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.
On this, as stated, I worked in housing for many years.
FYI, a large percentage of people who have Section 8 are elderly people and they treat their properties well and are reliable, long term, stable tenants. They also do invest into the homes they live in with keeping up the landscaping and being involved in neighborhood associations/block watch groups.
Also, all Section 8 tenants do not live like "heathens" or "act trashy." Most of them are decent people who just qualify for housing assistance.
Perhaps it was the neighborhood I lived in, but it was a nice neighborhood until the Section 8 renters showed up, and not a single one was elderly; in fact, the reason I loved this neighborhood was because most of the owners were either elderly or very young families. When those elderly folk died off, their kids didn't sell the house; they rented it out instead.
I'm well aware that not all act like this, but those that moved into my neighborhood did.
Perhaps it was the neighborhood I lived in, but it was a nice neighborhood until the Section 8 renters showed up, and not a single one was elderly; in fact, the reason I loved this neighborhood was because most of the owners were either elderly or very young families. When those elderly folk died off, their kids didn't sell the house; they rented it out instead.
I'm well aware that not all act like this, but those that moved into my neighborhood did.
You can have trashy neighbors that aren't on Section 8.
As I stated above, I worked for companies that managed public housing, Section 8 programs, and market rate rentals (homes and apartments). There was not difference between the public housing and market rate tenants who were trashy and horrible tenants. Trashy is trashy regardless of income and many of the market rate renters were worse than the public housing (project) renters in regards to being horrible neighbors, hoarders, and infesting homes with rodents/insects.
It depends on the person, not the program IMO. I've seen enough to know that Section 8 renters are no better or worse than market rate and your neighbors may have just rented to horrible market rate tenants. Renters in general are just worse neighbors on average versus owner occupants. Them being on Section 8 or not makes no difference in this fact.
I'll also note that many times people think they have a "Section 8 renter" neighbor when they don't. They just have a neighbor who rents. Your neighbors would have had to go through a process to get their home accepted in the Section 8 program. Many home owners don't want to go through that so they just rent out the homes.
On the section 8 issue. It depends on the neighborhood. If it's a moderate income (low middle class) neighborhood, I don't have an issue w/ section 8 residents either. Now, if I'm living in an expensive neighborhood where my mortgage is $1200 per month and I know someone is paying $50 to RENT in the very expensive neighborhood, I'm not going to be too thrilled because:
1.I don't think it's fair that I'm paying such an astronomical amount to stay in the neighborhood while you pay less than $100 to live in the same subdivision as me.
2.In cases such as these, these tenants DO treat the property like crap.
With that being said, I don't have an issue w/ people who happen to rely on housing assistance. I know a few people myself. However, I was talking with my aunt and my mother and they were telling me that in the past, public housing was mainly elderly men and women, however the bulk of it in my hometown now seems to be young single mothers. I don't know when the shift happened but it seems that young moms make up the majority of the people on housing in my area now.
On the section 8 issue. It depends on the neighborhood. If it's a moderate income (low middle class) neighborhood, I don't have an issue w/ section 8 residents either. Now, if I'm living in an expensive neighborhood where my mortgage is $1200 per month and I know someone is paying $50 to RENT in the very expensive neighborhood, I'm not going to be too thrilled because:
1.I don't think it's fair that I'm paying such an astronomical amount to stay in the neighborhood while you pay less than $100 to live in the same subdivision as me.
2.In cases such as these, these tenants DO treat the property like crap.
With that being said, I don't have an issue w/ people who happen to rely on housing assistance. I know a few people myself. However, I was talking with my aunt and my mother and they were telling me that in the past, public housing was mainly elderly men and women, however the bulk of it in my hometown now seems to be young single mothers. I don't know when the shift happened but it seems that young moms make up the majority of the people on housing in my area now.
Actually Section 8 tenants who live in upper class communities usually are never even thought to be on Section 8 because they behave well in those areas and are appreciative of the opportunity to live there. They actually don't treat the properties "like crap."
Also, on the $1200 mortgage, the person owning the home (Section 8 is actually called "Housing Choice Voucher Program" and on HCVP the property owner owns the home and pays a mortgage the same as you do, they just have their home approved to be available to HCVP tenants and so the owner is paid the $1200 by a combination of the governemnt and tenant same as you are paying your rent/mortgage ).
