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.
As a conservative, it's things like this that cause me to overlook my religious stances and support abortion. That number is $800m if abortion is outlawed.
So you are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.
Others are fiscally liberal, but socially conservative.
In the final analysis, these programs will continue, so people
can decide whether to exploit them or not.
This story is but the tip of the iceberg for what the FedGov is covering for cities all over the US.
Some is outright subsidizing and others are "grants" they found in the back closet
If the FedGov pulled out there would be riots in the streets.
There are just too many poor now.
50% of all families in the US have their babies paid for by medicaid.
"As one of the main elements of that effort, the CHA is providing housing vouchers to more than 107,000 people in nearly 45,000 households in Chicago, most of them African-American. The vouchers give them a financial hand to lease apartments and homes from private landlords in any neighborhood they choose.
It’s an expensive effort, costing more than $47 million a month, with the federal government picking up $35.9 million of that and CHA tenants paying the rest."
and this:
"Eighty-eight percent of households in the voucher program are headed by an African-American, most often a woman."
I worked for many years for housing authorities and have some experience with CHA.
The article is kind of misleading about the voucher program. For one, it stated that the landlord Lai's tenant had "no income." To qualify for an a voucher, a tenant has to have an income. So that is a lie. There are circumstances, say if she they are a foster parent, or if a tenant loses her job where she can get additional subsidy for up 3 months, but not for an entire lease, that is unheard of and isn't allowed with the program. So some laws may have been broken there. I have never seen a voucher recipient pay nothing who was not a foster parent. So this makes me think, maybe the 6 year old mentioned in Lai's house was a foster child.
Some things which are interesting to me about this story:
the article stated that the feds (i.e. HUD) is paying about 35.9 million dollars per year for vouchers, and that there are 45,000 families on the system. That correlates to less than $800 per month per family, which is pretty cheap for Chicago and is much cheaper than what the government paid to both subsidize rent in public housing units (i.e. "the projects") and to maintain those buildings, which is why HUD is encouraging housing authorities to utilize vouchers moreso than public housing/projects.
The article fails to mention that the "super vouchers" which are the ones that the government pays the most money for, go primarily to single elderly or disabled individuals, but FWIW, I do feel they should have had limits on the amount the housing authority would pay. Most housing authority's have a limit based on the area.
The article fails to mention that decreasing the concentration of poverty stricken public housing developments in Chicago has had a direct affect on the city lowering its crime rates. Housing studies show that it is best to move voucher holders into stable, middle income or above areas as the socio-economic issues that these families face are less likely to contribute to a decline of an area with higher income and educational achievement of the resident's neighbors
The article provided a map with shows where people with vouchers live. Most of them live on the South and West sides of Chicago, areas associated with lower rents and higher crime
Chicago only has 45,000 families receiving vouchers. It is a city of over 3 million people. That is a very low amount percentage-wise of voucher holders.
Also I will point out that many of the demolished public housing locations were family units, so those who were displaced by having their units demolished usually are given additional assistance due to being uprooted.
I wanted to also mention that it was odd that they spoke of the race of the voucher holders. IMO that was a way to ignite race based anger.
They did not mention the demographics of public housing, which is still in Chicago and which has more of an even distribution of demographics. I remember there is a pretty large Russian and Polish and Irish demographic in Chicago public housing whereas they have to spend lots of money on interpreters for the Russian and Polish residents in particular. Public housing also cost more than vouchers as stated above.
But FWIW, due to having worked in housing for such a long time, nothing really surprises me anymore in that field. It is an interesting line of work and you learn a lot about how people really do need the housing and services and about how there really are people who work the system.
What I mostly don't like about vouchers is that they don't have an expiration. As stated in the article, wait lists are long in all metropolitan areas. The vouchers can also be transferred to other localities across the country. I feel they should have a 5-8 year limit on vouchers for younger, not disabled persons in order to give other families the chance to help themselves out of poverty by having access to those vouchers.
This is why I would never feel bad for struggling cities. These people only live in these cities because of the landlords begging for section 8 vouchers. Only physically disabled or seniors should be entitled to these vouchers not all these welfare queens with a half a dozen children.
I find it hillarious these liberal cities manufacture these violent crime issues and social issues by spending all this money encouraging poor women to have as many babies as they can and living in section 8 properties with a market value of $20,000 a year. They pay 30% of their income usually with the TANF money they get. What a total joke!
I also think its hillarious that these young liberals are willing pay bloated rents in these cities because of supply is being funneled to welfare queens who have a yearly pregnancy.
I know in the case housing of NYC they have over 100,000 welfare units, just imagine how much higher the vacancy rates they have have and much lower the market rate rents were to be if the government got out the free housing business.
Must be nice to be on a housing voucher in Chicago.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...xury-buildings
Under the so-called "supervoucher" program, the CHA currently is covering payments approaching $3,000 per month for a few residents to live in high-end buildings like 500 N. Lake Shore Drive and Aqua Tower, which charge some of the highest rents in Chicago.
Landlords had criticized the program, which is federally funded but run by the CHA, arguing that it's unfair for a small number of lucky voucher holders to live in luxury when the authority's voucher waiting list exceeds 15,000 people.
no wonder the locals got upset when Trump showed up
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.
