Posted on 07/05/2005 10:47:31 AM PDT by marylandrepub1
They live in the cities and heavily populated areas because those are the areas that are heavily involved with disbursing government giveaways. These are the 'progressive' governments that will pay for up to 90% of the rent required for homes in areas that have houses regularly selling for 750K-1M+ (I know because I moved from an area like that nearly 2 years ago). I'm not saying they're getting the expensive houses, but they're getting the 20-30 year old houses that are interspersed between the expensive ones. They can't afford to live in these areas and usually drive older cars and work in the local service industries (if they're unlucky enough to be made to actually work).
It's disgusting, particularly in the area I used to live. It was once the district of Newt Gingrich, and I've always felt that HUD targeted the area with Section 8 'renters' as a form of revenge.
The program is an insult to people that have worked hard for what they have and only benefits those who don't have enough respect to even try to take care of what they're been outright GIVEN.
No No NO!....We must eliminate inequality..Reverse the Bell Curve, make the poor rich etc etc etc ...../sarcasm
"I could care less."
LOL... well, you just go right ahead, then. Don't let us slow you down one little bit, bless your heart.
If some "tenant" Starts cooking methamphetmine in your rental house, you may as well burn it down, because you will never be able to rent it out again unless you tear every wall out and re -insulate and drywall the entire place.
Those "how to be your own millionare" shows where they tell you the glory's of investing in rental properties never tell you the downside of the business. It can cause you to go find a second job to pay for all the repairs a couple bad tenants can cause. You are better off to fix and sell, but even then the law varies from state to state on how many homes you can 'flip' a year without getting a realestate brokers licience.
We provided highrises, they couldn't live there. We provided single-family rowhomes, they couln't live there. The government forcibly moved them into neighborhoods well above their socioeconomic class, and it's clear they can't live there.
'44' THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER MODERN VERSION:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1436984/posts?page=44#44
Yes. In New York City, you have Section 8ers in some cases living on the same block or building with folks paying $2,000+ per month for the same apartments. Landlords are starting to bail out due to continued high demand and the "expiration" of rent controlled tenants.
We have HUD houses here on Long Island NY for about 20 years.
You're probably thinking of gov't subsidized homes - the same which have been around in the Philly area for a long time. I don't know if they actually "owned" their own homes in that program... They're more like rentals, like the Section 8 the Dems are complaining about cutting.
But I'm talking about a more recent program - wherein people can take a voucher to go "buy" a home anywhere.
The home ownership voucher program was (from what I read) a Republican idea. Bush was for extending it in 2000, and he promoted it during his first term. Here's more from an article dated 2002:
QUOTE: "An estimated 400,000 minority and immigrant families seeking home ownership will receive assistance from America's NeighborWorks® organizations over the next decade as part of the initiative announced today by President Bush."
Link:
http://www.nw.org/network/newsroom/pressReleases/061702.asp
So, he extended the whole idea even further to home ownership - they can buy it with taxpayer help, and the home is theirs. You can't get them kicked out. That's why I'm sarcastically thanking him. And amused at Dem's complaint that he's cutting Section 8, when look at this other big-spending, big gov't program he created.
I voted for him, too, doesn't mean I agree with everything.
Oops, that's not a link to the right program.
Finding one...
Great big fat ol' AMEN. Without exception, the dealers and prostitutes in my neighborhood live in Section 8 rentals: without exception. These scum are making a pretty good living through illegal activity, and those of us who play by the rules are stuck with the bill. On top of it, if and when my family tries to sell, we're going to have a difficult time because one of these properties is right next door.
A case study on the "benefits" of Section 8 is the south suburbs of Chicago. In less than 20 years an entire swath of bedroom communities was transformed into an area with little or no economic growth, with bloated populations of shiftless and urban poor with no usuable skills. Crime rates skyrocketed along with all the other things that go hand in hand. One-half of all the Section 8 certificates in the entire county are located in just 2 ZIP code areas of the south county. The caring 'Rats dumped all their problems way far away from their own homes, and destroyed a vast area in the process.
Kudos go to Mayor Dummy of Chicago, who dynamited all the large urban jungles there and dumped the occupants into the south burbs.
"in Massachusetts the landlord can reject Section 8 people if he lives on the property."
This I believe is Iowa law also although you probably would have to dig pretty deep to find it. If you as owner live on the property, you can discriminate. There was a rule as to how many units, think it went up to a four plex.
This was printed very clearly in my old tenant landlord book. In the last few editions it is somehow NOT included. I don't think the law has been changed but need to check on this.
Sorry, here's a correct link:
http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/hcv/homeownership/#19
And another one:
http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=housing+vouchers+bush&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&u=www.city-journal.org/html/eon_02_11_04hh.html&w=housing+vouchers+bush&d=4F1AE01377&icp=1&.intl=us
The home ownership voucher program was supposed to be a better version of section 8. (barf)
stop the grammar policing. It is a mute point . . .
"It is a mute point"
So you say, but what about me?
One thing we've learned in our 'hood: It's all about the follow up.
It doesn't matter how many times you call LO regarding a problem property if LO does not fill out an incident report after the call. Many communities have "nuisance properties" addressed in their codes: X number of calls to a certain property within Y time frame can get the tenants evicted and the house boarded. In Lansing, it is three calls within 90 days, equaling a 6-month "red tag" of the house. The catch: the officers who respond MUST fill out an incident report.
The best way to get them to do this is to drive their captain batty with calls following the incident. It takes some time, but in the long run, it can have some great results.
My wife ran an apartment complex which accepted Section 8.
It was rediculous. Forgive my ire, but it struck me as odd that here were people who were living in $600 a month apartments (paid for in varying degrees by Uncle Sam) who had SUV's, Big Screen TV's, and various other examples of what we'd call luxuries.
And of course there were some, probably 1/3 of the population, who pretty much figured they weren't paying for it, so who gave a crap what condition it was in when they left.
Ay, the stories she can tell...
= /
Sigh... Ignore that second link in my last post. That's not correct either. I can't find more info right now, other than the HUD website.
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.