BlitzerRadic
Member
Landlords don't want section 8 because it has developed a reputation of screwing over the landlord.
A Texas bill would give neighborhoods the right to veto low-income housing
- Thread starter WedgeX
- Start date
- Status
Landlords don't want section 8 because it has developed a reputation of screwing over the landlord.
Hephaestus
Member
While people of low income need places to live, I have been on the other side. I bought a townhouse in a brand new developed area in Edmonton. Everybody else that bought were blue collar middle-ish class give or take. Since everyone else also worked 10-12 hour days the place was always dead quiet I loved that. 3 years in, low cost housing was built literally across the street, From that point forwards it was non-stop police cars, ambulances, screaming and broken glass so much broken glass. (I never figured out why people would smash beer bottles instead of returning them.)
Then one day my wife called me in tears, her back tires along with about 15 other cars all had their back tires punctuated. a group of 4 kids just went around slashing tires for shits and giggles.
So I moved, and so did everyone else, what options did we have? The neighborhood was turning to shit, to the point were I didnt want to come home after work.
Then one day my wife called me in tears, her back tires along with about 15 other cars all had their back tires punctuated. a group of 4 kids just went around slashing tires for shits and giggles.
So I moved, and so did everyone else, what options did we have? The neighborhood was turning to shit, to the point were I didnt want to come home after work.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
That's a different set of circumstances than the OP though. We can tackle that.
It is, but it's also part of a much larger phenomenon of problems
Muppet of a Man
Member
The solution is to re-diversify local industry, reversing unfettered "free trade" globalism to a significant degree, making it fair global trade in the process. But it must be done wisely, with care for both the employed and the environment. This is where the American public is very, very misled. The true solution would have been a progressive governance, led by those like Sanders and Warren, who want to see domestic small and medium businesses flourish, along with the local communities they support, and for the consolidation of wealth and power associated with large multinational corporations (i.e., oligopolistic/monopolistic forces) be constrained. You use a set of sticks and carrots which naturally pushes business entities (and the individuals who comprise and work for them) towards the center, reinforcing the competitive nature of the market. Unfettered capitalism without wise use of sticks and carrots (i.e., regulation/rules) inevitably ends in total consolidation of wealth and power, which is NOT what we should be striving for. The ironic end of unfettered capitalism IS actually crony capitalism, as we see today with huge corporations buying anti-competive laws that place barriers to entry in markets and make it hard for smaller existing competition to compete. The trick is to get one set of rules that treat everyone fairly but not necessarily equally. The low end should always be bolstered, the middle left alone, and the top end burdened (e.g., a strong social safety net [i.e., universal access to healthcare and higher education, pensions, etc.]; protection of labor and environment based on hard science; investment in research which furthers basic science, applied science, and disruptive technology that is public domain; small business loan and investment programs; progressive taxation; extra classes of taxes for those who control inordinate amounts of wealth and power; etc.). In this way, it should be relatively easy to get out of the low end, take steady but reasonable effort to stay in the middle, and be difficult to maintain a top status.
What I've described above is a system to achieve the real American dream: a large, powerful, well-educated middle class that is as empathetic to the plight of others as they are competitive and innovative in the space of business and technology.
What a dumb thing to say, not wanting my house value to go down and to live in a dangerous/ bad neighborhood makes me selfish? You don't know me and what I contribute to society.
Dreams-Visions
Member
This is really bad for urban planning, upward mobility and education.
Like, really bad. How much longer will the lower and lower middle class continue to allow things to happen that are against their own self-interests?
Deeper integration of varying income ranges is needed, not less.
Like, really bad. How much longer will the lower and lower middle class continue to allow things to happen that are against their own self-interests?
Deeper integration of varying income ranges is needed, not less.
mr stroke
Member
This is not always correct. I own several rentals and one is section 8 housing. Guess what: My rent is 100% guaranteed and on time every month by the government, and if the tenants destroy my property they lose their vouchers(leaving an incentive not to do so)
Not all section 8 people are low life convicts, a Lot are disabled, on SSI, vets, etc..
You would be surprised how many landlords love section 8
CornBurrito
Member
Not wanting your property value to go down at the expense of other people living on the streets is selfish any way you dice it.
Man rent seekers are so gross.
mr stroke
Member
Rent seekers .....?
It's more like they are forcing landlords to fix their slums before getting money.
Zok310
Banned
Must be. i had 2 supervisors at my job moved to Texas and left 60k per year jobs in NY. 2 years later they posting mansions they now own in Texas on facebook... Im like wtf, how?
The responses to this topic about how selfish people are is a great example of a perfect utopia view of how the world should be vs how the world actually is.
Buying a home is the largest purchase most of us will ever make. We spend years getting ready for the purchase and many more years paying for that purchase. The decision of where to buy a home can make or break your finances as many can attest to back in 2008. Aside from finances that decision also affects where your kids grow up and the quality of school they attend.
With so much on the line, how do you expect people not to take these issues into account when making a home purchase? Do you honestly believe people should make a home purchase that doesn't make sense financially or puts your kids in a bad school due to the idea that doing so might eventually (maybe in your lifetime...maybe not) lead to a utopian society? That's not how life works.
