Sacramento Suburbs Shabby? Views of Rancho Cordova (San Francisco, Fremont: middle-class, sales)

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by SacramentoBound

What apartments are these, exactly?

Multi-Family Resource Site - Affordable Housing Listing

Too many to list. Look for anything that's a studio or 1bd targeted at low-income ($26k-42k).

[terranova]

Originally Posted by Malloric

Multi-Family Resource Site - Affordable Housing Listing

Too many to list. Look for anything that's a studio or 1bd targeted at low-income ($26k-42k).

Would people who live in these places be the type of "gang-bangers, wannabes, and welfare mooches" that Bluevelo was complaining about?

[SacramentoBound]

So "welfare moocher" extends to singles who have jobs and aren't receiving benefits,huh? That's a new one.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by SacramentoBound

So "welfare moocher" extends to singles who have jobs and aren't receiving benefits,huh? That's a new one.

No. It would extend to singles who have jobs and are living in welfare housing. Some of those (like J Lofts) have some welfare units and some market rate units. J Lofts was built with taxpayer dollars in exchange for a certain number units being welfare housing for a certain time period (typically 30-50 years). As long as whoever operates J Lofts provides the welfare housing for the agreed upon time period, they don't have to pay back the taxpayer money. The "welfare moochers," as you call them, may not receive cash (just like a Section 8 recipient does not receive cash) but they're still receiving welfare benefits in the form of reduced rent.

I don't particularly have anything against the "welfare moochers." I just think it's bad public policy. It'd be one thing if we were meeting the needs of the people that really are in graver need for welfare than a single person making ~$40k/year, but we're not. It's a gross misuse of affordable housing funds.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by terranova

Would people who live in these places be the type of "gang-bangers, wannabes, and welfare mooches" that Bluevelo was complaining about?

Probably. My guess is that just means people that aren't white to him, and since Sacramento has a lot of those there's a good chance they probably live there.

[Mr. Opinionated]

Originally Posted by u225615

Wow, you are tough Bluevelo...EDH ranks as just OK? Well, having seen some new homes out of state in the same price range I can understand. However, California real estate is what it is.

Bluevelo seems very intolerant. There might even be too much water in the ocean....

[SacramentoBound]

Originally Posted by Malloric

No. It would extend to singles who have jobs and are living in welfare housing. Some of those (like J Lofts) have some welfare units and some market rate units. J Lofts was built with taxpayer dollars in exchange for a certain number units being welfare housing for a certain time period (typically 30-50 years). As long as whoever operates J Lofts provides the welfare housing for the agreed upon time period, they don't have to pay back the taxpayer money. The "welfare moochers," as you call them, may not receive cash (just like a Section 8 recipient does not receive cash) but they're still receiving welfare benefits in the form of reduced rent.

I don't particularly have anything against the "welfare moochers." I just think it's bad public policy. It'd be one thing if we were meeting the needs of the people that really are in graver need for welfare than a single person making ~$40k/year, but we're not. It's a gross misuse of affordable housing funds.

I don't mean to call anybody a welfare moocher - I was just using the words from your post. I prefer not to use that kind of broadly dismissive language.

And no, these individuals are not receiving welfare benefits. There are two problems with claiming that they are: First, low-income affordable housing is very different from Section 8, which is paid to the landlord on the tenant's behalf; Section 8 follows a tenant from apartment to apartment, because it is the tenant who receives the benefit. Although tenants in low-income affordable housing do benefit from the lower rent, they are not "receiving benefits;" the lower rent is associated with the property and the landlord, not with the tenant. Here, the tenant benefits from the arrangement just as they would benefit from renting from an extended family member at a reduced rate, or from finding a lucky below-market apartment on Craigslist.

Second, "welfare" in the US has a specific meaning that does not include all social welfare programs. When people say "welfare" they generally mean TANF, CalWORKs, etc. - any of those programs that provide supplemental discretionary income based on qualifying individuals' income, employment status, and/or number of dependents. Also referred to as "cash aid" but not including e.g. SSD payments, Pell Grants, earned income tax credit, and so on (technically the Pell Grant is not fully discretionary, but the restrictions on its use are impossible to enforce). There's certainly a lot of grey area, and Section 8 is one example, because it's effectively a monetary benefit but it's not discretionary or paid directly to the individual. But affordable housing is not one of those grey areas.

The point I'm trying to make is not that a person can't say, well, I consider such and such to be in the same category as welfare. But if you insist on using non-standard definitions, you're responsible for any mis-communication that results. Many people use language this way in order to mislead, to deceive themselves or others, to support an ideology that can't be supported except through ignorance and deception. Do you want to be associated with that?

On the subject of public policy, there's a well-known paper by Jay W. Forrester in which he makes the claim that low-income housing developments have a detrimental overall effect on the social and economic vitality of urban areas. Here's a link to the text; if you have access to a database like EBSCO or JSTOR you should be able to get a better copy, complete with figures. (If not, I can send you one.) Sounds like something you might find interesting, if you haven't come across it already.

[terranova]

Another way to put it is that you could call anybody who receives any sort of government subsidy a "welfare moocher" -- if you want to water down the definition. Malloric, why not bash the farmers who receive agricultural subsidies "welfare moochers" while your at it?

But this is getting away from the main point of the poster who sees the "gang-bangers and welfare moochers" everywhere he looks in the metro area, which could be a problem if this were an accurate perception, or based upon accurate statistics about gang members and welfare recipients.

[ElectroPlumber]

Originally Posted by bluevelo

All you are paying for is weather. That's about it, and greed. Lots of Texas has weather that's just as good as California (better, actually, in that except in times of drought it rains more often, more variety), and you just don't see housing prices that are so damned high or houses that are so small and shabby for what you get.

I've lived in Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and Mississippi. The suburbs in all of the metros I've lived in these places are far better than what Sacramento offers and far cheaper (and safer). California just has so many problems its amazing this place hasn't exploded into widespread urban violence and chaos (see LA - wait - its already happening there and throughout the Bay Area) everywhere.

I want to move, I *want* to move. But, having to pay child support, I just can't quit my job and move elsewhere and the economy is horrible...

I absolutely agree with you about Rancho and Elk Grove. The new theater complex, which will mostly be bought and paid for with Rancho tax money, will be garbarged up within 6 months. The cops across the street will have to open up a satellite center next to the popcorn machine.

I do disagree with you somewhat about Texas weather. I was born there and have lived in almost all parts. It has just gotten ridiculously hot there. The valley may be slightly cooler, but overall, I would never move back there, primarily because of the weather and it also seems the majority of the people have taken a stupid pill.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by terranova

Another way to put it is that you could call anybody who receives any sort of government subsidy a "welfare moocher" -- if you want to water down the definition. Malloric, why not bash the farmers who receive agricultural subsidies "welfare moochers" while your at it?

But this is getting away from the main point of the poster who sees the "gang-bangers and welfare moochers" everywhere he looks in the metro area, which could be a problem if this were an accurate perception, or based upon accurate statistics about gang members and welfare recipients.

The point isn't to bash people; it's to criticize a dysfunctional system that encourages people to be welfare moochers, especially since the dysfunctional system encouraging them to do so is taking away from people who truly do need what little welfare there is. You have lots and lots of small farmers here in California, some of whom really do need to be welfare moochers just to make ends meet. They benefit very, very little from the agricultural subsidies, however. While not strictly welfare, farm subsidies what is often referred to as corporate welfare. The lion's share of that goes to large corporations.