Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Section 8 injunction filed
Ames Tribune ^ | 12/12/2008 | Luke Jennett and Laura Millsaps

Posted on 12/12/2008 10:51:04 AM PST by PeterPrinciple

A Story County district court judge granted a temporary injunction this week barring the city from complying with a Freedom of Information Act request for the addresses of people participating in Ames' city-run Section 8 subsidized housing program.

The writ, authored by Judge Michael Moon and filed Monday, indicates that it appears the information sought by Ames resident Joe Monahan is protected under Iowa law and cannot be released, pending a full hearing into this matter on the legality of the request.

No hearing date has yet been set.

Monahan said he hadn't received the ruling, yet, but said he wasn't surprised by it.

"It's unfortunately a continuation of what I'm seeing as a reluctance by the city government to provide the information that we need as citizens to make a decision about the real cost and benefit of Section 8 housing in Ames," he said.

.............................................

(Excerpt) Read more at midiowanews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; US: Iowa
KEYWORDS: crime; iowa; section8
Things are bad enough in Ames that the police department sponsored a 1 day seminar for landlords on how to deal with the crime problem.

We are recruiting section 8 people from Chicago...........

1 posted on 12/12/2008 10:51:05 AM PST by PeterPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple

So, according to the courts here in the U.S. it is perfectly okay to release lists of names of self-sufficient citizens who happen to have concealed weapons permits, but it is ILLEGAL to release the names of leeches who suckle at the public teet.

Got it!


2 posted on 12/12/2008 10:55:17 AM PST by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple
We are recruiting section 8 people from Chicago...........

Jeez... really? There are a lot of DPs, now that the projects are sitting (were sitting) on valuable real estate. But sending them to other states?

3 posted on 12/12/2008 11:03:28 AM PST by Skid Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skid Marx

We had a study done that indicated we needed “x” number of hew residences in 20 years. They were built in five an now the big boys need them occupied.


4 posted on 12/12/2008 11:07:26 AM PST by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple

This is a good idea. This whole program is a sham and a scam.

In Portland Oregon:

I’ve heard woman brag about getting on it despite not meeting the requirements (no kids).

I know one lady who married a rich real estate developer and kept an empty house he owned as her residence to get the Section 8.

I know of another woman with no kids and a substantial off the books income who gets almost total subsidized rent via the program.

Shedding light on who is getting freebies is a great idea. There needs to be some downside to taking Welfare.


5 posted on 12/12/2008 11:24:48 AM PST by Jack Black (ping can't be a tag line, can it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

Names of everyone receiving “entitlements” should be published online and monthly in a local newspaper.

There should also be monthly drug testing for anyone getting any benefit from the government with a strict zero tolerance policy. Lifetime barring from government employment and any benefit (except social security, etc> that is bought into) for even a single positive test.


6 posted on 12/12/2008 11:28:12 AM PST by Travis T. OJustice (Change is not a destination, just as hope is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple

Very, very interesting. Thanks for posting.


7 posted on 12/12/2008 11:31:37 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis T. OJustice
Lifetime barring from government employment and any benefit (except social security, etc> that is bought into) for even a single positive test.

That's right -- one strike and you're out. Becuz drugs tests have a zero chance of error*

*The kind of thinking that leads a certain type of right winger to be rightfully labeled an idiot.

8 posted on 12/12/2008 11:34:22 AM PST by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurtureĀ™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
One of the sticking points of honoring the information request, Parks said, was that some Section 8 housing recipients have protection orders in place, and releasing address information may put those clients' safety in jeopardy.

"We don't ask for that information when they apply," Parks said, "and they are not required to tell us, so we don't know which Section 8 recipients have them. There is a real risk people could be hurt by the release of that information."

Too funny. They're worried about releasing that kind of info (protection order) - but they don't ask about that info when they screen an applicant. Bizarro World.

If you read the article again you'll notice the plaintiff isn't even asking for the names of these Section 8 people. Only their addresses. Which makes this whole denial exercise by the Ames government even more bizarre.

9 posted on 12/12/2008 11:54:57 AM PST by VeniVidiVici (All hail the Obamasiah! Kneel before Obamohammad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici
...the plaintiff isn't even asking for the names of these Section 8 people. Only their addresses. Which makes this whole denial exercise by the Ames government even more bizarre.