Nothing in life in fair IMO and as stated, many of the residents are elderly persons. Also, it is the property owners who put the property on the HCVP list of availabilty, not the tenant.
I personally feel that class discrimination is a bad thing. I've worked a lot with wealthy people and the poorest of the poor and as stated, I lived in "the ghetto" and grew up there and IMO a majority of poor people are "better" in many ways than wealthier people. Unfortunately though, too many people view the poor negatively and in a stereotypical fashion. Just like you don't want black people as a whole viewed in a stereotypical way, you should not view the poor in a stereotypical way.
Those who are not elderly in the HCVP program (and they are 30-35%of the participants) are usually working families with on average 2 household members. The poor person, who is not elderly or disabled (the disabled also make up about 10-15% of HCVP participants and many of them live in nicer areas because of their needs in regards to ADA requirements) usually works and pays 30% of their income toward rent. So if they make $2000 a month before taxes, they will pay about $667 a month for their home/unit, not $100.
Also a majority (over 80%) of HCVP tenants prefer to stay in the inner city or the low income communities where they have always lived due to having a sense of community and not wanting to be judged negatively by wealthier people. Usually the elderly or disabled people live in the wealthier areas and there is a shortage of available units anyway for wealthier areas so all of you who are concerned about Section 8 taking over a wealthy neighborhood are buying into media garbage because that is not going to happen. However, I don't want to take your thread off on a housing tangent. I loved working in housing though because you really do get a feel for the entire community of an area from the poorest to the richest to small businesses to large corporations. It was an interesting field and contributed to me never judging poor people negatively or immigrants or even wealthy people because many times they are also not how people think they are.
ETA: Public housing has never been majority elderly. There were/are communities that were made specifically for the elderly but the history of public housing, starting in the 1930s, was for family housing, not elderly people. There are still both types of units available nationwide. However, in Atlanta, where I lived/worked, we tore down all of the family units and only senior/disabled public housing remains. They were converted to Section 8/HCVP, those who were former family public housing units. Also, will note that my own great grandparents were some of the first to live in public housing in the city I'm from. Back then, public housing was seen as VERY positive because in most places they were the top of the line dwelling places for family. My own family had never had fully electric homes until they moved to public housing. It was clean. The plumbing was top of the line. Only the "best" families were chosen to live in the first public housing communities. My great grandmother stated that their housekeeping was inspected weekly by the first lady of the Baptist church in the area and they would do a "white glove test" and if the house was too dirty, they could be kicked out.
Public housing also was not initially for the poorest families. Poor families actually had to sue to get residence in those units and so by the 1960s, they were majority poverty stricken. My great grandparents moved out in 1946 and bought their first home at that time. They said there were too many "low class" families allowed in and it ruined the housing development. That development was also torn down in my hometown about 5 years ago.
I find that MANY public housing developments never truly replaced the neighborhoods that were torn down in order to build them. When you combine that with poor management and some tenants who don't give a ****, you get a development that was once nice for low income residents that goes down hill and next thing you know the development is razed in favor of a high rise condo or housing that is far to expensive for the majority of the former population. They new development may zone a fraction of the units for low income tenants, however the majority of them will now have to find somewhere else to live.
Actually Section 8 tenants who live in upper class communities usually are never even thought to be on Section 8 because they behave well in those areas and are appreciative of the opportunity to live there. They actually don't treat the properties "like crap."
Also, on the $1200 mortgage, the person owning the home (Section 8 is actually called "Housing Choice Voucher Program" and on HCVP the property owner owns the home and pays a mortgage the same as you do, they just have their home approved to be available to HCVP tenants and so the owner is paid the $1200 by a combination of the governemnt and tenant same as you are paying your rent/mortgage ).
Nothing in life in fair IMO and as stated, many of the residents are elderly persons. Also, it is the property owners who put the property on the HCVP list of availabilty, not the tenant.
I personally feel that class discrimination is a bad thing. I've worked a lot with wealthy people and the poorest of the poor and as stated, I lived in "the ghetto" and grew up there and IMO a majority of poor people are "better" in many ways than wealthier people. Unfortunately though, too many people view the poor negatively and in a stereotypical fashion. Just like you don't want black people as a whole viewed in a stereotypical way, you should not view the poor in a stereotypical way. I work for the state doing SNAP (aka food stamps) and you see various walks of life and you don't know every persons situation. I'll agree there. My issue is not so much section 8 individuals, I'm just not a fan of trashy in general. Trashy doesn't know a color or a class. Not trying to indicate that it does.
