Interesting overview of the Delco suburbs and how it relates to the current use of section 8 vouchers (Philadelphia: sales, 2013)

[Burger Fan]

Originally Posted by Flyers Girl

Not always. Just as much, it is the government forcing a municipality to reserve a certain percentage of housing for Section 8 in the interest of "fairness." Case in point: Ocean City, NJ never used to have Section 8 housing. One particularly bad year of storms that led to massive beach erosion led the town to petition the state for funds. Governor Corzine (yes, this is going way back) told them that they can have the money if they open up Ocean City to Section 8. Voila! Section 8 housing now available in Ocean City!

I'm going to agree, sorta. Having firsthand knowledge of the area described in the article (first tier delco suburbs) it's hard to argue against their conclusions. Philadelphia is the only municipality that "requires" landlords to accommodate section 8 renters. The suburbs have no such requirement. As such landlords in wealthier and in demand areas simply refuse to rent to them (they are largely more trouble than non section 8 renters, and there is absolutely a racial component to this also) leaving those in the poorer inner ring suburbs to cater to them exclusively.



Middle class white residents of the above municipalities have a particular loathing for section 8 residents. It's not subtle at all and many are very, very vocal about it. There is a racial and culture clash that would not exist otherwise- even those who aren't racist per se will chafe badly at someone who they perceive as not deserving simply being given a house equivalent to something they busted their ass to earn. These residents by and large have been moving out when possible, and those that CANT are typically working class in low paying jobs or retired on fixed incomes.


This ABSOLUTELY lowers property values, property values have a direct relationship to school funding and thus performance, and when both of these take a dive even middle class Black residents (there really aren't many latinos) start looking to move elsewhere. (note: upper darby has a LOT of southeast Asian immigrants that cluster there that ignore this business entirely but that is a completely different issue) The result is a death spiral of consistently lowering property values and terrible schools and, houses that used to be owned by long time residents flipping into rentals which are eagerly rented out to more section 8 and/or low income residents.


You'll notice the article points out that Springfield which is walking distance from Upper Darby, minutes from Folcroft, and has significant public transportation via the rt 100 trolley, Media/Elwyn train line and rt 108/9/10 bus routes has virtually no section 8 residents at all (income as well as low percentage of rentals factors in here) and avoids all this completely. It also interviews a woman who wanted to use her voucher in Havertown (demographically similar to Springfield, including transportation access) but simply couldn't and landed in Folcroft instead.

[Flyers Girl]

You don't have to tell me, Burger Fan. I've been trying to sell my Drexel Hill twin for over a year now.

[Burger Fan]

Originally Posted by Flyers Girl

You don't have to tell me, Burger Fan. I've been trying to sell my Drexel Hill twin for over a year now.

Funny you mention you're in Drexel hill. There are some really nice looking homes there that I'm quite fond of. My wife ABSOLUTELY shot down D-hill entirely when she saw the school district data and wouldn't consider it. I had concerns about long term property value on top of that and we bought in Wallingford instead.

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by Flyers Girl

I agree with this 100%. In fact, I think the title of the article is completely wrong. Section 8 vouchers are not "tickets out of poverty." By and large, beneficiaries of Section 8 housing, like you said, are contributing nothing to the neighborhood as they are not paying to live there. It's a lesson I learned from my parents at a very young age--work for something, you appreciate the hell out of it; get something for free, you don't.

Which is why I do not like the program. There needs to be limitations, rent restrictions, income restrictions, just giving someone a house does nothing but give a sense of entitlement to people who do not know any better, **** off the neighbors, drain tax money, ruin neighborhoods, and usually increase racial tension.

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by Burger Fan

I'm going to agree, sorta. Having firsthand knowledge of the area described in the article (first tier delco suburbs) it's hard to argue against their conclusions. Philadelphia is the only municipality that "requires" landlords to accommodate section 8 renters. The suburbs have no such requirement. As such landlords in wealthier and in demand areas simply refuse to rent to them (they are largely more trouble than non section 8 renters, and there is absolutely a racial component to this also) leaving those in the poorer inner ring suburbs to cater to them exclusively.



Middle class white residents of the above municipalities have a particular loathing for section 8 residents. It's not subtle at all and many are very, very vocal about it. There is a racial and culture clash that would not exist otherwise- even those who aren't racist per se will chafe badly at someone who they perceive as not deserving simply being given a house equivalent to something they busted their ass to earn. These residents by and large have been moving out when possible, and those that CANT are typically working class in low paying jobs or retired on fixed incomes.