I wonder how much federal housing money gets spread around in programs like this. And who profits thereby? It seems like someone's going out of his way to make this as easy as possible to do.

10 posted on 12/12/2008 12:02:31 PM PST by Skid Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple

If you do not want on the list of people taking taxpayer money, then do not take it.


11 posted on 12/12/2008 12:26:04 PM PST by Mark was here (The earth is bipolar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve86

Reliability is not much of a problem, and false positives are very rare. A simple blood test and a hair test would easily verify any appeal.

Being a druggie really makes people not just look like idiots, but BECOME true idiots.

I don’t give a damn if somebody wants to do drugs or alcohol, whatever, and wreck their own life. This is the USA, afterall. I just don’t feel anyone else, especially taxpayers, should have to pay for it.


12 posted on 12/12/2008 12:28:45 PM PST by Travis T. OJustice (Change is not a destination, just as hope is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Skid Marx

...the plaintiff isn’t even asking for the names of these Section 8 people. Only their addresses. Which makes this whole denial exercise by the Ames government even more bizarre.
I wonder how much federal housing money gets spread around in programs like this. And who profits thereby? It seems like someone’s going out of his way to make this as easy as possible to do.”

The owners of properties who take Section 8 recipients are ASSURED of their rent money.
They charge a rate that really equals this:
The 80% that the Government pays is the real amount of rent that the unit would/should draw on the open market, with renters that have a good rating and have left a decent track record for landlords. The 20% that is to come from the renter (Section 8 beneficiary) is often not collected in a timely manner, and the unit gets a much higher turnover.
The costs of cleaning up the units and repairing the damages these savages create is another part of renting to Section 8 persons. Hence, the rent goes up some more.

The persons who are supposed to properly screen Section 8 renters are poorly equipped, and usually are bleeding heart liberals who think everyone should have a “home of their own”. Those jobs should be filled with much stronger personalties, who know how to spot the troublemakers.

I have seen what Section 8 housing areas do to the surrounding community, and it ain’t pretty.

In San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles, a “low income” housing development was built at Tampa and Parthenia.
Within a year of it opening, the Section 8 people who were somewhat decent had left, due to the drug gangs running the place. I witnessed LARGE, grown, experienced motorcycle cops who refused to go into that complex in broad daylight. A nurse at Northridge Hospital said that at least one body a day came out of there, quite often in variable sized pieces, hard to identify. It was a jungle- a block square.
Some fool decided a Jeremiah’s Restaurant needed to be built across the street on the Parthenia side. Went there once, and I knew they couldn’t keep patrons safe from the contamination of the “low income housing”. It failed. It should have. Whoever chose that location should not be allowed to work as the sign-turner on a road project, IMO.

The scams of Low Income Housing are beyond a listing I have time for. Lower taxes — breaks on the permits—breakdown of values of the adjoining neighborhood—more crime and intense coverage required in that area, which leaves rest of area uncovered by sheriff’s deputies, etc.
No matter how much the developer tries to “dress it up”, it is still a quagmire.
The public is the one who gets beat over the head.
We pay, pay, pay, and pay, and we get vermin forced into our neighborhoods, regardless of how nice we try to keep our properties. It is instant blight, IMO.
When I finally left the area of this housing project, I was reduced to trying to sleep at night with a fan running for “white noise” so I couldn’t hear the police helicopter and the gunshots.
I don’t miss it a bit. I will NEVER go back. Have 2 couples I have to pull from there, and will be able to do that within 3 years, I hope. They are tired of living with a bunker mentality.


13 posted on 12/12/2008 1:14:39 PM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple

I hope the more conservative areas of the country will start backing away from the big government Lyndon Johnson boondoggles such as section 8. People have to let their local leaders know that they do not want section 8, or housing projects or subsidized housing. Even elderly housing causes problems because they take people out of existing housing causing many vacancies. A city around here went big time for elderly housing. I would say there may be about 1000 units of elderly housing in a city of 100,000. Some parts of the cities have become slum-like as a transient population has filled those apartments that were occupied by the older residents. Many 2 family homes in this city were owned by the older residents who maintained their homes and were careful who they rented them to. Now that many of these owner occupied homes have been sold to landlords who do not live on the property, the crime rate has gone up. Owner occupied homes anchor the neighborhoods and keep crime and blight down.


14 posted on 03/16/2009 9:13:42 PM PDT by cradle of freedom (Long live the Republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson