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.
[*]The article fails to mention that decreasing the concentration of poverty stricken public housing developments in Chicago has had a direct affect on the city lowering its crime rates. Housing studies show that it is best to move voucher holders into stable, middle income or above areas as the socio-economic issues that these families face are less likely to contribute to a decline of an area with higher income and educational achievement of the resident's neighbors
I'm glad that works in Chicago.
About 15 years ago a neighboring city knocked down high-rise public housing apt buildings. The residents were given vouchers. Many moved in to middle income or above areas. One was the condo/townhouse complex I lived in. The crime rate in the complex increased exponentially. Teens were hanging out on street corners all hours of the early am, cars and homes were getting broken in to, women were being followed in to their homes in the evening (after getting home from work) and robbed. There was one rape reported. The basketball courts were taken over by grown men all day long. The nets were ripped off, the rims eventually followed. The tennis courts were destroyed. The playgrounds turned in to ash trays and hang outs for adults after sundown.
We were having a house built in a different town/county so we were selling and moving out anyway and didn't have to deal with it for very long.
About 5 years ago my town knocked down streets of a low-rise (garden apartments?) public housing complex. The residents were given vouchers. Many stayed in town and moved in to two specific condo-townhouse complexes, in middle income or above areas....
"Using a Chicago Housing Authority voucher, a woman and her two children live in this South Loop condo with sweeping views of Grant Park and Lake Michigan. It costs her $143 a month. Taxpayers pay the rest of the rent — $2,877."
Every election she thanks the Democrats.
Everyone deserves $3,000 a month rent luxury apartments...vote it in!
"Using a Chicago Housing Authority voucher, a woman and her two children live in this South Loop condo with sweeping views of Grant Park and Lake Michigan. It costs her $143 a month. Taxpayers pay the rest of the rent — $2,877."
Every election she thanks the Democrats.
Everyone deserves $3,000 a month rent luxury apartments...vote it in!
There are no words for this kind of wasteful stupid.
About 15 years ago a neighboring city knocked down high-rise public housing apt buildings. The residents were given vouchers. Many moved in to middle income or above areas. One was the condo/townhouse complex I lived in. The crime rate in the complex increased exponentially. Teens were hanging out on street corners all hours of the early am, cars and homes were getting broken in to, women were being followed in to their homes in the evening (after getting home from work) and robbed. There was one rape reported. The basketball courts were taken over by grown men all day long. The nets were ripped off, the rims eventually followed. The tennis courts were destroyed. The playgrounds turned in to ash trays and hang outs for adults after sundown.
We were having a house built in a different town/county so we were selling and moving out anyway and didn't have to deal with it for very long.
About 5 years ago my town knocked down streets of a low-rise (garden apartments?) public housing complex. The residents were given vouchers. Many stayed in town and moved in to two specific condo-townhouse complexes, in middle income or above areas....
Guess where crime rates spiked?
15 years ago, housing executives were ignorant about how moving former public housing resident to middle income neighborhoods would affect those neighborhoods.
FWIW, middle income neighborhoods, with an increase of voucher recipients are at a much greater risks of going downhill after the residents move in because they are not as stable as a wealthier area is.
The stability of wealthier neighborhoods, diminishes the risk of poor residents having a negative affect on those areas.
FWIW, in Chicago as well, voucher holders moved initially to middle income black neighborhoods primarily on the south side of Chicago. This can be seen on the map within the article. Most voucher holders have ties to a particular area, so they are less likely to move too far from their former public housing location as a result.
Many voucher holders who moved to southside neighborhoods like Chatham and West Pullman and Washington Heights, had a negative affect on those neighborhoods WAY more than they do/did on the richer parts of town because middle income neighborhoods already have struggles, less than public housing/poverty stricken areas of course, but they do have issues in excess of wealthier areas in Chicago like the Loop.
Due to studies done on this subject, the "super" voucher program was put into place to allow specific types of voucher holders, usually elderly persons taking care of a grandchild or a foster child or just elderly couples, to move to wealthier neighborhoods. Crime rates did not increase in those areas so the program is considered a success, however; as stated, I personally feel there should be a cap on the program in regards to how much rent the government will pay in a particular area. But housing is a difficult sort of field. HUD and housing authorities will never be able to completely please the public.
But I did want to put it out there that them spending this money on vouchers is WAY less costly than managing public housing projects. CHA was a huge spender of HUD money prior to demolishing so many units. They do not spend today a fraction of what was spent in the 1980s and 1990s for housing services.
