[Lalalally]

Originally Posted by mikelizard860

You'd obviously had some bad experiences. Not all section 8 tenants are like that. Some are though. Even non section 8 tenants can be hell for a landlord to evict and get them out.

Agree -- this is true. We had a really good experience with our first tenant who was with us for the first year and a half that we owned the house she rented. And honestly she was the reason we were interested in buying the other two, because (naively) we thought this was how it was going to work. We never had luck though with the other renters (from day one, for all of them). And then good renter moved away too. We hung on for another 4 years and then we had enough, said "Uncle" and sold. We were fortunate that we made some money to put into the kids "college fund," but it's not something I would ever do again.

[parentologist]

Originally Posted by mikelizard860

Yeah well that's fraud and wrong. I agree. Yes having people living there that are not supposed to is a problem. It's supposed to be 30% of income of every working adult in household. It's very difficult to PROVE that. That's the problem. I have a feeling what op is talking about is people are giving extra cash to landlord so he looks away when they bring 4 adults in on a one person income voucher. Because giving extra cash when you're playing by the rules makes zero sense.

It is not a bribe for LL to look other way. It is to be able to get into a nicer bigger place than the voucher will cover. The housing authority benefits because they can fund more vouchers, even though the voucher wont pay the going rate for an appropriate apt. The voucher recipient who has more income than reported benefits because with the voucher as a subsidy, combined with the extra under the table money, they can afford a much nicer place. And the LL who takes it benefits from higher income. The losers are the renters not on section 8, who have to pay more to rent an apt where rents are being driven up by subsidies. And of course the taxpayers.

[parentologist]

Originally Posted by mikelizard860

Hmmmm....
http://www.ct.gov/doh/lib/doh/dss/20...d_schedule.pdf

You mean tell to tell me that New britain housing authority will only cover 900/month for a 3 bedroom rental? Can you show me a link to that. That doesn't sound correct. The CT state based section 8 program will cover a 3 bed apt for up to 1457/month in hartford county as shown in the link above.

Why would someone who could have their entire rent covered want to pay more????? The whole point is to make it so people work service jobs(a huge percentage of people) can actually afford to rent an apartment when wages don't match what's being charged for apartments. I have a hard time believing that the housing authority doesn't give enough to meet FMR in an area. The voucher would be worthless.

The voucher is federal. All the funds come from hud. It's simply adminstered by new britain as well as other housing authorities.

There is a schedule that is hard to find on the internet for deductions. That amt would be for an apt with ALL utilities included - heat, electric, all appliances, everything. And new britain housing authority is only issuing vouchers for 94 percent of median market rate.

[parentologist]

Originally Posted by trishguard

Why is it a violation for the tenant to pay the difference?

doh: Housing Assistance - Section 8

Is the information in this link wrong?

Most local housing authorities do not allow this. The LL and recipient both have to sign a contract which prohibits it, but recipients with under table income offer more to get into better place.

[trishguard]

Originally Posted by parentologist

Most local housing authorities do not allow this. The LL and recipient both have to sign a contract which prohibits it, but recipients with under table income offer more to get into better place.

But I misunderstood you correct? You are talking about tenants who want to pay over what the link I posted allows, which would be more than 40% of their income. I've never seen a section 8 voucher so I don't know what it stipulates. Does it say how much the tenant is awarded and how much extra they can pay based on their current income?

[parentologist]

Yes! The deal is that the housing authority will pay $900/month for a 3 BR apt. The tenant pays a certain percentage of that based upon his income, and the voucher covers the rest. Both tenant and LL sign a contract with the housing authority that prohibits them from paying/accepting more.

[parentologist]

Imagine if ground beef cost three dollars a pound on average. You have a government voucher that pays $2.82/pound for ground beef. You cannot pay more for it using the voucher. You have to search for a store that is selling it for 2.82/pound - hard to find, but doable. Maybe it's not as good quality, not as fresh. Now imagine that you have more money, that the government doesn't know about (or you wouldn't qualify for that voucher!) You want to buy not ground beef, but instead buy steak, which costs 6 dollars/pound. You offer the store the voucher, and say that you will pay out of pocket the extra $3.18/pound. It's prohibited by gov't to do this for both the store and the voucher holder, but EVERYONE is doing it, and no one ever investigates/enforces this, even though it's been reported directly to the gov't agency, and is so common that stores advertise, "Gov't vouchers accepted toward steak". What happens?

Well, first of all, since the number of vouchers available is limited, a lot of people who need the voucher don't get it. And second of all, the people who have the voucher and don't have extra under the table income have a hard time finding $2.82/pound ground beef to use the voucher on, since most stores don't have it on sale, and those that do, are having it bought up by people with vouchers. Thirdly, the price of steak goes up, because there is a limited supply of it, and it's being bought up by people who effectively are only paying $3.18/pound out of pocket for it, instead of $6/pound, since they apply the $2.82/pound voucher to the purchase. So the store can raise the price to $6.50/pound, knowing that they can sell it to people with a voucher, who will still only be paying out of pocket $3.68/pound, instead of $6.50/pound. And the person without a voucher is now paying $6.50/pound for steak.

That's what is happening with Section 8. The voucher value is not enough to pay for an apt in a slum town, let alone a decent area. So many people who are receiving vouchers have additional unreported income, that paying more than the contract allows has become the standard, not the exception. As I've stated before, a realtor told me that she had virtually NEVER seen a house for sale with Section 8 tenants in it where the tenants WERE NOT paying extra above and beyond what the contract allowed. And we get call after call from Section 8 people inquiring about apts that are advertised for significantly more than Section 8 will allow, asking if we will take the Section 8 and they will pay the extra money to cover the higher rent. They claim to not even know it's illegal! But when I call the New Britain Housing Authority to ask if they have changed their policy, they say, "No, we haven't changed the policy. It is a violation of your contract to accept anything, whether money or services in kind, above and beyond what the contract specifies."

[mikelizard860]

Originally Posted by parentologist

The voucher value is not enough to pay for an apt in a slum town, let alone a decent area.

Yeah, that says more about how out of control rents have become in CT than anything else. There are now 1 bedroom apartments in rocky hill renting for 1415 with nothing included. Only 749sq feet. Is fairfield county type rents coming to hartford county next? Boston used to be nothing like nyc, but look at it now. It's out of control. Someone is getting rich on the speculation, but it certainly isn't trickling down.

When's the last time they built a property recently that wasn't geared toward professionals making 60k plus in CT? All these buildings seemed geared towards people just renting for a few years until they buy a house. NOT long term renters.
They basically stopped building new apartment buildings in the 70s.

New Britain housing authority vouchers are terrible if all they cover is 900 for a 3 bedroom. Better to get a voucher from a better housing authority. But of course wait lists exceed 10 years in many cases. These vouchers aren't easy to get. I'm not familiar with new britain, but I imagine it would be very difficult to find a liveable descent 3 bedroom in a descent area of new britain for 900 or less.

[hyechica]

i know poeple on vouchers in nb and they get more than 900 so i dont know where your figures are coming from

[mikelizard860]

Originally Posted by hyechica

i know poeple on vouchers in nb and they get more than 900 so i dont know where your figures are coming from

I figured that.