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.
Again, you cannot rent to HCV residents unless your property has been inspected an approved as a Section 8 eligible unit.
You don't have to sign paperwork stating you "didn't want" to rent to Section 8 tenants by law. If it occurred it was probably some property management specific paperwork as many management companies actually will have your property inspected/approved to be HCV and give you HCV tenants if you want. They know what to do to speed up the approval process.
In regards to the bold about your "friend" that situation is common regardless of whether you rent to Section 8 tenants or not. I worked for a property management company that also worked for housing authorities and we had market rate tenants who trashed places and who were neighbors from "hell" for our other tenants. That is the risk you take when you rent out your property to anyone. FWIW, we had more issues with our market rate tenants versus HCV tenants in regards to housekeeping in particular whereas they would trash places or be hoarders and we would have to call in haz-mat cleaning crews when they moved in order to clean out apartments.
And again on Montgomery County, they do not make every landlord accept Section 8. HCV/Section 8 is a federal program that has basic requirements on the parts of landlords and one is that the landlord has to apply to the program, have their property be inspected, and be approved to be a Section 8/HCV landlord. Any run of the mill landlord with a property cannot accept a voucher because they have to be entered into a housing authorities AP system in order to be cut a check for the subsidy. MoCo has a local regulation that landlords cannot discriminate based on "source of income." A voucher is considered a source of income and if an applicant applies to an HCV approved location with a voucher, they cannot be denied solely because they have a Section 8 voucher. That is the gist of the situation in that area.
Also what the other poster told you above is correct in that landlords create their own lease and their own (within local landlord/tenant laws) guidelines for their tenants. They also can use various screening tools on HCV applicants/residents same as they use for market rate tenants. As long as you have appropriate screening in place, you should not have many issues with HCV residents.
This is correct. You do not have to rent to someone just because they have a voucher. If they have a criminal background, bad credit, ever got evicted, etc, you do not have to rent to them. Nothing says you "have" to rent to anyone with a voucher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Beagle
I agree.
All forms of government assistance should be designed so that they are as unpleasant as possible. By that I mean that there should be nothing enjoyable about the assistance so that there is no incentive to stay on assistance. In the case of food, provide only the bare essentials needed to survive. No brand name goods, no luxuries. Plain bread, peanut butter, powdered milk, eggs, government cheese, beans, canned vegetables and that's about it. Even that might be too generous. The worst thing is to give them a card to let them choose what they want.
For housing build cinderblock dorms with community bathrooms and the same furnishings used at prisons. The worst thing we can do if we want people off of assistance is to subsidize them to have a nice place that is similar to one that a working person is busting their butt to pay for.
Despite the links that I provided, some people here still insist on acting like the majority getting help are abusing the system, living off of it for years, living in the lap of luxury, and laughing about it every day. Yes, there indeed are people who abuse the system - and yes, for any liberal to deny that, like they love to do on these forums with all of their "but what if" bs, is bs. Nonetheless, that does not mean all or even a majority are abusing it and "living the life" like some of you seem to think is happening.
Frankly I believe that many who are getting assistance are not out there bragging about it, making videos about it, and they certainly are not enjoying it. Have you all ever seen some of the places that accept section 8? Who the hell would want to live in some of those places?
And please, go through those links again to see a) who is getting these hand outs b) how long they are on them on average and c) what they're actually getting. They aren't getting as much as some of you think they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
You engaged in a personal attack which means you have no valid argument.
Tell me, how does one do a credit check on illegal aliens? After all, once they birth an anchor baby, the whole family is eligible for a Section 8 voucher. After all, illegal aliens don't have SSNs. Why are parents of anchor babies even allowed to get Section 8 vouchers if there is no way anyone can do a proper credit check on them?
So, are you familiar with Section 8 laws all over the country?
All I know is that we were give the option to say we didn't want any Section 8 tenants. We were also told by a very experienced property manager that there are jurisdictions that don't give you the option of saying you don't want any Section 8 tenants. So, in other words, by signing a paper that said we don't want any Section 8 tenants, then that means Section 8 tenants won't be looking at our property. So, yes, we did have the opportunity to refuse renting our home to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
If you don't like the link I posted, there are others out there that say the same thing.
Once an illegal alien births an anchor baby, due to said baby, the family is eligible for all sorts of welfare programs, including Section 8.
So...if landlords are allowed to do credit checks on potential Section 8 tenants, then explain how so many Section 8 tenants end up trashing their places and/or bring crime to a neighborhood?