This is why I would never feel bad for struggling cities. These people only live in these cities because of the landlords begging for section 8 vouchers. Only physically disabled or seniors should be entitled to these vouchers not all these welfare queens with a half a dozen children.
I find it hillarious these liberal cities manufacture these violent crime issues and social issues by spending all this money encouraging poor women to have as many babies as they can and living in section 8 properties with a market value of $20,000 a year. They pay 30% of their income usually with the TANF money they get. What a total joke!
I also think its hillarious that these young liberals are willing pay bloated rents in these cities because of supply is being funneled to welfare queens who have a yearly pregnancy.
I know in the case housing of NYC they have over 100,000 welfare units, just imagine how much higher the vacancy rates they have have and much lower the market rate rents were to be if the government got out the free housing business.
FWIW, not only cities have an HCV program. Vouchers are all over the country and also are in rural areas and suburban areas. They just have less visibility because people don't pay as much attention to them. I primarily worked for suburban housing authorities when I was in the field but spent time with some larger cities as well as a consultant.
Also most public housing and voucher holders have no more than 2 children.
TANF only has about 2 million people on the roles nationwide so most in public housing and on vouchers are not on TANF. A large amount actually are on disability and SS due to being elderly/disabled.
NYCHA is actually a huge beast in the public housing sector. But FWIW, 100,000 units in NYC is a pretty small number compared to the expense of NYC and the population of the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowne
Residinghere, reread the article. It states the Feds are paying $35.9 million per month, not per year.
Yes I thought that my skimming amount was low!
I remember they used to spend about $500 million on HCV an it looks like with 35.9 million a month, that would be similar to what I remember.
It should be noted though that the amounts included in that total doesn't all go to rent for the residents. They are for administering the entire program for HCV, which includes required housing inspections/certifications of landlord properties and social services for the residents, so includes contracting and administration costs associated with employees and vendors/procurement. HCV funds are also used to develop new units, whereas businesses in the area get a portion of the money if they agree to accept future tenants in newly built properties.
I did search for the annual report of CHA and it looks like they had about $493 million estimated for the year 2016 for HCV/HAP (housing assistance payments). That money is used to administer the entire program.
There are no words for this kind of wasteful stupid.
This is the type of waste and abuse existent in every type of assistance program, that Conservatives want to eliminate when we advocate for cuts and reform for these programs.
Democrats hear that and somehow that turns into "Conservatives want poor children and struggling single mothers to starve and live on the streets", so no meaningful discussion on reform can take place. If a Republican brings it up, Democrats pounce and claim he/she hates poor people, minorities, children and single moms. They're exacerbating the problem by playing identity politics rather than accepting these problems exist and working to fix them.
This is the type of waste and abuse existent in every type of assistance program, that Conservatives want to eliminate when we advocate for cuts and reform for these programs.
Democrats hear that and somehow that turns into "Conservatives want poor children and struggling single mothers to starve and live on the streets", so no meaningful discussion on reform can take place. If a Republican brings it up, Democrats pounce and claim he/she hates poor people, minorities, children and single moms. They're exacerbating the problem by playing identity politics rather than accepting these problems exist and working to fix them.
FWIW, I'm not a Democrat but I will state that a large percentage of persons affected by cuts to HUD will be conservatives.
Housing is involved in A LOT of businesses in various areas, especially construction and development firms, professional consulting services, and maintenance companies.
If there was a consideration for cutting HUD funding, he cuts would be felt most by the conservative business community and IMO that would halt any sort of elimination plans of HUD and similar programs.
I feel most people don't know how involved government is in day to day business.
Oddly enough, I bet Donald Trump knows since his dad made a lot of money off of HUD housing contracts and that is how their family's fortune was made!
So he, IMO more than any other candidate, due to being involved in real estate, would not seek to eliminate HUD. It would cost him money and his friends in the business money. That is why it is funny to me that so many consider him "anti-establishment." Most wealthy businessmen have made a ton of money off of the government, especially those involved in real estate for as long as the Trump family and they will seek to "help" their friends in this regard just as much, probably moreso than a more "established" politician without those links to the intricate relationship between actual business and government.
"Using a Chicago Housing Authority voucher, a woman and her two children live in this South Loop condo with sweeping views of Grant Park and Lake Michigan. It costs her $143 a month. Taxpayers pay the rest of the rent — $2,877."
Every election she thanks the Democrats.
Everyone deserves $3,000 a month rent luxury apartments...vote it in!
insane.
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.
