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.
Non-existent issue? I just posted about my experiences in Arlington, VA, where the county allots millions of dollars per year for affordable housing, and the question is; why is the local gov allocating so much money for people to live in such an expensive area? This is not Section 8 nor disabled housing, but straight up affordable housing units and vouchers. Added to that is that only 12% of recipients even work in Arlington, and there is no residency requirement to even apply and be approved.
Here in Miami, in Brickell, I met a few years ago with the local gov groups and some CBOs and they were throwing a fit as to why there was not affordable housing in Brickell of all places, and that they are constantly advocating that Brickell have affordable housing and that new buildings going up should be mandated to have a set number of affordable housing units. Absolutely ridiculous.
On the bold, that is a totally different ballgame!
Affordable housing initiatives for local cities are usually about pumping money into the local economy and encouraging community development from the private sector.
Contrary to what many of you may believe, poor people bring a lot of purchasing power as they spend a majority of their income, unlike richer people. That is one of the reasons why there are affordable housing apartment communities in wealthier areas - poor people spend a lot of money that adds to the coffers of local government by way of tax revenue.
Also when local government get private contractors to build/renovate affordable communities, that gives people jobs who will also spend more money.
Will note as someone who worked in this field, many of you would be amazed at how the housing industry is very much intertwined with the local and state economies that you are complaining about. Even HCV is an economic boon to local governments and it also enriches public citizens who turn their homes into Section 8 homes and don't have to worry as much about lack of rent payment since the government will be paying the majority of the rent for the tenant. You take away housing programs and the people who will b**ch the most won't be the poor - it will be general contractors, tradesmen, maintenance companies, and private or commercial real estate investors.
I think people are making this more about morality than it needs to be. I'M certainly not saying working low-income people don't do valuable jobs. What I am saying is they don't need to live right in the middle of the most expensive cities to do it. No one NEEDS to live in SF or NYC (unless they can afford it). It would be much better stewardship of dollars to cut out any and all vouchers or subsidized housing from those areas in order to fund more outside those areas (or save some dang money). No, not 300 miles outside... I'm only talking about an hour or so outside, certainly within commuting distance.
Why is this so radical... poor people don't expect to buy groceries at Whole Foods, clothes at Sak's, cars at the BMW dealership... why would anyone (and I mean anyone making less than a mint) expect to live right in the middle of SF or Manhattan? It just exacerbates the housing crunch there.
The title of the thread is a little off. What the poster means is the government subsidizes people to live in rich places (and non-rich places). Question is should they be subsidizing low income housing in rich places.
Now that I can understand a whole lot better, thanks.
I think people are making this more about morality than it needs to be. I'M certainly not saying working low-income people don't do valuable jobs. What I am saying is they don't need to live right in the middle of the most expensive cities to do it. No one NEEDS to live in SF or NYC (unless they can afford it). It would be much better stewardship of dollars to cut out any and all vouchers or subsidized housing from those areas in order to fund more outside those areas (or save some dang money). No, not 300 miles outside... I'm only talking about an hour or so outside, certainly within commuting distance.
Why is this so radical... poor people don't expect to buy groceries at Whole Foods, clothes at Sak's, cars at the BMW dealership... why would anyone (and I mean anyone making less than a mint) expect to live right in the middle of SF or Manhattan? It just exacerbates the housing crunch there.
The areas around NYC and around SF are expensive too...
Also poor people who move further out away from their jobs have to pay more to travel to their jobs.
Again, vouchers are not prevalent. Most of the poor people in NYC or SF are not on any voucher paid for by the government. They may, however, live in an affordable housing community as I described above. Those are places that have tax credits given to developers that encourage them to rent to people within a specific income bracket and contrary to what many of you believe, poor people oftentimes do not qualify to rent in "affordable" communities because the income needed to do so exceeds the wages of the poor person.
I worked in housing in Atlanta. For example in regards to what I'm speaking of, most "affordable" communities have a 2bd apartment in those locations for about $750-$1000 a month. Due to those "affordable" communities requiring residents to make at leas 3 times the rent, they often time exclude the poverty stricken who make less than $13 an hour so would not be able to rent in an affordable community.
Oftentimes "affordable" communities are for the lower middle/working class and not actually poverty stricken/poor people. There is a huge difference in the housing world. FWIW there are usually a few housing communities that do focus on those who are 100% or more under the poverty line in specific metros, but often those are just glorified housing projects since most decent people who are poor don't want to live in those places due to crime. And even they cost about $500-$700 a month for a 2bd in most cases unless you do not live in a major metro.
The areas around NYC and around SF are expensive too...
Also poor people who move further out away from their jobs have to pay more to travel to their jobs.
Again, vouchers are not prevalent. Most of the poor people in NYC or SF are not on any voucher paid for by the government. They may, however, live in an affordable housing community as I described above. Those are places that have tax credits given to developers that encourage them to rent to people within a specific income bracket and contrary to what many of you believe, poor people oftentimes do not qualify to rent in "affordable" communities because the income needed to do so exceeds the wages of the poor person.