Just because you get a voucher does not mean you automatically have a place to live. You have to go out and find that place to live. There may be a worker who will help you find a place, or you can find it on your own, but you still have to apply for the place. The landlord does NOT have to take you.
First of all, you don't get "free" housing. A voucher is a certain amount of money. More often than not, that voucher is NOT going to pay the full rent for even one of the cheapest places you can find. You're still having to pay something.
Second of all, by getting a voucher, it simply means that the government (tax payers) will be paying a portion of the rent. It does not mean that suddenly you have a right to a place. You are still out there in the open market, you still have to apply, you are still scrutinized just like anyone else who does not have a voucher.
If you have a criminal record - your choices of where to live are extremely small, and they are NOT in the nice areas.
If you have ever been evicted - a landlord does not have to take you just like they don't have to take anyone without a voucher.
If you have bad credit - a landlord does not have to take you just like they don't have to take anyone without a voucher.
An illegal with an anchor baby is also not guaranteed a place to live. Just because someone has children, it does not mean that they are guaranteed a place.
All that the government does is decide whether someone is eligible or ineligible for a voucher. Eligibility usually is determined on how much someone is making. It is usually determined on someone's current housing situation (ie: are they homeless). Yes, if they have kids, they can be moved further up the list, but don't for a second think that getting a voucher is easy. People wait for YEARS to get a voucher. The waiting lists are ridiculously long. When the time finally comes that they are at the top of the list, it simply means that they now have a voucher. It does NOT mean that they now have a place to live. They have to actually put the work in to find a place to live.
They will have people who will try to help them by dealing with landlords, putting their names on the line, etc. And just like with any tenant, not all people are good tenants. That is not just a Section 8 tenant thing, that's any tenant. There's people who live in really nice areas who kick holes in the walls, destroy the property, have loud parties, commit crimes, etc. If everyone who was not on Section 8 was such a fantastic tenant, I probably wouldn't have moved so many times in my life getting away from crappy tenants who are loud, obnoxious, trashy, etc. Stop acting like only Section 8 tenants are disgusting pigs who commit crimes all day. As has been stated on here, I'll bet that you, and others on here, have lived right next door to Section 8 people and had no. idea. None.
All that is happening is that these people get approved for a voucher. The voucher is not a golden ticket. It doesn't do a thing for them if they have a bad background. And if they do happen to be a lousy tenant, because there are lousy poor tenants, there are lousy wealthier tenants, they get taken out of that home (after given a chance to clean up their act if it wasn't too bad what they did), or they get taken off the program. You can indeed lose your vouchers by being a complete and utter f up.
I'm going to bet that most people here who claim to know where all of the section 8 housing is, don't actually know. I'm going to bet that most of them are assuming. There's section 8 in terrible areas, and there's section 8 in nicer areas, right next door to you...and you'll never know it.
Now, having said all of that, this is something that should scare anyone, even liberals:
It's about AFFH that was brought up earlier. This is overreach...and it needs to be stopped. November is our last opportunity to stop it. I think most people are not aware of this, and I think most people need to be aware of it. At no time should the Federal Government get to tell cities how to zone. There's a debate in the CA forum about Santa Monica not wanting hi-rises .... most of them are liberals who don't want it, (although I completely do understand it) ... I wonder what they think about AFFH? Because it won't matter what they want if this is allowed to slide under the radar and no one stops it.
It's about AFFH that was brought up earlier. This is overreach...and it needs to be stopped. November is our last opportunity to stop it. I think most people are not aware of this, and I think most people need to be aware of it. At no time should the Federal Government get to tell cities how to zone. There's a debate in the CA forum about Santa Monica not wanting hi-rises .... most of them are liberals who don't want it, (although I completely do understand it) ... I wonder what they think about AFFH? Because it won't matter what they want if this is allowed to slide under the radar and no one stops it.
I had heard of AFFH recently. The link you posted goes into more details about it . Truthfully, it gave me the chills. Of course, the MSM is working hard to keep this all under wraps. Interesting, how it turned Westchester County republican. Let's hope this gets stopped.
As for Section 8 and ADUs --- where I live, developers are required to set aside 10% of the housing as ADUs. In a townhouse development near where I live, what they did was take some end unit homes and divided them into 2 separate houses. While the other houses were larger with either a 2 car garage or 2 parking spots and some bells and whistles, the ADUs, called "villa homes" get street parking. When they were new, they were selling at half the cost of the other homes. Also, developers tend to not advertise that they have ADUs available because should those homes not sell, they will just sell them at regular market rates. In some cases, the ADUs are set aside for civil servants such as teachers, police officers and firefighters.
