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.
Obama's newest social project is to expand Section 8 out to the suburbs and exurbs with the idea being that doing so will improve the outcomes of the program participants. What is not clear to me is how this improvement will supposedly happen. Is success and achievement something that is in the water? Or perhaps success is similar to a communicable disease in that it can be transmitted through the air or bodily fluids? Maybe we will soon be forced to have sex with Section 8 recipients so that the successful genes can be injected into the Section 8 gene pool.
We all know that this program is Obama's way of punishing white flight. I just think it is amusing how there is absolutely no logical explanation as to how this would improve anything. Apparently being around white people will improve through osmosis or magic.
I work in real estate and I have seen the results of section 8 houses on a neighborhood. They are not hard to pick out. We have some in working class neighborhoods where the houses are well kept and nice cars in the driveway. The section 8 houses are usually run down with trash piled up the grass over grown and a crappy car that the whole family piles into.
Not all people who qualify for section 8 have a the poor attitude that keeps them down but many do. I think Obamas plan is to put the downtrodden out into the suburbs where they can rub elbows with the middle to upper class and they can possibly learn something from osmosis? The problem is poor people often have the woe is me poor attitude and they will bring that with them wherever they are sent.
I think Obamas plan might work for some but for most they will be a blight on a nice neighborhood because they cannot keep up with the "jones's" that worked hard and smart to be able to afford that nice neighborhood.
His plan is almost not fair to the section 8 people because they will stick out like sore thumbs.
It's so they can intergrate the neighborhood, since the white flight left the city, they, the government want to be fair and bring the crime to you. Why should the suburbs be the only safe area to live
Liberals like living in the city core, and many of them don't like being around poor people. Moving Section 8 housing out to the suburbs gets the poor out of their neighborhoods.
Does it make sense to have them closer to the core where public transportation is both cheaper and easier to manage? Yes. Is there more jobs available closer to the core where employers are more densely packed? Yes.
So why move them to the suburbs? Simple, NIMBY liberalism.
Normally, you hear liberals complain about sprawl. Seems it's ok when it gets the poor away from them.
Obama's newest social project is to expand Section 8 out to the suburbs and exurbs with the idea being that doing so will improve the outcomes of the program participants. What is not clear to me is how this improvement will supposedly happen. Is success and achievement something that is in the water? Or perhaps success is similar to a communicable disease in that it can be transmitted through the air or bodily fluids? Maybe we will soon be forced to have sex with Section 8 recipients so that the successful genes can be injected into the Section 8 gene pool.
We all know that this program is Obama's way of punishing white flight. I just think it is amusing how there is absolutely no logical explanation as to how this would improve anything. Apparently being around white people will improve through osmosis or magic.
I think there is a master urban planning plan to gentrify American cities. Why? there seems to be a demand for dense walk-able neighborhoods of old, that is not too far from cultural attraction, entertainment and other amenities, with easy access to public transit. I think high density, like the European city model, is more efficient and economical, as well as vibrant. The problem is that the poor are sitting in the area of future prime real estate in many cities.
I know in som3 Michigan cities, for at least 2 years now, that in order to receive section 8 that participants must move to a suburban property for a period of time. I do not think that it is just an Obama thing. I think that governments are doing this because they see trends and are trying to create vibrant cities to attract the best and brightest talent for their local companies. This demographic seems to like dense walk-able urban areas not full of poverty and crime. Thus, you have to get ride of the "undesirable population" to make room for the return of the gentry.
Think San Fran, Portland, Seattle. Government is in collusion with its corporations to create the type of environments that allow companies to attract the best and brightest young workers, so they create public policy to create "cool cities" in an attempt to woo this coveted demographic.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 06-02-2016 at 09:47 AM..
They want to move the Section 8 out of the cities' neighborhoods,
then take in the third world immigrants and refugees into the cities.
Yes, they are making room for the 100+ million expected invasion.
If we don't elect Trump, the slide will accelerate.
Within 20-30 years America will have a population twice the
current size and half foreign-born.
I worked for many years for housing authorities as a consultant and as an employee.
FYI, Housing Choice Voucher residents (HCV is now what they call Section 8) has been in suburban communities for 20+ years now. It is not a new thing that Obama started.
On the OP, it improves outcomes by de-concentrating poverty and crime. There have been studies done over the decades that have shown that those children especially who are HCV residents benefit from a better education and better social outcomes by not growing up in poverty stricken, urban communities.
De-concentrating poverty in this way has also caused crime to decrease in practically every major urban area since the mid to late 1990s.
On the idea that it moves poor people out for urban liberal gentrifiers, a majority of HCV residents still live and will continue to live in inner city urban areas because the government cannot tell them where they have to live. They chose their apartment/home themselves.
Many want the opportunity to live in the burbs and I'll speak from a personal perspective as a black person in the Midwest since Indentured Servant mentioned MI, but in the Midwest a lot of poor people think that living in the suburbs is "better" than living in the city for various reasons. So if they are given a voucher, they look for a suburban area.
Also HCV has nothing to do with gentrification since the residents nor the government own the homes where HCV residents live. They are privately owned. The raising of rents in inner cities can have an affect on HCV residents whereby their voucher will not cover enough of the rent for them to live in "hot" neighborhoods, but in general HCV has nothing to do with gentrification. It has more to do with the buying and selling of properties and landlords subsequently raising rents. HCV does not contribute to gentrification of inner city neighborhoods.
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.