I worked in housing in Atlanta. For example in regards to what I'm speaking of, most "affordable" communities have a 2bd apartment in those locations for about $750-$1000 a month. Due to those "affordable" communities requiring residents to make at leas 3 times the rent, they often time exclude the poverty stricken who make less than $13 an hour so would not be able to rent in an affordable community.
Oftentimes "affordable" communities are for the lower middle/working class and not actually poverty stricken/poor people. There is a huge difference in the housing world. FWIW there are usually a few housing communities that do focus on those who are 100% or more under the poverty line in specific metros, but often those are just glorified housing projects since most decent people who are poor don't want to live in those places due to crime. And even they cost about $500-$700 a month for a 2bd in most cases unless you do not live in a major metro.
Sorry but this bolded does not make sense. Sure, they're still expensive compared to somewhere in Nebraska. They are absolutely less expensive than NYC/SF proper... in my experience, sometimes up to 1/2 less expensive.
I don't believe there should be any housing subsidies for any income level in ultra-expensive cities. This added inventory available to everyone else may result in lower prices too.
Sorry but this bolded does not make sense. Sure, they're still expensive compared to somewhere in Nebraska. They are absolutely less expensive than NYC/SF proper... in my experience, sometimes up to 1/2 less expensive.
I don't believe there should be any housing subsidies for any income level in ultra-expensive cities. This added inventory available to everyone else may result in lower prices too.
The point was already made in the thread that the majority of poor people who work in NYC already live in the more affordable outskirt areas. They do not live in "rich" neighborhoods.
So if you don't want them in rich neighborhoods and they aren't there, I honestly don't see what your issue is.
If you don't believe there should be any subsidies, I'd ask you to answer the questions I posed earlier about the elderly, non-elderly disabled, and veterans who are half of voucher holders in America. Do you think they should be kicked out of places and not have any sort of programs to help them live in neighborhoods that have the best healthcare amenities or that they have lived in their entire lives and only cannot afford anymore because of gentrification or some other occurrence.
On "may result in lower prices" that is silly considering vouchers usually pay what the private landlords want in rent. So rent in general is not affected by vouchers to any wide degree. Often times private landlords WANT to rent their homes to voucher holders because they can get more money with the tenant and the government paying versus what they would get via market rate rent for that neighborhood.
The point was already made in the thread that the majority of poor people who work in NYC already live in the more affordable outskirt areas. They do not live in "rich" neighborhoods.
So if you don't want them in rich neighborhoods and they aren't there, I honestly don't see what your issue is.
If you don't believe there should be any subsidies, I'd ask you to answer the questions I posed earlier about the elderly, non-elderly disabled, and veterans who are half of voucher holders in America. Do you think they should be kicked out of places and not have any sort of programs to help them live in neighborhoods that have the best healthcare amenities or that they have lived in their entire lives and only cannot afford anymore because of gentrification or some other occurrence.
On "may result in lower prices" that is silly considering vouchers usually pay what the private landlords want in rent. So rent in general is not affected by vouchers to any wide degree. Often times private landlords WANT to rent their homes to voucher holders because they can get more money with the tenant and the government paying versus what they would get via market rate rent for that neighborhood.
Of course there are poor people (and middle income, for NYC) who live in NYC and SF currently due to affordable housing. There are some who live elsewhere, and there are some who live in the cities. It's not like all or nothing... I just don't think we should have any subsidized housing smack dab in it.
About the elderly, disabled and vets, I also don't think they NEED to live in the city. Plenty of all those groups of people live outside cities, and choose to, so it's not like I want to damn them to some insufferable life. Money goes farther outside the city so they should be able to get a higher quality of life, not less. Who's to say the amenities are any worse outside the cities??? In many cases, they are better.
And I believe it will result in lower prices because of the additional inventory available to full-paying renters. Whenever there's more competition, prices tend to drop.
Of course there are poor people (and middle income, for NYC) who live in NYC and SF currently due to affordable housing. There are some who live elsewhere, and there are some who live in the cities. It's not like all or nothing... I just don't think we should have any subsidized housing smack dab in it.
About the elderly, disabled and vets, I also don't think they NEED to live in the city. Plenty of all those groups of people live outside cities, and choose to, so it's not like I want to damn them to some insufferable life. Money goes farther outside the city so they should be able to get a higher quality of life, not less. Who's to say the amenities are any worse outside the cities??? In many cases, they are better.
And I believe it will result in lower prices because of the additional inventory available to full-paying renters. Whenever there's more competition, prices tend to drop.
I specifically mentioned healthcare amenities. Usually the best healthcare facilities are in the city and people who have chronic conditions that require frequent doctor/clinic visits are best served by being close to those facilities.
