[marylandrepub1]

See how having a government(Baltimore City) that is incapable of functioning can actually help us. Don't forget that the mean old Bush administration is responsible.

Check out how section 8 rental vouchers has helped out in Ellicott City Maryland(west of Baltimore)in the following link. This apartment complex below is hidden in one of the best suburbs in Maryland. Thanks to vouchers our children can see the results of the progressive-welfare culture first hand(maybe it's not so bad.)

GREAT STORY :::

http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?show=localnews&pnpID=573&NewsID=629965&CategoryID=742&on=1

[Red Badger]

WHERE ARE THESE PEOPLE LIVING NOW? UNDER BRIDGES?.......

[sure_fine]

try that agin

http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?show=localnews&pnpID=573&NewsID=629965&CategoryID=742&on=1

[untrained skeptic]

So Baltimore's government is incompetent, the Bush administration changes the program to route money to where it's actually being used, but lets Baltimore keep unused funds so they can try a different approach that might work better.

They got $50,000,000 that they didn't have to give back, and the same number of vouchers they actually used last year. That's a $50,000,000 funding increase over what they spent last year.

Yet it's "the Bush administration, which has not been subtle about its disregard for housing the poor".

This "journalist" works very hard at blaming the Bush administration, and still fails miserably.

This person also ignores the fact that the federal government is making funds available and that the local and state governments aren't making use of those funds.

"City Housing Commissioner Paul T. Graziano rightly laments that the funding formula does not count voucher-holders actively looking for housing"

The number of vouchers used accounts for people who were actively looking for housing before the start of the time period that found housing during that time period. Counting both those who found housing during the time period as well as those still looking would artificially inflate the numbers.

The reporter is buying into pure B. S. excuses.

"or consider that voucher payments have not kept pace with the city's rental market"

Well, I guess the state and local governments need to step in and make up the difference, or subsidize housing development for this type of housing through tax breaks to developers and rental companies to lower the cost to those receiving the vouchers.

The federal government is making money available, and the local government isn't taking full advantage of it due to mismanagement, or an unwillingness to spend local tax dollars to contribute to the program.

Who's showing a disregard for the poor?

"It also ignores Baltimore's aging housing stock - much of it below federal housing standards - and a regionwide shortage of affordable housing that led to increased voucher requests."

Urban renewal programs and tax breaks to encourage development are the way to address this. The federal government propping up the low end housing market in Baltimore by increasing subsidies is not.

Baltimore simply isn't doing it's share to deal with the issue.

"Baltimore law does not require landlords with available apartments to accept rent vouchers"

You mean the government doesn't require someone to "rent" their personal property at low rates to people who are a high risk of damaging that property and don't have the finical ability to pay for damages? Oh, the horror of the government not basically confiscating private property.

"nor is the city permitted by HUD regulations to increase voucher payment for tenants who find pricier apartments."

Do HUD regulations prohibit the state or local government from supplementing the vouchers with their funds, or do they only limit how much can be given to an applicant from the federal funds in the form of a voucher? I'm guessing it's the latter.

Even if it's not, local governments can significantly lower the price the renters pay by giving tax breaks to those who rent the apartments.

"Still, HABC can do better and should, especially because it won't have to return $50 million in unused voucher program funds, as required under HUD regulations."

So the solution to a lack of commitment at a local level is to give them a $50,000,000 grant to figure out a more flexible program. That may work, but there needs to be some accountability. To often such grants end up in the hands of lobbyists disguised as consultants who will spend money on "research" and then present their predetermined plan which mainly benefits them.

"HABC's priority should be to ensure that the majority of the $50 million grant goes to providing housing to the waiting families."

It definitely should be. Anyone have much faith that is what will happen?

[PeterPrinciple]

A 2004 audit report by HUD's inspector general contends that the city housing authority has not "effectively and efficiently managed" its voucher program to ensure full use of the available money from HUD. As a result, HABC's annual voucher funding will be less than needed.



The goal is to ensure full use of the funds whether needed or not.