U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-25-2014, 11:11 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,039,041 times
Reputation: 8970

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser View Post
It's true about the money wasted by the government, and yes, if that were under control, a lot of things, not just housing the homeless, could be done.

As for government creating the problem, it certainly wasn't helped when Reagan ordered so many mental hospitals closed and the people in them put out on the street. I remember that as being the first time that anyone actually ever said anything about the homeless in print or in the news.

I will say one thing though. OK, one more thing. LOL If the people that are homeless are expected to get a job and get back into mainstream society, they first need homes. I can tell you firsthand how incredibly hard it is getting a job when you're homeless. Many businesses don't want to hire homeless people, so if you don't have a phone number or an address, you may not even be considered for a job. Add to that the stress of living on the street, worried about being assaulted or robbed, not having a place to go to the bathroom, wondering where you're going to sleep, trying to keep warm, how you're going to get food, carrying everything you own on your back including a suit or dress you're trying to keep clean and unwrinkled for job interviews, and trying to just keep clean, is enough to push even a strong person over the edge.

Some people can climb up out of all that and get a job. Most can't, but most could if they had the big problem of housing solved. It doesn't have to be a house, either. It could be a motel room, or like where I am living now, which is a building turned into SROs - single room occupancy - where the rents are charged at 30% of income (and you know, it says something about this country when your actual rent isn't supposed to be more than 30% of your income and here it's considered subsidized if it's kept at 30% of income). So I have a small room, a kitchenette, and a shared bathroom, and yes, there are rules. No smoking inside, no drugs, no drinking. Stricter rules than most people have in their own homes. Homeless people are held to a higher standard when they're in subsidized housing, if you want to look at it that way.

And this works, but the downside is there's usually a year's wait to get in. And I'd have to check, but I think our Section 8 was closed several years ago because at that time, there was a 7 year wait to get into Section 8 housing. How many people here think they could survive on the street for 7 years until they finally had a place to live?

You are fortunate to have found a subsidized SRO; many - perhaps most - are not subsidized. There is a bottom-rung SRO in Portland that for years always had numerous vacancies. Their standards were so low that you could get in with income 1.5 times rent. (Put another way, even if the rent worked out to 2/3 of your income you could get in.) They magically reached full occupancy a few years ago as Portland got the double whammy of recession AND skyrocketing rents (what a deal, huh) and have been full ever since.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-25-2014, 11:31 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,039,041 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeachSalsa View Post
You can't, because there will always be the criminal element looking to scam the system and get what they can.

Why not use work history (e.g. Social Security earnings from previous years; current year's earnings or source of income disregarded). Someone with an actual history of productivity should get priority over a perpetual slacker.

It would be great to see deserving people get a break and to see the undeserving bums get to experience the negative consequences of their (in)actions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2014, 06:41 AM
 
15,733 posts, read 9,244,311 times
Reputation: 14212
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Why not use work history (e.g. Social Security earnings from previous years; current year's earnings or source of income disregarded). Someone with an actual history of productivity should get priority over a perpetual slacker.

It would be great to see deserving people get a break and to see the undeserving bums get to experience the negative consequences of their (in)actions.
Work history is completely irrelevant to the likelihood of someone paying their rent. They might work their tails off, but if they don't pay their bills, it doesn't matter at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2014, 07:46 AM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, originally from SF Bay Area
29,754 posts, read 54,390,602 times
Reputation: 31045
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
Work history is completely irrelevant to the likelihood of someone paying their rent. They might work their tails off, but if they don't pay their bills, it doesn't matter at all.
I a rental market like we have here, the landlord can almost rent to the highest bidder, and in fact that sometimes happens. There is no way they will rent to someone without a great work history and near or perfect credit. They don't have to with the vacancy rate at 4% and average rent $1,484 for one bedroom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2014, 02:00 PM
 
Location: Washington state
5,431 posts, read 2,758,123 times
Reputation: 16325
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
Work history is completely irrelevant to the likelihood of someone paying their rent. They might work their tails off, but if they don't pay their bills, it doesn't matter at all.
Or can't pay their bills.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2014, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Washington state
5,431 posts, read 2,758,123 times
Reputation: 16325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof View Post
Judging by your current zip code, I wonder if you were homeless in Seattle? I was, sometime in the early 2000s. Remember the DESC with its gym mats to sleep on? I usually chose to live in a tent in Discovery Park back then.

Seattle had a continuum of homeless housing from shelters to shared housing, eventually to having an apartment of one's own. The only problem was that it was all packed full, and yet there were still thousands living out on the streets.
My server is in Seattle, but I'm not. I'm on the peninsula.

