Posted on 07/05/2005 10:47:31 AM PDT by marylandrepub1
In my last neighborhood which had incredible section 8 problems, I found a study on HUD's web site that reviewed the reasons folks were granted the rental vouchers. Fully 65% were single mothers living at their parents' home who wanted a place of their own.
While that is a nice goal, I would hardly think it is a reason for tax dollar intervention. Sorry, I lost the link to that ages ago.
"what is 'affordable housing' to you? "
SUN said $200,000 for what would normally go for $400,000. At the same time the county has raised our county income taxes (to the maximum allowable limit) to pay for new roads and schools for all the new housing. Of course they can’t ask the developer to pay for these new requirements caused by them directly because that would make those houses less affordable. And people taking advantage of the program are less likely to pay income taxes. In fact most developments here are forced to put aside a few units for affordable housing.
I think that's part of the problem. If 'the church' were doing its job, there would be much less need for the welfare types of government program.
Conversly, why would a government program be created in the first place if not to fill a need that the private sector is not doing a good job with?
Seems to me that some of us don't want our tax dollars being spent to help the less fortunate, but we're not very generous with our time or charity dollars either (and I do feel that these welfare programs are evil in so much as they give people a justification to be less generous with their time and charity....)
We bought the first condo of four available and the other owners are going to code their buildings over the next 3-5 years. Our hope is that in the end over half to three quarters of the buildings are condos. Its a small risk for my wife and I but one we are willing to take. That and the fact we got it stripped out dirt cheap, we paid a fair price in the end but we picked everything out (wood floors, large kitchen cabinets, ...)
The reason these owners are going to condos? (1) They smell the end of the housing boom, it may not contract but it cant keep going like this. (2) They rent section eight for a year and then have to completely redo their apartments, things are broken, taken, or so filthy that they need a professional cleaning service. (3) Some of them live in their buildings and deal with the out of control kids, the apathetic parents, the noise late at night, the broken bottles, etc..
The could probably get away with renting to someone like us for 900$ (when we left our last apartment any damage to the apartment (nail holes in wall, dings, that kid of stuff) was well withing hte sec deposit and the place was as clean as a whistle (hours of cleaning). But when you have to put more than a thousand into a place to make it rent-able again after someone moves out its not worth it..
Section 8 could work if someone somewhere could figure out a reasonable way to provide accountability. Maybe your allowance should be based on what a landlord rates you (or the average of your last two/three). So if you're a good tenant you can keep the full allowance, if not you'll have to find a place thats not so nice and rents cheaper. I know that sec-8 is kinda like the voucher program in that it keeps government from being in the business of building housing and just provides money to someone else willing to take that burden on.
Im sorry have bush or the Republicans actually shrunk a budget yet?
Don't you mean "in tents of purposes"? ;^)
UGH! Warning. Warm coffee up your nose is no fun.
Your a socialist aren't you.
Yeah right. That's why I was one of the earliest members of FR, since 1998. Because I am a socialist. Sticks and stones, and all that rot. You're just heartless. Get that 80 year old out there on the chain gang.
then the church should take care of them. Again the church should be behaving as it was originally intended. SO many church's have gone astray.
Then obviously, according to you, the churc won't be there for them, and they still will be without help. You may or may not have family to help you. Of course, you could just send them out on an ice flow like the Eskimo's used to do in the olden days, to die.
You're correct that it's not the government's job to take care of people in this way. But you also have to allow for the effect of 70 years of New Deal socialism. You can't blame anyone for playing the game according to the rules in place at the time.
In the long term of course, this is an arena in which the government shouldn't be involved, like education, but you can't bait and switch people who've been living under this set of rules their whole lives.
So if people are dying in the streets there is no role for government? Which government are you talking about? All of them? State? Federal?
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.