouldnt spend all day whining about it.
i have access to a handicap parking spot. im not handicapped. i use it whenever i want. i dont care what anyone says.
tired of this bs about how the goodie too shoes never takes advantage of anything, because its bs.
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.