As I mentioned previously, I have a friend who used to live in a townhouse. The house next door to her was a Section 8 rental. Through the years, the tenants were a mixed bag. Sometimes she had good neighbors, other times, not. In fact, when a good neighbor moved out, she used to worry about who will take their place. I remember her telling me about one of the bad neighbors---at one point some members of a biker gang rented the house. When they moved out, it was discovered that they had been parking their bikes in the living room. Something happened with one of the bikes that left a huge burn mark on the wall that bordered my friend's house!
The places are bad in the first place because the people who live there
are Section 8 types of people.
They live in formerly working class neighborhoods from the pre-welfare age,
which had beautifully manicured lawns and stately homes that have fallen into
disrepair and crime when the working class moved out into the suburbs.
The same neighborhoods that were clean and safe are crime-ridden and dirty
because the people are different, not the buildings.
This is a great point. It reminds me of how we hear that the "streets are violent". There is nothing inherently violent about a street. It all depends on the people. Same applies to neighborhoods.
For those who can afford the tuition. But that doesn't solve the other problems.
Fences and gates will help.
I believe the wave of the future is going to be enclosed communities paid for by the residents. All privately owned so they can control who comes and goes.
It's pretty simple. Obama wants suburban wealth for inner city problems.
Read: Spreading The Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs To Pay For The Cities
"As for the basics, the president plans to abolish the suburbs in three gradual steps: 1. Force suburban residents into densely packed cities by blocking development in the outskirts of metropolitan areas, and then discourage driving with a blizzard of taxes, fees and regulations. 2. Move the poor out of the cities by imposing low-income housing quotas. 3. Export a “regional tax-base sharing†scheme whereby a portion of the money flows into a common regional pot, “redistributed to urban and a few “less well off outer ring suburbs.â€
Young affluent Americans are flocking to the inner city in waves. The government isn't forcing anyone. The poor need someplace to go. Suburbs is the answer.
It's actually gotten worse in the past 20 years in case you haven't noticed. The point made was that this is not a racial issue it's an economic one - although the article I linked to calls it a class issue.
It doesn't take much searching to find current articles indicating there are major problems with section 8 housing, and it doesn't take a large number of section 8 housing to destroy a community.
Oh, I see. Make it a problem in upper class areas so the middle class and blue collar areas won't have a problem. That solves everything.
Again, as I stated, the majority of HCV residents stay in the inner city. They can live where they want. Most don't want to live in the suburbs so it is silly of you to think that they are coming to either blue collar or wealthy suburbs in droves. They are not. Less than 20% of them do, in some areas only around 10% of them do.
Again, HCV residents do not "destroy" communities. There are few published reputable "articles" that cite studies done on HCV. If you want to find out that information, you should review reports created by local housing authorities, housing agencies outside of government, and colleges/universities.
When working it this field I had to review a lot of information regarding HCV and as I have stated throughout the thread, there are some things I don't like about it, however, it is ridiculous to generalize millions of people as criminally minded bad seeds, especially when a large percent of HCV residents are elderly and another large percent are disabled persons and those who are families (either two parent or single parents) with children, are not any worse than a market rate tenant as long as landlords do their background checks and screen appropriately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
I had heard of AFFH recently. The link you posted goes into more details about it . Truthfully, it gave me the chills. Of course, the MSM is working hard to keep this all under wraps. Interesting, how it turned Westchester County republican. Let's hope this gets stopped.
As for Section 8 and ADUs --- where I live, developers are required to set aside 10% of the housing as ADUs. In a townhouse development near where I live, what they did was take some end unit homes and divided them into 2 separate houses. While the other houses were larger with either a 2 car garage or 2 parking spots and some bells and whistles, the ADUs, called "villa homes" get street parking. When they were new, they were selling at half the cost of the other homes. Also, developers tend to not advertise that they have ADUs available because should those homes not sell, they will just sell them at regular market rates. In some cases, the ADUs are set aside for civil servants such as teachers, police officers and firefighters.
As I mentioned previously, I have a friend who used to live in a townhouse. The house next door to her was a Section 8 rental. Through the years, the tenants were a mixed bag. Sometimes she had good neighbors, other times, not. In fact, when a good neighbor moved out, she used to worry about who will take their place. I remember her telling me about one of the bad neighbors---at one point some members of a biker gang rented the house. When they moved out, it was discovered that they had been parking their bikes in the living room. Something happened with one of the bikes that left a huge burn mark on the wall that bordered my friend's house!