And there will not be additional inventory opening up to "full paying renters." FYI - "market rate" is "fully paying renters." Those properties that are rented to voucherholders, they want to rent to them because they have guaranteed rent, most of the time the market rate, due to the subsidy. Many commercial real estate companies like vouchers due to this. They especially like renting to elderly, disabled, and veteran populations because they have a steady stream of income via SS/SSDI and additional veterans disability payments.
So again, getting rid of subsidies would cause more of an outcry from the business and investor community. Most of you have no idea how much money those vouchers make private investors and business owners. Too busy focusing on the poor getting something for free and overlook the fact that the main beneficiaries of these programs are businesses and investors not the poor from a financial perspective.
You also have to realize that with our laws set up today, if you decide to move all the old people out to the burbs, you will be sued up the wahzoo lol.
I loved working with the elderly population in housing, but man, they know their rights and they will make sure they get them and if you stand in their way they will put themselves on the news in rags out in the rain and make you look like you are some elitist, immoral crony trying to turn them out in the street lol.
This is an issue which has vexed me for a long, long time. In the major and most costly cities of the US, we have a huge underclass who basically depend on the government to survive. Wages of service-level jobs are nowhere near enough to support families who live in such costly locales as New York and Washington, DC. And yet Uncle Sam forks out billions of dollars each year for costly housing vouchers and other forms of assistance so they can continue to in these places.
My solution? Cut them all off, BUT give them the option of moving to cheaper places all across the United States. That $4000 they're getting per month to live in New York would be reduced to a $400 voucher in Small Town USA. Big savings. Leave the rich cities for the rich.
As for the idea that these major cities "need" the poor to do the jobs that pay less than $15 - I call big-time baloney on that. If a job is only paying $10 an hour in Manhattan, it's not an essential job, trust me. They wouldn't be missed - or if they did, wages would rise to the level needed to afford to live in such an expensive place. It's all about getting away with paying as little as possible with the help of Uncle Sam, which is something which really grinds my gears.
I believe in helping the poor - I really do. But I don't believe we should subsidize the rich lifestyle, either. Bus the poor folk out of the big cities and give them a chance to live a decent life on greatly reduced assistance.
What "government" are you talking about?
The city government, the county government, the state government or the federal government?
They don't all pay the poor for living in high-cost cities. And any city is not "rich". The wealth is very relative, and depends on factors that are more complicated than what any government subsidies may be.
Uncle Sam is far from as benevolent as you seem to think he is. He's always been a penny-pincher when it comes to subsidizing the poor and always will be.
Your complaint should be directed toward a state, a county or a city much more than the federal government. And each entity handles its poor in many different ways. Some states are greater tightwads than the feds, while others are more generous.
The same is true with the counties within the states, and is especially true with the cities in the counties.
Wyoming is a good example.
It's a real penny pincher in the state government, and the folks who live there never elect a Congressman who is ready to increase benefits for the poor only. Most of its counties are rich in assets but poor in disposable income, so they are penny pinchers too.
But in the town of Jackson Hole, where the billionaires bought out the millionaires decades ago as a place for their vacation trophy homes, the city government subsidized a big apartment complex for the minimum-wage earners to live in because the town's economy was in real danger of stalling out.
With no place they could find to live in that they could afford, in a region where commuting is next to impossible, Jackson Hole couldn't find the workers they needed at any wage that was worth their labor.
It didn't matter if the minimum wage was $30 an hour, because there was nothing for miles around but homes that all cost far more than that wage could buy.
Rentals were out of sight because they were so sought after and there were never any vacancies.
And, for sure, no billionaire's kid was ever going to work at the local Burger King or Texaco.
So, for Jackson Hole, footing the costs of an apartment complex, and then subsidizing the expense made sense.
Was it socialist? You bet it was. No minimum-wage worker's taxes will ever repay the city for what it costs the worker to live there, but capitalism failed Jackson Hole by creating such a condition to exist, so their only governmental answer was socialist.
Those folks who live outside the city limits on the remote ranches weren't every going to allow their tax burden to go to the city coffers first, the home-owners sure didn't want their multi-million dollar trophy cabins' value to collapse, and because the town is bound on 3 sides by mountains and national parks, sprawl, the only easy solution to the problem, was impossible.
But even the apartments weren't enough to fix the housing crisis. Jackson Hole still is begging for labor to fill its minimum-wage jobs, as the town is still growing in wealth, if not in square footage.
More apartment complexes are now being considered. Each will be more expensive to build and more difficult to find the land for than the first.
And any other solution will be just as expensive. There are no simple answers. If a simple answer existed, it would have been found in Wyoming, the most conservative state in the nation.
If you want to live up to your nickname, try thinking some truly radical thoughts.
Running the poor off to live somewhere else is not radical. It's the first thought most folks have when it comes to this problem. How is enlarging a pocket of poverty anywhere going to fix it?
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.