Those who are not elderly in the HCVP program (and they are 30-35%of the participants) are usually working families with on average 2 household members. The poor person, who is not elderly or disabled (the disabled also make up about 10-15% of HCVP participants and many of them live in nicer areas because of their needs in regards to ADA requirements) usually works and pays 30% of their income toward rent. So if they make $2000 a month before taxes, they will pay about $667 a month for their home/unit, not $100.
Also a majority (over 80%) of HCVP tenants prefer to stay in the inner city or the low income communities where they have always lived due to having a sense of community and not wanting to be judged negatively by wealthier people. Usually the elderly or disabled people live in the wealthier areas and there is a shortage of available units anyway for wealthier areas so all of you who are concerned about Section 8 taking over a wealthy neighborhood are buying into media garbage because that is not going to happen. However, I don't want to take your thread off on a housing tangent. I loved working in housing though because you really do get a feel for the entire community of an area from the poorest to the richest to small businesses to large corporations. It was an interesting field and contributed to me never judging poor people negatively or immigrants or even wealthy people because many times they are also not how people think they are. Have you every heard of the saying "30,000 millionaires". They live a lifestyle like the wealthy, however they are one paycheck short of living below the poverty line. Many of them live on credit (as others do, don't get me wrong) and tend to just put everything on cards knowing that they cannot really afford these things. It's a "keeping up w/ the joneses" mentality.
ETA: Public housing has never been majority elderly. There were/are communities that were made specifically for the elderly but the history of public housing, starting in the 1930s, was for family housing, not elderly people. There are still both types of units available nationwide. However, in Atlanta, where I lived/worked, we tore down all of the family units and only senior/disabled public housing remains. They were converted to Section 8/HCVP, those who were former family public housing units. Also, will note that my own great grandparents were some of the first to live in public housing in the city I'm from. Back then, public housing was seen as VERY positive because in most places they were the top of the line dwelling places for family. My own family had never had fully electric homes until they moved to public housing. It was clean. The plumbing was top of the line. Only the "best" families were chosen to live in the first public housing communities. My great grandmother stated that their housekeeping was inspected weekly by the first lady of the Baptist church in the area and they would do a "white glove test" and if the house was too dirty, they could be kicked out.
Public housing also was not initially for the poorest families. Poor families actually had to sue to get residence in those units and so by the 1960s, they were majority poverty stricken. My great grandparents moved out in 1946 and bought their first home at that time. They said there were too many "low class" families allowed in and it ruined the housing development. That development was also torn down in my hometown about 5 years ago.
We still have a few public housing developments where I live, though a couple of them have been torn down for newer affordable housing and I find that some of the newer one do not even take section 8 vouchers but are strictly income based.
Perhaps not "fun" persay but I do think that teachers should be able to deviate from the common core to a certain extent. It's these standardized tests that determine if you advance to the next level or not that need to go (e.g. the LEAP test in Louisiana). How do you feel about standardized testing?
That's testing done wrong. In fact, the basis of the education industry is wrong.
I mentioned a couple of posts ago that when the Air Force writes a promotion test, they first conduct extensive surveys to determine what people are actually doing. Then they write the test to test how well people know how to do what they're actually being called on to do. If nobody is doing a particular task, there won't be any questions on that task.
The education industry is graduating kids from high school and college without regard to what society and the world of work actually need. That's why the governor of Hawaii called his own high school system a "waste of time" after comparing it to what his state's industry actually needed.
Right now the education industry is a giant self-licking ice cream cone. It has been for decades, but people in the real world have been working around it. In years past, employers simply said, "Okay, you can read so we'll train you."
But these days, employers don't train and schools must have decided that reading isn't essential, because they certainly graduate a lot of non-readers.
Truthfully there are some blacks that do act like coons and don't even realize it. Lol. But I don't even get mad at it, get in where you fit in. I'll still love you just the same lol.
Should black people REALLY be using the word "coon" to refer to other blacks who they feel are "whitewashed"? I looked up the word "coon" myself and this is what I got.
coon
ko͞on/[SIZE=3][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/SIZE]
noun
noun: coon; plural noun: coons 1.
