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.
Yep, it all sounds good, but what will be the actual impact on the communities of Ventura County?
I personally believe that this is a very bad idea and the impact will be highly negative, in many ways. The first and foremost concern I have is the propensity for crime to rise in any area where subsidized Section 8 housing exists. This isn't to say that ALL people who need help through low-income housing are bad or are criminals, but a large proportion of them are, in one way or another.
Another problem with low-income housing is that it often does not get assigned to those who really are in desperate need, and instead is held aside for those who are not even here legally or who are chronically living off welfare because it has become a lifestyle choice for them.
Just from personal experience I have observed that those apartment complexes which do NOT accept Section 8, like the one I manage, tend to be safer and cleaner within the confines of the building, while those in the same area which do accept Section 8 have a high level of crime within. However, being in a non-Section 8 building still does not make you immune to crime when located next to or near Section 8 housing. It just means that your fellow tenants are less likely to commit crimes against you or your property, but those from neighboring buildings will still target you. A non-Section 8 building and its tenants suffers by its mere proximity to Section 8 housing.
I found this interesting article in a North Carolina newspaper regarding the effects of Section 8 housing...
I believe that the majority of suddenly unemployed families would look at Section 8 housing as just an unpleasant, but temporary solution while they get back on their feet. They have no intention of becoming 'institutionalized' to Govt. housing or handouts. Sadly, these are the ones who are being turned away because the lists are "too long," and certain "classes" are expected to be put at the head of the line before anyone else, irrespective of actual need.
Low income housing should be reserved for those who actually work or are seriously attempting to become employed, and it should be for a limited time. For people who make living off welfare a 'career' we should offer transitional housing, which is also for a limited time only, and they must be put to work in order to retain shelter. This would also take care of the problem of illegal immigrants 'taking' jobs because those on welfare could replace them in agriculture, cleaning & janitorial and other such jobs which are usually given to illegals. Kill two birds with one stone.
Their is a big differance between a hand out and a hand up. It seems that many have been taught or given the idea that society owes them something. That just is not the case. We should help people and allow them the opportunity to better themselves. Saying that a caveat is that we don't allow people to remain in that position of being in need. The problem with the majority of low income programs is that it keeps people in the low income position. Why would anyone want to remain there? I don't see help, I see the creation of a lifestyle that continues from generation to generation. We don't need to create more low income housing we need to educate people on how to get off the system and improve their life. We need to teach people that they can support themselves and that they can pay their own way. I am just not a fan of subsiding anyone and have a beliefe that all assisted housing can be a temporary thing.
Their is a big differance between a hand out and a hand up. It seems that many have been taught or given the idea that society owes them something. That just is not the case. We should help people and allow them the opportunity to better themselves. Saying that a caveat is that we don't allow people to remain in that position of being in need. The problem with the majority of low income programs is that it keeps people in the low income position. Why would anyone want to remain there? I don't see help, I see the creation of a lifestyle that continues from generation to generation. We don't need to create more low income housing we need to educate people on how to get off the system and improve their life. We need to teach people that they can support themselves and that they can pay their own way. I am just not a fan of subsiding anyone and have a beliefe that all assisted housing can be a temporary thing.
Excellent post, tried to rate it positively but had to spread the wealth around... according to the message.
I do agree with you, except I would add that there is a culture/generation out there that doesn't want to learn how to work, that in and of it's self is WORK. No, they much rather receive 'entitlements' and not have to work. I personally would eliminate all of the unemployment payments and pay them to work, no work... no pay. Then, teach them how to worker smarter than harder and let themselves find their jobs. It can be done.
Sorry to see that. It's an unfortunate truth (pun intended) that section 8 housing/affordable housing seems to attract those that bear no responsibility for their surroundings and are often the hard core unemployable. Crime surely follows in these areas and just create a drag on the rest of the economy. Many thanks to the "forward thinking" supervisors,, politicians etc. that have invited instituionalized blight into Ventura county. The sad fact is it seems all counties etc. are going in this direction. I agree with previous poster; it seems like those most deserving go without so those that just game the system get in. Guess when you are a professional at being a dead beat you know that game.
Sadly, it's true that deadbeats know how to work the system, which cheats honest, hard working people out of help when they desperately need it. Many welfare recipients do not have any vested interests in where they live and for them its just a place to hang out while they collect from the Govt. They are seriously lacking in respect for the property they 'rent,' the neighbors they share a building or street with, and the community around them. As far as they are concerned the city will pay other people to clean up their litter in the streets, the property owners will make managers clean up the trash they throw in communal hallways, facilities and around the property, the Govt. will pay to repair any damage they do to a rental property and the local Social Services will protect their unruly children from paying any sort of consequences when caught tagging, vandalizing or destroying property in some other manner.
