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.
I'm really between on Section 8 and I'm looking for other people's people input on this situation.
First of all, can someone tell me exactly how this works?
My partner and I live in a 1 bedroom apartment. We both work fulltime jobs and we make around $70K between the 2 of us. We have 1 car, no kids..and no credit cards. So, at the end of the month we do have disposable money. (A house is planned for the future!)
We are moving when our lease is up, because there is now too much Section 8 here and the crime rate has increased. This isn't some opinion--we SEE cops here more often. We SEE the vandalsim. We SEE the weed bags all over the stairwells. We SEE the human pee in the elevator ()
I hate to generalize, but I'll be looking for places that are strictly no Section 8.
Here's where the debate part is. Why does Section 8 seem to give people so much money? I was looking on Craigslist and this lady posted an ad looking to live in a certain area (where the Section 8 voucher was good for, apparently) and would get $1300 a month for 3 bedrooms. She said she has 2 kids.
I am not against helping people. I am DEF not against helping children--but when is helping out too much? When does it cross the line?
The reason why I ask this is because..well..why should this lady and her kids live in a better and more comfortable apartment? Let's be honest here--would she NEED 3 bedrooms? I don't think so. (BTW, I am not totally focusing on this one chick, as it can refer to anyone). You can answer and say "Well, she HAS 2 kids!"..but do the kids REALLY NEED their own room?
Shouldn't help like this.. be minimal? People need a roof over their heads. They don't NEED to live in gorgeous homes/apartments. Why is there such a feeling/(demand?) of entitlement?
I just think that people whom are in crappy situations should not be living better than people whom are in better situations. How is this fair?
I'm curious as if other people share a similar view, or if I am totally out in the dark on this one.
Generally, the way it works is that she will have to be in public housing. However, there are times when public housing simply isn't available. Thats when she gets a tenant voucher. A tenant voucher guarentees so much money on the rent. Lets say, in her case its probably 700 dollars. If a landlord decides, they can take the section 8 voucher, and charge the woman the remaining 600 dollars for rent.
Then she is paying 600 a month for her rent, which she might be able to make. The problem with this is, if she can afford 600 a month, why the hell is she on section 8? She may have lied about her finances, or she may have a legitimate reason.
However, the root cause is there is limited public housing for her right now. That doesn't mean in the future there won't be.
1. You are making an invalid generalization. There is as much variation among tenants who pay for part of their rent with Section 8 as there is among homeowners who pay for part of their mortgage and property taxes with federal tax credits and deductions.
3. There is nothing in Section 8 regulations that prevents or prohibits a landlord from managing the property and evicting tenants who deal drugs or take other actions that threaten the other tenants. If your apartment building is overrun by drug dealers it is because the landlord either doesn't know about it or is choosing to allow it.
3. The Section 8 fair market rents (FMR's) are set by HUD to equal a set percentage (I think it's 80%) of the comparable rentals in the area. It's a complicated methodology, and it's set that way to avoid ghettoizing or concentrating low-income residents in certain stigmatized areas.
4. Having represented tenants for thirty years I don't think I've ever seen a tenant in a luxurious or "gorgeous" apartment. It is true, though, that because apartments in the Section 8 program are required to meed HUD housing quality standards, and are supposed to be inspected annually, they are likely to be higher quality and better maintained than housing occupied by most low income people. I don't see how this is a bad thing.
For anyone with complaints about the Section 8 program, it might be of interest to you that it started out as, and remains, a Republican program aimed at directing federal housing subsidies to private landlords and away from the government-operated public housing projects that were more common before the establishment of the Section 8 program. The changes in the program in 1994 (or was it '95--I can't remember exactly) in what was called the Quality Housing and Work Opportunity Act (you have to hand it to gingrich--he knew how to spin those bill titles) were done to make it more private landlord/private market oriented.
IOW, conservatives who don't like it should talk to their conservative representatives who set it up this way.
1. You are making an invalid generalization. There is as much variation among tenants who pay for part of their rent with Section 8 as there is among homeowners who pay for part of their mortgage and property taxes with federal tax credits and deductions.
3. There is nothing in Section 8 regulations that prevents or prohibits a landlord from managing the property and evicting tenants who deal drugs or take other actions that threaten the other tenants. If your apartment building is overrun by drug dealers it is because the landlord either doesn't know about it or is choosing to allow it.
3. The Section 8 fair market rents (FMR's) are set by HUD to equal a set percentage (I think it's 80%) of the comparable rentals in the area. It's a complicated methodology, and it's set that way to avoid ghettoizing or concentrating low-income residents in certain stigmatized areas.