This ABSOLUTELY lowers property values, property values have a direct relationship to school funding and thus performance, and when both of these take a dive even middle class Black residents (there really aren't many latinos) start looking to move elsewhere. (note: upper darby has a LOT of southeast Asian immigrants that cluster there that ignore this business entirely but that is a completely different issue) The result is a death spiral of consistently lowering property values and terrible schools and, houses that used to be owned by long time residents flipping into rentals which are eagerly rented out to more section 8 and/or low income residents.


You'll notice the article points out that Springfield which is walking distance from Upper Darby, minutes from Folcroft, and has significant public transportation via the rt 100 trolley, Media/Elwyn train line and rt 108/9/10 bus routes has virtually no section 8 residents at all (income as well as low percentage of rentals factors in here) and avoids all this completely. It also interviews a woman who wanted to use her voucher in Havertown (demographically similar to Springfield, including transportation access) but simply couldn't and landed in Folcroft instead.

I grew up in Upper Providence and had a lot of friends in Springfield and Aston, historically middle/upper middle class areas and very white. If you even mention Section 8 to anyone in those towns it erupts anger from people. In some cases I think the residents are justified, others no. Delaware County IMO is one of the most socioeconomically diverse counties in the country, and there is a fine line between the poor, middle class, and even rich towns. This is just a further example of why the system does not work.

A side note, Philadelphia and its suburbs have higher socioeconomic and racial segregation more so then any other major area in the country, the history behind it is interesting.

[Burger Fan]

Originally Posted by cpomp

I grew up in Upper Providence and had a lot of friends in Springfield and Aston, historically middle/upper middle class areas and very white. If you even mention Section 8 to anyone in those towns it erupts anger from people. In some cases I think the residents are justified, others no. Delaware County IMO is one of the most socioeconomically diverse counties in the country, and there is a fine line between the poor, middle class, and even rich towns. This is just a further example of why the system does not work.

A side note, Philadelphia and its suburbs have higher socioeconomic and racial segregation more so then any other major area in the country, the history behind it is interesting.

Growing up I've literally seen fistfights in East Lansdowne break out over neighbors accusing each other of being "F'ing section 8 trash". Both were white. It is a REALLY REALLY sore point down there.

Originally Posted by cpomp

Which is why I do not like the program. There needs to be limitations, rent restrictions, income restrictions, just giving someone a house does nothing but give a sense of entitlement to people who do not know any better, **** off the neighbors, drain tax money, ruin neighborhoods, and usually increase racial tension.

I agree with the program in theory. Housing projects tend to be wretched hives of scum and villainy and the less they're encouraged the better. Packing low income residents into ghettos isn't really preferable.


Studies have shown that the poverty tends to breed poverty from one generation to the next- breaking that cycle by giving low income students access to better schools and environments has been proven to reverse this. This program though is clearly not working out as intended though. It's far too concentrated in far too few areas, and the areas its in seem to be putting low income blacks and whites in conflict with each other which doesn't really help anybody.


Personally I feel fully subsidizing childcare and not housing per se is a better way to address the poverty problem.

[1ondoner]

Poor people should not be having children. If one can't fend for themselves, why are they having offspring?

Originally Posted by Burger Fan

Personally I feel fully subsidizing childcare and not housing per se is a better way to address the poverty problem.

[maf763]

Originally Posted by Flyers Girl

Not always. Just as much, it is the government forcing a municipality to reserve a certain percentage of housing for Section 8 in the interest of "fairness." Case in point: Ocean City, NJ never used to have Section 8 housing. One particularly bad year of storms that led to massive beach erosion led the town to petition the state for funds. Governor Corzine (yes, this is going way back) told them that they can have the money if they open up Ocean City to Section 8. Voila! Section 8 housing now available in Ocean City!

Sounds like you are saying that Section 8 got there because of hard times, which is what I said. Is Ocean City now considered a depressed area? This site reports a crime rate well below the national average, and has declined since Corzine was in office.

[Flyers Girl]

Originally Posted by Burger Fan

Funny you mention you're in Drexel hill. There are some really nice looking homes there that I'm quite fond of. My wife ABSOLUTELY shot down D-hill entirely when she saw the school district data and wouldn't consider it. I had concerns about long term property value on top of that and we bought in Wallingford instead.

School district, and taxes in Upper Darby Township. Yep. That's the sticking point. I'm not there anymore; my husband and I are in Haverford Township now, but that twin is like an albatross around our neck and we'll be attempting to rent it out very soon.

[AbdiKony]

Interesting conversation here. What do you think is the future of Delco.