I do assume that most people making these comments about how awful and selfish people are who care about their property values or the quality of the schools in the area are not homeowners themselves. It easy to talk a big game when you aren't out there working your ass off to provide a home for you and your family.
Buying a home is the largest purchase most of us will ever make. We spend years getting ready for the purchase and many more years paying for that purchase. The decision of where to buy a home can make or break your finances as many can attest to back in 2008. Aside from finances that decision also affects where your kids grow up and the quality of school they attend.
With so much on the line, how do you expect people not to take these issues into account when making a home purchase? Do you honestly believe people should make a home purchase that doesn't make sense financially or puts your kids in a bad school due to the idea that doing so might eventually (maybe in your lifetime...maybe not) lead to a utopian society? That's not how life works.
I do assume that most people making these comments about how awful and selfish people are who care about their property values or the quality of the schools in the area are not homeowners themselves. It easy to talk a big game when you aren't out there working your ass off to provide a home for you and your family.
CornBurrito
Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
You mean people act in their own best interests even at the expense of others???????????!!
You describing why people have selfish beliefs and desires doesn't actually make those beliefs and desires magically unselfish. I can understand completely why people are concerned about their property values and schools. As I said "fuck you got mine!" is only used as a criticism when you're a have not.
Seems like they built a ghetto, not integrated housing.
Integrated housing is at the apartment/house level, not the block level.
Hephaestus
Member
They built a townhouse literally beside our townhouse. It almost could have just been an extension of the same building.
Are you saying you cant put low-income people right beside each other because they will just fuck things up?
I fail to see how things would have been different if they had bought random apartments/townhouses/houses. Well I guess the difference is I would have moved faster if the "annoyance" was directly beside me as apposed to across the street.
mr stroke
Member
curious, what do you think section 8 housing actually looks like?
BlitzerRadic
Member
Sure, and if they destroy your property, who pays for the damage? Pointless to sue the section 8 tenant because they have no money. Housing authority wont help. Best thing they can do is send a warning letter. In the meantime I have to pay to fix the door that the tenant kicked in for whatever reason and if I don't I fail the inspection and I don't get paid by the housing authority. Why would any landlord want to deal with that crap unless they had no choice?
You have one section 8 tenant who just happens to be a good tenant. Consider yourself lucky. I've had probably close to 300 over the years.
Huh? Section 8 is a voucher program. It can look like a lot of things. It's not even called Section 8 anymore.
andythinkpad
Member
Personally, I don't have problem of these states legislate their way into libertarian dystopia.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Again you could make it so integration was a win for all if you fixed it so we didn't need section 8 housing.
Then we'd just have to tackle housing discrimination which we have to do anyways.
In your current scenario. You still have a fuck you I got mine as rich people can just move away and then the middle class takes the brunt of extra strain with no upside while well to do people get off Scott free.
This is the very definition of what Republicans try and do now. There isn't anything liberal or caring for your fellow man in your scenario either as the cycle then continues.
mr stroke
Member
Anecdotal-yes, but I currently have a fantastic Sec 8 tenant, and the rent is guaranteed every month. 300 bad tenants ? Sounds like you have a poor property manager.
your previous qoutte:
You said "slums" and I think its safe to assume a lot of people assume "ghetto" or "slum" when they hear Section 8, but in reality a lot of section 8 housing is good solid middle class housing in decent neighborhoods. And yes its still called Section 8(at least where I invest)
I also have an empty bedroom that gets no use I should let someone live in it for free, but I'm too selfish.
Karsticles
Member
Why is it important, and to who?
SoRuffShoNuff
Member
As someone has already touched on, the only way to really mix income levels and sustain the community in the suburbs is if the government mandates every single school district have a set number of low income housing units. You have to make it so that the affluent literally have no options to run away to. That means going in an eliminating local ordinances against apartment complexes and section 8 housing, which would be a hell of a task around this country.
Yeah, and there are a lot that were getting government money for places that were piles of shit, that was my point and there was a crackdown on that. Does that mean anyone who rents out Section 8 places are all slums? Of course not. Not sure why'd you'd assume that was what I was trying to say. Also, the federal gov't calls it HCVP now. I don't where you live but that is what the feds call rental assistance.
In a perfect world yes, but we all know what it really means. It's just that people have an excuse that fits as in property value
Fox Mulder
Member
I don't even own a house and think this is a reasonable proposal.
CornBurrito
Member
That's exactly what I said, yep.
Look, you can just admit that you care more about your property value than you do about people not living on the streets. Just be honest about it.
Right, and if your objection to low-income housing is that it is a simple bandage and doesn't address the root causes of inequality then we are good. But if your objection is purely "MUH PROPERTY VALUES" then lol get fucked.
Maybe you could explain why it isn't important to you.Nobody likes the Socratic method.
Forget low income for a minute. Let's say many different minorities wanted to move into your neighborhood. I'm not talking low income people, I'm talking middle class self sustaining minorities. That would also lower your property value. Nothing else has to happen. Would it be okay to make a similar community approval measure for that scenario before letting them move in?
mr stroke
Member
curious, what makes "Rent Seekers" so gross? are all landlords that own Sec 8 rentals "gross people"?