North American
short for raccoon. 2.
informal offensive
a black person.
Coon, a racial slur, used pejoratively to refer to a black person, especially an African-American or Australian Aboriginal
It just does not seem logical to use a derogatory term coined by the people who were against you as a way to demean someone of your own race.
Truthfully there are some blacks that do act like coons and don't even realize it. Lol. But I don't even get mad at it, get in where you fit in. I'll still love you just the same lol.quote]
Should black people REALLY be using the word "coon" to refer to other blacks who they feel are "whitewashed"? I looked up the word "coon" myself and this is what I got.
coon
ko͞on/[SIZE=3][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/SIZE]
noun
noun: coon; plural noun: coons 1.
North American
short for raccoon. 2.
informaloffensive
a black person.
Coon, a racial slur, used pejoratively to refer to a black person, especially an African-American or Australian Aboriginal
Back when I was a kid, for some adults "my ace boon coon" meant the same thing as "my ni@@a." I learned later that white people of the day used the phrase "ace boon" to refer to a good buddy.
I find that MANY public housing developments never truly replaced the neighborhoods that were torn down in order to build them. When you combine that with poor management and some tenants who don't give a ****, you get a development that was once nice for low income residents that goes down hill and next thing you know the development is razed in favor of a high rise condo or housing that is far to expensive for the majority of the former population. They new development may zone a fraction of the units for low income tenants, however the majority of them will now have to find somewhere else to live.
The bold is the case for ALL of them. Housing, as I stated, is a very interesting field to work in. Due to me being a history buff, I also decided to learn about the history of public housing in America and it is probably the only thing about history that I get upset about in a very personal way because for urban areas in particular, it codified segregation and discrimination. It dismantled primarily poor black and ethnic white enclaves (even though most of those people at the time agreed to participate in the "project" of public housing). Like you stated in the bold, even now, when we are demolishing the oldest public housing units (the one my great grandparents lived in was one of the first public housing locations in America. One that we demolished in Atlanta was the first in the country) they have still not built back those neighborhoods, but honestly, they cannot rebuild the neighborhoods.
It is a conundrum and I try not to think much about it, but housing laws and public housing zoning of "negro" and "white" areas created segregation in many Midwestern communities/urban areas in particular. Segregation was a "thing" in the south, but not in the Midwestern cities until the government got involved in officially zoning an area a "negro" area, like what was done to my hometown.
Public housing accepting primarily poverty stricken individuals are what caused the "ghettos" to be created that I personally grew up in and other poor black people in urban areas. It caused "redlining" to be a thing as well. Housing laws based on race contributed to the poor schools that black children are forced to attend in these ghettos today. Everything is connected. Like I said, housing is a very interesting subject. It touches every facet of one's life for everyone as where you live at age 12, studies show determines your future educational achievements and income received for your labor. And IMO there is no way to rebuild what was destroyed by these initiatives between 1932 and 1975 and forward. Housing laws are still being enacted to this day. Ironically, the one that is seen as the answer to the issues caused by public housing is HCVP since it is not actually "government housing." It is the government paying the private sector to housing poor people.
Which brings me to your next comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandorafan5687
We still have a few public housing developments where I live, though a couple of them have been torn down for newer affordable housing and I find that some of the newer one do not even take section 8 vouchers but are strictly income based.
HUD and government are trying to get out of the housing industry. The bold is evident across the country. Even the developments we built on top of former public housing developments in metro Atlanta, they only have a 25-30 year agreement where the private property managers, who some partly own those developments, will accept people who have Section 8 or a public housing voucher (FWIW, the people in Atlanta who were forced to vacate public housing all were given HCVP vouchers and were given the first chance at apartments in the newly developed communities that were mixed income/market rate). Usually the new buildings are required to accept up to 20% HCVP or PBU (project based units/public housing) tenants. In some locations it can be 30-40%. As the years have passed they now are only about 10-20% and after 15-30 years they no longer have to accept those tenants at all.
So eventually public housing will no longer be in existence. I do feel that HCVP will stick around though. It is cheaper for the government to issue that program as it doesn't have as many regulations as public housing does nor any buildings to maintain.
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.
[/SIZE][/SIZE] 