4. Having represented tenants for thirty years I don't think I've ever seen a tenant in a luxurious or "gorgeous" apartment. It is true, though, that because apartments in the Section 8 program are required to meed HUD housing quality standards, and are supposed to be inspected annually, they are likely to be higher quality and better maintained than housing occupied by most low income people. I don't see how this is a bad thing.
For anyone with complaints about the Section 8 program, it might be of interest to you that it started out as, and remains, a Republican program aimed at directing federal housing subsidies to private landlords and away from the government-operated public housing projects that were more common before the establishment of the Section 8 program. The changes in the program in 1994 (or was it '95--I can't remember exactly) in what was called the Quality Housing and Work Opportunity Act (you have to hand it to gingrich--he knew how to spin those bill titles) were done to make it more private landlord/private market oriented.
IOW, conservatives who don't like it should talk to their conservative representatives who set it up this way.
Thank you for pointing those factors out. I just recently wrote a long paper regarding public housing policy which could have been summed up in these words: The US screwed up big time.
1. You are making an invalid generalization. There is as much variation among tenants who pay for part of their rent with Section 8 as there is among homeowners who pay for part of their mortgage and property taxes with federal tax credits and deductions.
3. There is nothing in Section 8 regulations that prevents or prohibits a landlord from managing the property and evicting tenants who deal drugs or take other actions that threaten the other tenants. If your apartment building is overrun by drug dealers it is because the landlord either doesn't know about it or is choosing to allow it.
3. The Section 8 fair market rents (FMR's) are set by HUD to equal a set percentage (I think it's 80%) of the comparable rentals in the area. It's a complicated methodology, and it's set that way to avoid ghettoizing or concentrating low-income residents in certain stigmatized areas.
4. Having represented tenants for thirty years I don't think I've ever seen a tenant in a luxurious or "gorgeous" apartment. It is true, though, that because apartments in the Section 8 program are required to meed HUD housing quality standards, and are supposed to be inspected annually, they are likely to be higher quality and better maintained than housing occupied by most low income people. I don't see how this is a bad thing.
For anyone with complaints about the Section 8 program, it might be of interest to you that it started out as, and remains, a Republican program aimed at directing federal housing subsidies to private landlords and away from the government-operated public housing projects that were more common before the establishment of the Section 8 program. The changes in the program in 1994 (or was it '95--I can't remember exactly) in what was called the Quality Housing and Work Opportunity Act (you have to hand it to gingrich--he knew how to spin those bill titles) were done to make it more private landlord/private market oriented.
IOW, conservatives who don't like it should talk to their conservative representatives who set it up this way.
Now would public housing be where they build up these homes and let these low/NO income families live there? But let me guess, they end up building these public in middle class areas that are usually low crime..or end up being right NEAR a high property value area. All because it seems that there is this entitlement of "We deserve to live there!".. even though they are doing nothing or very little for themselves.
I'm not against helping people. I just think there should be limits. I read about Section 8 last night, and it seems as if there is no time limit with it? Meaning..I could apply for it today at 25..and be on it forever? Wow. Help is usually much better to get better on their feet; NOT take care of them completely.
I don't know.. it's just.. we work hard for our money.. we pay our rent and bills..and we are looking to move UP from this place...and we'll end up somewhere nicer, where people will live equally like us even though they don't take care of themselves. (generally. Not all section 8 is ghetto or abuse a system)
I own rental property, and will never be part of Section 8.
The problem comes down to a simple, yet difficult human condition problem: We do not value that in which we have nothing invested.
Then you add to that the fact that, essentially, Section 8 tenants can never be "disciplined" for destroying property.
No incentive to take care of property, and no incentive to not destroy it. Nothing to lose.
Setting aside the ugly stereotyping, just a couple of points.
First, it simply is not true that Section 8 tenants can't be disciplined for destroying property. They can be evicted, just like any other tenant. I'm sure you already know this. You can also do a background and reference check, just as for any other tenant, and refuse to rent to people with bad landlord references.
Second, as the OP made clear, sometimes the landlord can wind up actually getting paid more for a Section 8 rental than for a private rental. What is more, unlike a private rental, the landlord under Section 8 is guaranteed to receive all or at least the PHA's share of the rent, on time and no questions asked (I sign about 120 of these rent checks every month), and the rent check isn't going to bounce. Are you really saying this isn't worth anything to you?
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.
)
