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.
I actually did attack the developers who use these programs, even though I used them. I've seen first hand how they are abused and have no problem opposing them saying they should be abolished.
I was then attacked by the left, who then defended the developers claiming things like, people would go homeless..
I know people on Sect 8 and the program is so flawed its stupid. Sect 8 gives single people around $800 a month for rent, and because of this high amount of money the program is bankrupt (and huge numbers of people who need Sect 8 can't get it.) And the people they give $800 a month don't even have to work because they get so much money.
They should give single people $350 a month then they would have to work, and then other needy people could also be helped by the program. But no one in Washington will fix Sect 8.
The democrats pass laws written by liberals like you described above and they give too much. Then the republicans take no part in fine tuning the democrats laws (instead they just complain.)
Its just like with Obamacare. Theres a republican in Washington who wrote a law that would stop Obamacare from hurting small businesses. But theres only 3 republicans in all of Washington who supported the law. Kingston: O-Care failure not 'responsible' | TheHill
You know we have real liberals in Washington, look at the $800 Sect 8, free cell phones, ex.ex. Problem is we don't have any real conservatives to fine tune liberal programs (and trim a liberals waste.)
Developers get tax breaks to provide a percentage of low income units. Residents of these units do not necessarily enjoy all the amenities (pool etc...) which may require an additional fee. In NYC these mixed developments are built with "poor doors" to separate the 2 classes of tenants.
"the "poor door" trend had spread to Washington DC, with an apartment complex at U and 14th Streets set to be redeveloped, with all of the social housing tenants put in a separate wing, accessed from a different street"
Federal vouchers don't cover additional expenses like massages.
That is a different program, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, sometimes called Section 42 housing. Developers get a time-limited tax credit which effectively subsidizes the rents on a portion of the units. Richard Kiyosaki (Rich Dad, Poor Dad) has mentioned his ownership of some of these properties.
I know people on Sect 8 and the program is so flawed its stupid. Sect 8 gives single people around $800 a month for rent, and because of this high amount of money the program is bankrupt (and huge numbers of people who need Sect 8 can't get it.) And the people they give $800 a month don't even have to work because they get so much money.
They should give single people $350 a month then they would have to work, and then other needy people could also be helped by the program. But no one in Washington will fix Sect 8.
The democrats pass laws written by liberals like you described above and they give too much. Then the republicans take no part in fine tuning the democrats laws (instead they just complain.)
Its just like with Obamacare. Theres a republican in Washington who wrote a law that would stop Obamacare from hurting small businesses. But theres only 3 republicans in all of Washington who supported the law. Kingston: O-Care failure not 'responsible' | TheHill
You know we have real liberals in Washington, look at the $800 Sect 8, free cell phones, ex.ex. Problem is we don't have any real conservatives to fine tune liberal programs (and trim a liberals waste.)
My big gripe with Section 8 is that it subsidizes rent for an entire house or apartment (size corresponds to household size, singles get only studio or 1BR apartments) thereby soaking up perhaps $800 for a single, while the program could affordably house many many more people if it subsidized cheaper rooms (e,g. it would cost $200 or less to subsidize me in a room).
I think non-disability assistance programs should be based on work effort, e.g. if a recipient works 20 hours a week, their subsidy should be reduced by half. In cases there full time work is not available (thank you Obamacare) a recipient would be able to get full assistance with sufficient volunteer hours.
If i read the link i gave you correctly, the 14 dollars a month was for 4 years of financing. a 200 dollar tv and 50 dollar table would keep you under 20 dollars including interest.
You keep missing one very important point.
A delivery driver wouldnt know if an item was financed or not since the stores get paid in full up front from the finance company. They sell the accounts receivables to banks.
If it was a purchase, then the delivery people wouldn't have any knowledge if they were paid in full, or paying monthly since a sale, even if financed, would be sold to a finance company and the furniture place would be paid in advance regardless.
This is true; weekly rental rates are used because they mask the true exorbitant cost of the rental. That weekly rate is a lot smaller than a monthly rate, and if they try to do the math, most people reflexively multiply the weekly payment by 4 instead of a more accurate 4.3, leading them to underestimate the cost.
This ticks me off, I work my butt off I get absolutely no government aid and I can't afford to live without roommates (unless I wanna live in the slums).
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. And you'd be shocked at how much "public housing" probably exists in middle-income neighborhoods.
??? ??? ??? I lived in a college town where a developer wanted to build apartments a couple miles from campus. He had a huge vacant parcel. Neighbors came out of the woodwork in opposition because they thought his apartments would be affordable to students. His application for a building permit - the land was long zoned for apartments - was denied. He sued, the suit dragged on for a decade, and he walked away with an out-of-court settlement for $200K. Illegal to exclude housing based upon income? Try to make that stick in a court of law.
Oh, and the neighbors got the parcel downzoned so that nobody else could apply for a building permit. Illegal to exclude my eye.
I worked weekends in property management in the early 80's. This is nothing new.
Developers of rental properties routinely "set back" a small number of units as " affordable housing" for low income renters and, as you say, did so, in exchange for tax breaks. The units were typically small studios and 1 Brs, in the least desirable locations within the building. This is common stuff, throughout the US.
In my limited experience the units were typically occupied by seniors.
As it relates to this particular development in Arlington, VA, most of the units are studios and one bedrooms, more appropriate to a single disabled, veteran or otherwise or a low income senior than a mom with children.
Ever notice that you can always do a rental in the crappiest locations where people won't buy?
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.
