Gardena--Section 8--Maxine Waters--what's going on? (Los Angeles, Manhattan Beach: for rent, vouchers, deed)

[edshaw4947927]

I have been reading about Congresswoman Maxine Waters (Calif. District #35) ethics problems. Charges stem from federal assistance and personal interest. Waters is a big Section 8 (Housing vouchers for rent and utility assistance) person. Anyway, I go to look at the district, and find info about Gardena. It looks like a paradise. Neat and clean, nice streets and cars. So, what am I missing here? I expected to see a combat zone. Not at all. So, why run a person like Waters? 'Splain, please.

[JohnG72]

Originally Posted by edshaw4947927

I have been reading about Congresswoman Maxine Waters (Calif. District #35) ethics problems. Charges stem from federal assistance and personal interest. Waters is a big Section 8 (Housing vouchers for rent and utility assistance) person. Anyway, I go to look at the district, and find info about Gardena. It looks like a paradise. Neat and clean, nice streets and cars. So, what am I missing here? I expected to see a combat zone. Not at all. So, why run a person like Waters? 'Splain, please.

Maxine Waters district covers a LOT more area than just Gardena.

[Caladium]

Plus, there are ok areas of Gardena. I lived there for a few years and felt fine parking my nice car on the street. It wasn't as fun as Manhattan Beach, which I moved to just as soon as I made a little more money, but it wasn't that bad either.

[HarryKerry]

Actually, Waters transgression was a stupid mistake that she should have seen was going to raise questions, not at all comparable to NY''s Charles Rangel's clear wrong doings or Dan Rastenkowski's criminal deed nor just about any other member of the U.S. Congress.

Maxine proceeded as if she were acting on behalf of a constitute or business that is important in her community and to her constituents. A sound argument could made for that, as she has done. Her mistake was in not appreciating how it could be interpreted as an inappropriate action on her part on behalf of a business to which she has some connection though her husband. It is the sort of thing a politician as smart as Waters should have just said, "forget it. It's gonna look bad." But she didn't think it would turn out the way it did, and the Ethics Committee can't figure out what to do with this non-crime. They should just slap her wrist and move on and Maxine should learn from this and move on.

[edshaw4947927]

I am still not getting how a district with a median income of close to $40k a year that looks as beautiful as Gardena should be getting 250,000 Section 8 Housing Assistance Vouchers, $7-8,000 each. Hell, there are 600,000 people in the district. Maxine Waters' ethical issues aside, I just don't see how that works.

[JohnG72]

You must have missed my prior post answering you question.

[SalParadise]

Originally Posted by edshaw4947927

I am still not getting how a district with a median income of close to $40k a year that looks as beautiful as Gardena should be getting 250,000 Section 8 Housing Assistance Vouchers, $7-8,000 each. Hell, there are 600,000 people in the district. Maxine Waters' ethical issues aside, I just don't see how that works.

As JohnG72 noted earlier in the thread, her district covers a much larger area than Gardena, including some of the poorest areas of LA County.

California's 35th congressional district - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No less important is your math appears to be WAY OFF. The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles ONLY administers approx. 50,000 Section 8 Vouchers.

Looks like you pulled the 250,000 housing vouchers number out of a hat. There is no way her district has that many housing vouchers.