That's what happened when we moved into our neighborhood in the early 90's. Both my parents worked and we were middle class slightly higher. Were black of course. We moved into an all white neighborhood. Then another black family moved in. An Asian family etc. And another etc. crime didn't increase. Everybody worked. But then the white families started leaving. 20 years later, only a few white families are left. Still a great neighborhood. The school I went to that was really diverse is all black now(it was a magnet school. Kids from all around were bussed in. So it was racially diverse). Still a good school, but it doesn't get the same money that the other districts do. And our property value is less even though the neighborhood is still just as nice, safe.
It's important to all of society. Segregation breeds unfamiliarity with others, unfamiliarity can readily turn people's perspective of others into caricatures. This is very dangerous for a society, as the us vs them mentality can easily take ground when you can turn the unfamiliar into a bogeyman. People also don't put much effort into understanding the situations of other people, if they don't have to face those people often. So unless they're forced, people who are better off will stop at basic reasoning and often come to conclusions that are unreasonably negative of others. If people mingle more, they can better understand each other, which is essential to be able to vote properly. Just look at isolated rural communities in the US and their skewed perspective on Muslims, or rich kids like Trump.
yup. I grew up around various backgrounds ethnicity etc so I didn't really have any preconceptions or anything. Because like I knew Korean or Muslim kids or whatever. I can interact with other people. But when you go to college and see People who've never been around black people and think were all movie stereotypes, that's not good for anybody
CornBurrito
Member
"rent-seeking involves seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth. Rent-seeking results in reduced economic efficiency through poor allocation of resources, reduced actual wealth creation, lost government revenue, increased income inequality,[1] and (potentially) national decline."
Like what value do landlords provide to society?
TheChocolateWar
Member
Landlords do produce jobs in the form of property managers, tax professionals, and legal professionals.
CornBurrito
Member
I suppose. But you could provide small justifications like that for any form of rent-seeking. I think most economists agree that it is overall a net negative on the economy.
Let's be frank, buying a home is arguably the biggest expense the average person will make. Thus many people look at their homes as an investment. Anything that jeopardizes their investment is looked at as a bad thing. No one wants to be left with an underwater mortgage. The desire to stack the deck in your favor is understandable. Personally I don't think race or creed should matter as long as the vast majority of the community is well educated and relatively high earners. However the housing market clearly disagrees.
TheChocolateWar
Member
Depends entirely on the metrics you are using to define a "net negative". I'm not sure we sure use a utilitarian approach to determining economic good in the first place.
That's fine but that doesn't answer the question. Would it be okay for a community to require approval to move in based on what the housing market dictates as value?
You cannot discriminate based on sex, race or creed but people have taken steps to create gated communities or co-ops that screen potential candidates.
Yes, I know what you can and cannot do. I'm asking if it should be allowed?
It would be unconstitutional. You would be discriminating based on race or ethnicity. So no it should not be allowed. However this is not the same situation as low income housing which requires government intervention.
I should give away all my savings to the homeless people but I'm too selfish. I guess what I'm trying to say is, there are ways to help out other people that are worse off than you with out screwing yourself over. I much rather donate money to charities than to lose value on something I purchased for my family.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Your basically advocating fucking the middle class cause who cares if they get fucked if it means dirty quick fixes for the poor which just in turn drag the middle class down to a poorer level while the rich get free.
The whole "get fucked" thing is literally what the rich want you to say to people. It just allows them to sit atop their perches and let the rest of the people fight it out over classism.
It's reductionist attitude that people can use as a slogan to further try and divide the middle class and the poor and put them against each other.
So since the housing market has dictated something unconstitutional you shouldn't do that but when you base it on a person's wealth you can get around that inconvenient fact by discriminating on different criteria. Who has the most wealth? Hint: not minorities. That is the crux of the issue. The ones moaning about their property value don't want minorities in their neighborhood. The low-income angle is just an attempt to obfuscate the issue. If that's how they feel then call a spade a spade. Don't tap dance around it. Have an honest dialog.
mr stroke
Member
So who should own all the real estate then? and what about apartments?
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
Concern about property value is selfish, but not unreasonable. If a middle class family saves for years for a down payment on a $250k house, buys one, and then a few years later low income housing is built and the property value drops to $150k, that's over 100k they are out once you factor in interest. Their mortgage payments don't drop with the property value, instead they are just paying for way more than it's worth. It's even worse than taking that money in taxes or something, because it doesn't end up benefiting anyone. It's just flat out gone.
Vanillalite is right that it's important to first and foremost solve the problems that result in needing low income housing in the first place. That doesn't do anything for the situation now, but I'm not really sure what would. Asking middle class families to take a financial hit of tens of thousands if not a hundred thousand dollars isn't a good solution though.
Vanillalite is right that it's important to first and foremost solve the problems that result in needing low income housing in the first place. That doesn't do anything for the situation now, but I'm not really sure what would. Asking middle class families to take a financial hit of tens of thousands if not a hundred thousand dollars isn't a good solution though.
- Status