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.
These landlords would get not only Section 8, but also LIHTC, which means for every $1 they spend on housing, they get $1 discount on their taxes.
So they double dip.
That's not how it works.
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?
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 built 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 a criminal background a and credit check. 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?
I know how it works, I've used the program in the past, the LIHTC sets MINIMUM standards, and isnt used for just development but also renovations and upgrades. If the developer is the investor, they get the 100% tax credit, often times they are sold to investment groups of which the developer is not only investor in the property, but also investing in the tax credits to receive the tax credits and the ownership "profits" from the development itself.
As you pointed out, at least 20% is set aside, the other 80% can be high class luxury units. Hence the reason why you can get section 8 in luxury buildings.
The fact that many have to pass background checks and meet income restrictions has never been disputed. Not even sure why its relevant to the discussion.
The fact that many have to pass background checks and meet income restrictions has never been disputed. Not even sure why its relevant to the discussion.
It is in dispute. The first paragraph of the OP's link says tenants can live there "practically for free, courtesy of the taxpayers — at least until they become gainfully employed" . Meanwhile it claims they get pool parties, wine tastings, and "manicures right in your home." The Examiner paints a picture that is far from reality.
"The complexes listed below were built, acquired or renovated with public funds, and therefore are required to set aside a certain number of affordable units," the county web page says.
These "luxurious" "free market" condos were built with taxpayer money (the same as a public housing complex) in a city that leeches and leeches off the Federal Government and profits massively from NEEDLESS war, so you're DAMN right they should have to set aside affordable units for working Americans-and many Section 8 tenants work and actually pay a significant amount in rent.
Why is it that some people HATE when the poor receive anything from the Government, but never would dare say a word when the wealthiest in our society are spoonfed TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS?
Why aren't people complaining about the developers of these condos that chose to use PUBLIC MONEY, which required them to set aside units for Section 8? It makes no sense to complain about the poor people, THAT HAD NO SAY IN THE MATTER.
This bears repeating:
"These "luxurious" "free market" condos were built with taxpayer money..."
I've no issue with setting aside some of the units for Section 8.
These "luxurious" "free market" condos were built with taxpayer money (the same as a public housing complex) in a city that leeches and leeches off the Federal Government and profits massively from NEEDLESS war, so you're DAMN right they should have to set aside affordable units for working Americans-and many Section 8 tenants work and actually pay a significant amount in rent.
what's up with quoting 'luxurious' and 'free market'?
did anyone claim they were 'free market'? i don't see that phrase anywhere in the article. and are you implying they are not luxurious?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2e1m5a
Why aren't people complaining about the developers of these condos that chose to use PUBLIC MONEY, which required them to set aside units for Section 8? It makes no sense to complain about the poor people, THAT HAD NO SAY IN THE MATTER.
i'm complaining about it. they should use their own damn money.
who's complaining about poor people? point them out, please.
and how do they have 'no say in the matter'? is someone forcing them to live in these luxury apartments?
It is in dispute. The first paragraph of the OP's link says tenants can live there "practically for free, courtesy of the taxpayers — at least until they become gainfully employed" . Meanwhile it claims they get pool parties, wine tastings, and "manicures right in your home." The Examiner paints a picture that is far from reality.
Section 8 tenants do live practically free courtesy of the taxpayers. What they do with their time is immaterial.
"These "luxurious" "free market" condos were built with taxpayer money..."
I've no issue with setting aside some of the units for Section 8.
Which is exactly what I said was taking place.. I didnt even need to look it up to know this, because no one would give up high rental income in exchange for section 8 unless there was economic incentives to do so.
what's up with quoting 'luxurious' and 'free market'?
did anyone claim they were 'free market'? i don't see that phrase anywhere in the article. and are you implying they are not luxurious?
i'm complaining about it. they should use their own damn money.
who's complaining about poor people? point them out, please.
and how do they have 'no say in the matter'? is someone forcing them to live in these luxury apartments?
Luxurious implies exclusivity or something not typically attained by the masses-that is obviously not the case. The title of the article is "Government Pays to House Poor in Luxury", which completely ignores the fact that the condo developer FIRST used public money which required him to set aside subsidized units. No condo developer-nothing to complain about.
It's not what is said, it's what is not said. People that deride poor people as leeches on our system are oblivious to the fact that there are much fatter and wealthier leeches that do far more harm than anyone without money could ever dream of.
To some right-wingers the condo developer is a heroic job creator whose wealth trickles down and brings puppies back to life, while his tenants are leeches and horrible people that maybe would change their poor ways if we reduce and cut what little they do have.
Last edited by 2e1m5a; 03-25-2015 at 12:48 PM..
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.