On the bold, that also is not true. Developers are never "required" to have any set asides.
However, many developers utilize tax credits in order to build new apartment communities. They usually go out and seek those tax credits and are happy to set aside a certain percent based on their receiving credits. They are never forced or required. They actually have to apply and have their application be acceptance, which is a lengthy process.
ETA: On AFFH, it is actually not a new mandate to integrate communities based on class integration. It provides various tools to local governments who accept HUD funds to utilize tracking software, primarily GIS related and to see the trends that occur once specific housing initiatives are put into place. I remember that last year someone posted the same article as mentioned in the post of which you replied. I will add though that the blurb below is true about HUD. If you take their money, you are obligated to follow their rules. This goes back to the information you posted about landlords being "forced" to take Section 8 tenants. Section 8/HCV is money that comes directly from HUD. HUD has to approve and accept landlords into their program. They cannot make you take their money, but if you do, you have to follow their rules/guidelines.
Quote:
municipalities across the country need to seriously consider refraining from applying for Community Development Block Grants and other grant programs sponsored by HUD. Take one dollar of HUD money and you will be forced to submit to its demands
Last edited by residinghere2007; 06-09-2016 at 06:41 AM..
What you build, they will break.
Have you ever been a landlord ? Try spending thousands of dollars on these
homes where Section 8 crowd lives. They ruin the houses. Most of them
have disobedient children, partying boyfriends, no care for electrical or plumbing,
no regard for the proper operation of a household.
You build, they break... it gets to the point where they are just so darn
difficult to evict, you just give up and let them have the run of the joint.
How about just letting landlords decide whom to rent to, instead of government picking winners and losers?
This is correct. You do not have to rent to someone just because they have a voucher. If they have a criminal background, bad credit, ever got evicted, etc, you do not have to rent to them. Nothing says you "have" to rent to anyone with a voucher.
If someone has a lengthy track record of always paying rent on time, how is credit relevant?
If someone has a lengthy track record of always paying rent on time, how is credit relevant?
I recently attended a CE class whereby the instructor made the case for why a credit check should not matter given the applicant is not paying most of the rent. It was food for thought.
The same instructor also mentioned that it's rare for a voucher holder to be evicted for failure to pay rent for the obvious reason that government is picking up the tab.
( I do not have any first hand experience with renting as there are few rental units available in my market. )
I recently attended a CE class whereby the instructor made the case for why a credit check should not matter given the applicant is not paying most of the rent. It was food for thought.
The same instructor also mentioned that it's rare for a voucher holder to be evicted for failure to pay rent for the obvious reason that government is picking up the tab.
( I do not have any first hand experience with renting as there are few rental units available in my market. )
I agree that credit checking is not always a great tool in reviewing applicants, but I do think it is useful.
Too often today though credit issues occur from a loss of employment only, not because the person is just horrible with money. Most families now live paycheck to paycheck and if a loss of income occurs, their credit will automatically suffer.
On voucher holders and evictions, it is true it is rare for an HCV tenant to be evicted for non-payment. This is primarily due to the fact that HCV tenants usually pay their rent. All tenants are required to pay 30% of the rent of their unit. The government pays the other 70%.
If the landlord doesn't get the full amount (100%) the tenant can get evicted. It does happen, but is very rare. FWIW, the few times I saw it occur it was due to job loss as mentioned above. However, due to being HCV program participants, tenants can apply for temporary hardships if they lose a job whereas the government will pay their entire rental amount for a short period of time (usually 3 months or less). They have to let the authority know about their situation and apply for this additional assistance. The few I know who did get evicted due to non-payment, for some reason just didn't go to apply. I personally felt that one of them didn't due to some pretty severe mental illness. I always wonder what happened to that person afterwards.
In regards to public housing, you'd be surprised how many people are evicted for non-payment. I remember when I first started working in the field, I was shocked that people were evicted fro not paying rent when it was $20-$25 a month in public housing. We evicted a lot of public housing residents, much moreso than HCV. FWIW, they also could apply for temporary hardships mentioned above. I just thought it outrageous that someone would be kicked out for $75! Unfortunately, I even personally know people who were kicked out of public housing for not paying $75-$150 for 3 months of rent.
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.
After all, illegal aliens don't have SSNs. Why are parents of anchor babies even allowed to get Section 8 vouchers if there is no way anyone can do a proper credit check on them?
