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.
No concessions needed, government should just get out of the way and stop making housing unaffordable and stop trying to socially engineer neighborhoods.
HUD is requiring Westchester to build 750 units of affordable housing, presumably these will all be Section 8 units. The vast majority of Section 8 voucher holders are women - clearly a disparate impact. So where is the compensating program for men?
You need to go back and read about Westchester. It's (if I recall the exact number - it's in an earlier post) 5,097 low income housing and no where does it say it is designed for female Section 8 voucher holders. There are many two parent families and single fathers on section 8. Once their children become of age the children don't qualify for section 8 (the same way you don't) and the allowance will be reduced, although they can continue to live under the same roof.
If I build a multifamily home, should I be allowed to set the rent on my investment, or should government dictate to me what the rent should be, or should I ask you how much do you want to pay for rent?
I agree with the engineering. It's a recipe for failure in many ways.
You need to go back and read about Westchester. It's (if I recall the exact number - it's in an earlier post) 5,097 low income housing and no where does it say it is designed for female Section 8 voucher holders. There are many two parent families and single fathers on section 8. Once their children become of age the children don't qualify for section 8 (the same way you don't) and the allowance will be reduced, although they can continue to live under the same roof.
If I build a multifamily home, should I be allowed to set the rent on my investment, or should government dictate to me what the rent should be, or should I ask you how much do you want to pay for rent?
I agree with the engineering. It's a recipe for failure in many ways.
Some voucher holders are two-parent families, but men are still way underrepresented in Section 8. Isn't that what the liberals call disparate impact?
You can charge whatever rent you like, but should anyone get government subsidies for paying rent?
Some voucher holders are two-parent families, but men are still way underrepresented in Section 8. Isn't that what the liberals call disparate impact?
You can charge whatever rent you like, but should anyone get government subsidies for paying rent?
It would depend on the situation. I don't think a single healthy person who is capable of working should get government subsidies. Why should "anyone" get government subsidies to pay rent? If that's the case then government would be giving it to "everyone".
What men are under-represented? Single fathers? They are not under-represented and get all the entitlements that a single mother would receive. The number of single fathers are low because single fathers are not the "norm"
You seem to think that government should give subsidies to everyone so that they can "afford" to have better housing. Isn't that what the HUD diversity program is pretty much about? Isn't that social engineering through economics?
If the market is there for making single family homes multi-family then by all means don't mess with the market. Especially in bad economic times, it can help property owners keep their property. If not for zoning far more people would break up single family homes into multiple units, like in the Great Depression.
Minimum lot sizes are wastes of space.
And there's nothing wrong with MFH, especially given that people often do it anyways even if the zoning is R1. Might as well make it legal and up to code.
Sounds like you're fond of progressive social engineering if it matches your preferences.
However when you have 30 unrelated people living in a 1500 sq ft house, you're going to see diseases like TB make a big come back. Also this does not help the tax base at all.
It would depend on the situation. I don't think a single healthy person who is capable of working should get government subsidies. Why should "anyone" get government subsidies to pay rent? If that's the case then government would be giving it to "everyone".
What men are under-represented? Single fathers? They are not under-represented and get all the entitlements that a single mother would receive. The number of single fathers are low because single fathers are not the "norm"
You seem to think that government should give subsidies to everyone so that they can "afford" to have better housing. Isn't that what the HUD diversity program is pretty much about? Isn't that social engineering through economics?
In this country, tens of millions of people get subsidies for paying a mortgage; the principle of vertical equity suggests that it would be unfair if there were no subsidies for paying rent while homeowners (who generally have much more income than renters) are getting subsidies.
What men are underrrepresented? Childless men, obviously. Childless women generally can choose to become single mothers; childless men - especially those with low income - generally cannot choose to become single fathers.
I think government shouldn't be giving housing subsidies to anyone, and also that overnment should not artificially inflate housing prices through excessive regulation, e.g. exclusionary zoning - which is HUD's complaint here, i.e. that Westchester is by design pricing minorities out of the area.
So I agree with HUD that Westchester - not as a county, but through its individual municipalities, in aggregate - is at fault, but I don't agree with HUD's solution unless all excluded persons have equal opportunity to obtain subsidies. I do not believe it is the county's job to direct its municipalities in this area.
My read on this is that HUD is effectively saying that it is okay to exclude non-recipients of Section 8, and not-okay to exclude Section 8 recipients, which seems ridiculous to me, i.e. it's wrong to exclude someone earning N dollars but okay to exclude someone earning N + 1 dollars; similarly, it's okay to exclude people who were not lucky enough to get a Section 8 voucher, but not okay when landlords exclude voucher holders by not particpating in Section 8.
HUD seems to be saying also that it is okay to exclude low income white people but not okay to exclude low-income non-white people (who experience the disparate impact of low incomes). This I find mond-boggling and very disturbing.
What men are underrrepresented? Childless men, obviously. Childless women generally can choose to become single mothers; childless men - especially those with low income - generally cannot choose to become single fathers.
Good grief. You feel cheated because you can't have a baby. STOP IT!!!!!
In this country, tens of millions of people get subsidies for paying a mortgage; the principle of vertical equity suggests that it would be unfair if there were no subsidies for paying rent while homeowners (who generally have much more income than renters) are getting subsidies.
What men are underrrepresented? Childless men, obviously. Childless women generally can choose to become single mothers; childless men - especially those with low income - generally cannot choose to become single fathers.
I think government shouldn't be giving housing subsidies to anyone, and also that overnment should not artificially inflate housing prices through excessive regulation, e.g. exclusionary zoning - which is HUD's complaint here, i.e. that Westchester is by design pricing minorities out of the area.
So I agree with HUD that Westchester - not as a county, but through its individual municipalities, in aggregate - is at fault, but I don't agree with HUD's solution unless all excluded persons have equal opportunity to obtain subsidies. I do not believe it is the county's job to direct its municipalities in this area.
My read on this is that HUD is effectively saying that it is okay to exclude non-recipients of Section 8, and not-okay to exclude Section 8 recipients, which seems ridiculous to me, i.e. it's wrong to exclude someone earning N dollars but okay to exclude someone earning N + 1 dollars; similarly, it's okay to exclude people who were not lucky enough to get a Section 8 voucher, but not okay when landlords exclude voucher holders by not particpating in Section 8.
HUD seems to be saying also that it is okay to exclude low income white people but not okay to exclude low-income non-white people (who experience the disparate impact of low incomes). This I find mond-boggling and very disturbing.
Meh, non white people have low incomes because they have lower educational achievements. The guy that hired me is black and he has no problem making $500K/year. Asian couples, in aggregate, have the highest incomes and higher educational achievements. Might there be a correlation here?
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.
STOP IT!!!!!