Yes, I was homeless a few months here, but I spent six years homeless while I was in San Jose, working full time and going to community college classes. Got myself out of that one, only to be knocked down first by the skyrocketing rents there, then the job problem here 20 years later. Ugh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2014, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,728 posts, read 9,838,713 times
Reputation: 9840
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmb501 View Post
Why can't cities create low rent or tax subsidized housing for the homeless?
One might ponder the example of Federally funded housing projects from the 1960s-70s "War on Poverty."
These were low rent / subsidized housing.
And they were generally destroyed by their occupants within a relatively short span of time.

What would you do differently, to prevent such a waste of resources?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2014, 08:17 PM
 
Location: Seattle
1,531 posts, read 1,311,621 times
Reputation: 3600
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
One might ponder the example of Federally funded housing projects from the 1960s-70s "War on Poverty."
These were low rent / subsidized housing.
And they were generally destroyed by their occupants within a relatively short span of time.

What would you do differently, to prevent such a waste of resources?
I'm sorry, the bulk of low rent public housing "projects" were constructed prior to the "war on poverty," mainly during the Eisenhower administration and before.

And they were not "generally destroyed by their occupants within a relatively short period of time;" many continue to provide affordable housing resources to this day. There were a number of large developments that were indeed demolished because they had become dilapidated and crime ridden, the most famous of which was the Pruitt-Igoe complex in St. Louis.

Starting in the late 60s and continuing through the 1970s, the focus in federally-supported low income housing shifted almost totally away from the "low rent" projects funded under the US Housing Act of 1937, and moved to a "scattered site" and lower-density pattern. Simultaneously, the federal government changed the mode of affordable housing development to mortgage interest subsidies to private developers, in essence subsidizing banks to make loans for low-income housing at reduced interest rates, with the federal government making up the difference in interest income to the banks. Sadly, this led on numerous occasions to abuse by the banks, who allowed substandard housing to be developed, pocketing the interest subsidy, then washing their hands of the matter by conveying title to nonprofits housing agencies that didn't have the resources or the clout to maintain nor to improve the properties.

In the 1980s, the government again shifted its mode of subsidy to one of providing substantial income tax credits to for-profit developers of affordable housing.

Thus for the past 40 or 50 years, the feds themselves have not paid for any housing to be built, they've simply provided subsidies to banks and wealthy developers to do the work for them. Once the subsidies end, the projects revert back to market rents, and any low income households living in them have to pay uneconomic rent, or move out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2014, 08:51 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,890,268 times
Reputation: 18049
Yep government is getting out of low rental ownership; they keep getting trashed. Instead they help with rent on section 8's.The they can be kicked out and government doesn't have to deal with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2014, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,728 posts, read 9,838,713 times
Reputation: 9840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gardyloo View Post
I'm sorry, the bulk of low rent public housing "projects" were constructed prior to the "war on poverty," mainly during the Eisenhower administration and before.

And they were not "generally destroyed by their occupants within a relatively short period of time;" many continue to provide affordable housing resources to this day. There were a number of large developments that were indeed demolished because they had become dilapidated and crime ridden, the most famous of which was the Pruitt-Igoe complex in St. Louis.

Starting in the late 60s and continuing through the 1970s, the focus in federally-supported low income housing shifted almost totally away from the "low rent" projects funded under the US Housing Act of 1937, and moved to a "scattered site" and lower-density pattern. Simultaneously, the federal government changed the mode of affordable housing development to mortgage interest subsidies to private developers, in essence subsidizing banks to make loans for low-income housing at reduced interest rates, with the federal government making up the difference in interest income to the banks. Sadly, this led on numerous occasions to abuse by the banks, who allowed substandard housing to be developed, pocketing the interest subsidy, then washing their hands of the matter by conveying title to nonprofits housing agencies that didn't have the resources or the clout to maintain nor to improve the properties.

In the 1980s, the government again shifted its mode of subsidy to one of providing substantial income tax credits to for-profit developers of affordable housing.

Thus for the past 40 or 50 years, the feds themselves have not paid for any housing to be built, they've simply provided subsidies to banks and wealthy developers to do the work for them. Once the subsidies end, the projects revert back to market rents, and any low income households living in them have to pay uneconomic rent, or move out.
In answer to the OP, there is a good reason why government avoids funding such housing.
In my own experience, living in a Federal project during the 1960-70s, I experienced the "negative" side.
Public housing in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Subsidized apartment buildings, often referred to as housing projects or colloquially "the projects", have a complicated and often notorious history in the United States. While the first decades of projects were built with higher construction standards and a broader range of incomes and applicants, as time went on, public housing increasingly became the housing of last resort. In many cities, housing projects suffered from mismanagement and high vacancy rates. Furthermore, housing projects have also been seen to greatly increase concentrated poverty in a community, leading to several negative externalities. As a result, many of the housing projects constructed in the 1950s and 1960s have since been torn down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top