Nice that the city has so much money to spend on the Hill. (Pittsburgh: crime rates, houses)

[UKyank]

Like every good political program, the legislator passing it don't have to deal with any of the problems associated with their grand ideas as no section 8 housing will ever be in areas that they live in (unless you can find a mythical poor to middle class federal rep).

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by trlstreet

When in reality section 8 housing tends to cluster in specific areas and have much of the same effect that projects did.

There has been some clustering of Section 8 voucher use, which is unfortunate, but it still isn't nearly as concentrated as under the projects system, and it is also still early yet (people may spread out more over time).

That said, I've suggested before it might be a good idea to place limits on the number of Section 8 vouchers that can be used in any particular locale.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Caladium

I wonder how projects like this will be affected by federal budget cuts? They're going to have to take money from a lot of entitlement programs, and public housing seems like a likely target to me.

Housing authorities are indeed facing funding cuts and are being told to start using their rainy-day funds.

If they eliminate Section 8, do you think that would help or hinder a place like this?

Some people like to complain about Section 8 a lot, but the notable alternatives tend to be even worse.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That said, I've suggested before it might be a good idea to place limits on the number of Section 8 vouchers that can be used in any particular locale.

There is a very high demand for these vouchers from the consumers.

There have been very long waiting lists for them from time to time, I don't know what it looks like now.

Limiting the number in any particular area would make it even more difficult for prospective Section 8 tenants.

Limiting the number would not likely open up any more opportunities for the tenants, as landlords in higher priced neighborhoods realize they can make more money with regular market based tenants moving in.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

Limiting the number would not likely open up any more opportunities for the tenants, as landlords in higher priced neighborhoods realize they can make more money with regular market based tenants moving in.

Some of the studies suggest people are often clustering voluntarily, meaning not for lack of other opportunities to use their vouchers. I know it would be a tough thing to implement in practice, but I think at least when there are enough other potential opportunities, it would be worth considering as a policy.

By the way, because of all the rules surrounding Section 8 eligibility, some landlords like Section 8 tenants quite a lot.

[caroline2]

Originally Posted by trlstreet

When in reality section 8 housing tends to cluster in specific areas and have much of the same effect that projects did.

The effect is actually much more pernicious than that. It doesn't take a big cluster, just one or two Sec 8 houses, to terrorize what was otherwise a safe and calm neighborhood. As BrianTH points out, the guaranteed rent subsidy means that absentee landlords would greatly prefer keeping a trashy, destructive Section 8 tenant than bothering with eviction proceedings and opening the location to someone who at least tries to provide for themselves.

[BrianTH]

Anecdotes aside, the studies suggest there is actually a threshhold effect when it comes to concentrated poverty and social problems, such that small percentages of poorer tenants are much less likely to cause serious problems for a locale than concentrated pockets of poverty (indeed, there are a few poorer people in a lot more neighborhoods than some people seem to realize). That is why the problem with Section 8 so far is not that it has spread out poorer households, but rather that it hasn't spread them out enough, because the less concentration the fewer problems in total.

Landlords often welcome Section 8 tenants because housing authorities screen the recipients, and if there are problems (e.g., the tenants violate the terms of their lease or housing authority rules) they can lose their voucher, which in turn can expedite eviction.

Of course if you listen to some people, everyone with a Section 8 voucher is a predator just looking for a neighborhood to terrorize.

[caroline2]

"In the most literal sense, the national effort to diffuse poverty has succeeded. Since 1990, the number of Americans living in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty—meaning that at least 40 percent of households are below the federal poverty level—has declined by 24percent. But this doesn’t tell the whole story. Recently, the housing expert George Galster, of Wayne State University, analyzed the shifts in urban poverty and published his results in a paper called “A Cautionary Tale.” While fewer Americans live in high-poverty neighborhoods, increasing numbers now live in places with “moderate” poverty rates, meaning rates of 20 to 40 percent. This pattern is not necessarily better, either for poor people trying to break away from bad neighborhoods or for cities, Galster explains. His paper compares two scenarios: a city split into high-poverty and low-poverty areas, and a city dominated by median-poverty ones. The latter arrangement is likely to produce more bad neighborhoods and more total crime, he concludes, based on a computer model of how social dysfunction spreads."

From The Atlantic's piece on Section 8, "American Murder Mystery"

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by caroline2

From The Atlantic's piece on Section 8, "American Murder Mystery"

Right, Galster is one of the people who has identified a threshold effect.

But 20-40% of a neighborhood being poor is a lot different from "one or two" households. And if poor households were evenly spread out in the United States, no neighborhood would need to be more than 20% poor.

Edit: By the way, here is a response to Rosin's Atlantic piece that I would suggest people check out if they are interested in these issues (PDF):

http://www.prrac.org/pdf/MemphisMurderMystery.pdf

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

But 20-40% of a neighborhood being poor is a lot different from "one or two" households. And if poor households were evenly spread out in the United States, no neighborhood would need to be more than 20% poor.

There are plenty of "poor" people all over the place. There is a difference in "poor" and people that don't care and feel they are owed something. I don't owe anyone anything and prefer to keep that kind of thing in one area. Keep it out of the working class that has enough tough times, let alone dealing with the people that terrorize areas and feel they are owed. You say 20-40%. I hope you are kidding. 10% would be more than enough for the workin man's areas. Any more than that is white flight in the neighborhood and a slum. Everyone knows it.

Those who don't study history, like yourself, will sit there in aww when it repeats itself. Places like Homewood and the Hill used to be okay. They are not now. You start getting to that nice 40% in an area and watch history repeat itself. Here is a thought Brian, before you throw out another dream world comment on these forums, just watch Penn Hills and watch the news regarding it. Watch what happens to that area since you obviously missed Homewood, East Liberty and most recently East Hills. You might learn something with Penn Hills and you will just say, Thank you.