The fatcs are these:
Many Section 8 tenants tend to be destructive, disrespectful and pose a negative impact on a community, which in turn brings down property values in the neighborhood. They increase the incidents of criminal activity, both violent & non-violent. They bring abnout an unsafe environment for our families. Yet, when a landlord tries to keep these types of people out of their community they are opening themselves up for a discrimination charge, unless their property is exempt from accepting Section 8. So basically, these people can come in to a community and wreak all kinds of havoc, knowing how difficult and costly it would be to evict them, but communities and landlords, under a very unfair legal system, are disallowed from protecting themselves and the public from these negative influences. I think the politicians who want to keep building low-income Section 8 housing need to have these pits of human misery and chronic crime built in THEIR neighborhoods!
Tell me, what is "fair" about the so-called Fair Housing Laws when it forces landlords (and other residents) to accept absolutely horrible tenants so long as they can afford to pay the rent based on leasing criteria? The old "Rules of Society" and "Community Policing" need to be brought back, and there needs to be consequences for irresponsible and anti-social behaviors, NOT Govt. pampering of those who are not deserving.
Sadly, it's true that deadbeats know how to work the system, which cheats honest, hard working people out of help when they desperately need it. Many welfare recipients do not have any vested interests in where they live and for them its just a place to hang out while they collect from the Govt. They are seriously lacking in respect for the property they 'rent,' the neighbors they share a building or street with, and the community around them. As far as they are concerned the city will pay other people to clean up their litter in the streets, the property owners will make managers clean up the trash they throw in communal hallways, facilities and around the property, the Govt. will pay to repair any damage they do to a rental property and the local Social Services will protect their unruly children from paying any sort of consequences when caught tagging, vandalizing or destroying property in some other manner.
The fatcs are these:
Many Section 8 tenants tend to be destructive, disrespectful and pose a negative impact on a community, which in turn brings down property values in the neighborhood. They increase the incidents of criminal activity, both violent & non-violent. They bring abnout an unsafe environment for our families. Yet, when a landlord tries to keep these types of people out of their community they are opening themselves up for a discrimination charge, unless their property is exempt from accepting Section 8. So basically, these people can come in to a community and wreak all kinds of havoc, knowing how difficult and costly it would be to evict them, but communities and landlords, under a very unfair legal system, are disallowed from protecting themselves and the public from these negative influences. I think the politicians who want to keep building low-income Section 8 housing need to have these pits of human misery and chronic crime built in THEIR neighborhoods!
Tell me, what is "fair" about the so-called Fair Housing Laws when it forces landlords (and other residents) to accept absolutely horrible tenants so long as they can afford to pay the rent based on leasing criteria? The old "Rules of Society" and "Community Policing" need to be brought back, and there needs to be consequences for irresponsible and anti-social behaviors, NOT Govt. pampering of those who are not deserving.
Fortunately in California, a landlord does not have to accept Section 8. I don't.
Fortunately in California, a landlord does not have to accept Section 8. I don't.
Yeah, I know some don't have to. I run a non-Section 8 building. I know that some buildings which were built after a certain year have to hold aside a set number of apartments for Section 8 tenants.
Yeah, I know some don't have to. I run a non-Section 8 building. I know that some buildings which were built after a certain year have to hold aside a set number of apartments for Section 8 tenants.
Yes and no, LOL! I know that some apartment complexes in Simi Valley are required to do this as well. Indian Oaks is one such example. While looking for a new apartment in Simi for ourselves we actually found one we liked there, but by the time we got there it was already taken. We were informed that they had two other apartments for rent but they had to hold them aside for the Low Income/Section 8 prospectives. So, we couldn't even view them. We would have to get on a list that is apparently very long, with up to a year to wait for availabilty. Plus, we aren't low income or Section 8. Hey, can that be considered discrimination? In any case, I'm glad it worked out that way. We found a much nicer apartment complex, LOL!
If you download the Guide, which lists those apartments which offer low income/ Section 8 units, you will see that some of the better apartment complexes are coming up to their End of Affordability date, meaning they will no longer by law have to comply with keeping aside a set number of units for low income families. Villas at Wood Ranch will be able to stop in Feb. 2011. This is a good guide for those who wish to avoid living in a complex with lots of low income families, and which has many years left to go before they can stop offering low income units.
Last edited by Cyanna; 09-07-2010 at 09:17 PM..
Reason: addition
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.
In any case, I'm glad it worked out that way. We found a much nicer apartment complex, LOL!
