The Obamazone

[chucky2]

Deliberately obtuse, huh? Why did that "young white girl" resort to sec 8?

Why wouldn't she? She bought the house to either flip and sell it (but she bought pre-crash so got F'd there, not her fault, just bad timing), or rent it. After crash she lived there for a while since it was all fixed up to her liking, saved, bought another in a nicer neighborhood, moved there, and then worked on getting this one rented. Since she likes money, she's renting to make money, not provide a service to the poor.

Straight for <snip>...

...your usual schtick.

So the neighborhood was nicer when it was whiter rather than richer?

Both actually. But they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[werepossum]

Absolutely. Good renters are great because you can keep that guaranteed Gov income coming in with low risk of issues (read: low risk of expenditures), the problem is, once they're in they're in and hard/harder to get rid of (especially if they have kids), and, good renters have family, which means, you rent to grandma, and she's a good renter, but then her granddaughter comes to live with her, along with the granddaughters 2 kids from two different daddy's. Low income renting is a gamble.

It is amazing how they appear in the same threads and have the same "logic" isn't it? :biggrin:

Yup. The irony is that they are both capable of making reasonably good posts when an issue is totally in line with their ideology, but go berserk when anyone dares to disagree with their mind numbingly narrow ideology.

My friend tried to get me into Section 8 renting too, but I just don't want to deal with those people. Still, it is extremely rewarding when you find those few good renters and you are making money while providing them a home nicer than they could provide on their own. Capitalism is nice when everybody is happy. But as you say, it's a gamble and I'm not a gambling kinda guy.

 

[chucky2]

Yup. The irony is that they are both capable of making reasonably good posts when an issue is totally in line with their ideology, but go berserk when anyone dares to disagree with their mind numbingly narrow ideology.

I'm fairly convinced they're either a bot setup here by one of the liberal admins, or, the same person. If they are indeed really two separate humans, they must indeed happen to be indoctrinated the same to have such crazy similar ideology.

My friend tried to get me into Section 8 renting too, but I just don't want to deal with those people. Still, it is extremely rewarding when you find those few good renters and you are making money while providing them a home nicer than they could provide on their own. Capitalism is nice when everybody is happy. But as you say, it's a gamble and I'm not a gambling kinda guy.

I'd love to get in on the gravy train (this town we're in is beyond saving so mine as well make $) but I've got two pretty sick parents I have to care for. Once they aren't sick any longer/not here any longer, definitely will be seriously considering buying a few of these properties (when houses are going for $15-$20k it's not hard to buy a few), rehabbing them, and then renting them out. My only issue is I don't know if I could handle allowing animals to remain in one of my places tearing it up. I have the means to make them leave (regardless who they are) and I'm not sure if I have enough restraint to stand by and let the legal process work while my property is destroyed just so some PC idiot(s) can feel all jelly when it's my $ on the line. Sort of a decision I'll need to make before going down the renting road...

 

[werepossum]

I'm fairly convinced they're either a bot setup here by one of the liberal admins, or, the same person. If they are indeed really two separate humans, they must indeed happen to be indoctrinated the same to have such crazy similar ideology.

I'd love to get in on the gravy train (this town we're in is beyond saving so mine as well make $) but I've got two pretty sick parents I have to care for. Once they aren't sick any longer/not here any longer, definitely will be seriously considering buying a few of these properties (when houses are going for $15-$20k it's not hard to buy a few), rehabbing them, and then renting them out. My only issue is I don't know if I could handle allowing animals to remain in one of my places tearing it up. I have the means to make them leave (regardless who they are) and I'm not sure if I have enough restraint to stand by and let the legal process work while my property is destroyed just so some PC idiot(s) can feel all jelly when it's my $ on the line. Sort of a decision I'll need to make before going down the renting road...

From what I've seen it's almost impossible to evict someone in Section 8 for tearing up your house; once they are in, they are in. It's almost impossible to even make the administrators understand why you are angry that they are handing someone a check for expenses in moving out of a house that they have trashed to the point of being uninhabitable when a year before it had zero defects. For instance, my friend had a tenant who reported the refrigerator had died. The repairman never showed, and she didn't call back for a couple weeks. Apologizing profusely, he chewed out the company who had sold it and failed to send out the repairman as promised, then went out to check it himself that night. The "failure" was that she had accidentally turned it off. (This had happened before and he specifically asked her to make sure it was turned on before he sent another repairman, since if it isn't legitimately broken that isn't covered by warranty and costs him fifty bucks.) However, she had not bothered to remove the food, which had been rotting for weeks. When she moved out a few months later (her daughter had moved out and gotten her own Section 8 house, so she no longer qualified for a three-bedroom house) the refrigerator was not salvageable; it was less than one year old. He also had to replace the carpet and draperies (couldn't get the stink out), replace the kitchen linoleum (chewed up by dogs), stolen light fixtures, and outside HVAC condenser (carried off and sold), and had to air it out for a couple weeks before he could even stand to start to fix it up for a new tenant. He eventually did get a judgement for the stolen light fixtures and condenser - although at the payment rate she'll be dead long before he's paid back - but the trashed refrigerator, flooring, and draperies were simply considered normal wear and tear.

These are the things you must accept to rent through the Section 8 program. Personally I couldn't do it.

 

[nickqt]

I'm fairly convinced they're either a bot setup here by one of the liberal admins, or, the same person. If they are indeed really two separate humans, they must indeed happen to be indoctrinated the same to have such crazy similar ideology.



I'd love to get in on the gravy train (this town we're in is beyond saving so mine as well make $) but I've got two pretty sick parents I have to care for. Once they aren't sick any longer/not here any longer, definitely will be seriously considering buying a few of these properties (when houses are going for $15-$20k it's not hard to buy a few), rehabbing them, and then renting them out. My only issue is I don't know if I could handle allowing animals to remain in one of my places tearing it up. I have the means to make them leave (regardless who they are) and I'm not sure if I have enough restraint to stand by and let the legal process work while my property is destroyed just so some PC idiot(s) can feel all jelly when it's my $ on the line. Sort of a decision I'll need to make before going down the renting road...

Christ are you delusional.

Seek help.

Although what is funny is that you and werepossum congratulate each other every other post about how awesome your logic and reasoning is, compared to make-believe bots.

It'd be more hilarious if it weren't obvious that you have delusions.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why wouldn't she? She bought the house to either flip and sell it (but she bought pre-crash so got F'd there, not her fault, just bad timing), or rent it. After crash she lived there for a while since it was all fixed up to her liking, saved, bought another in a nicer neighborhood, moved there, and then worked on getting this one rented. Since she likes money, she's renting to make money, not provide a service to the poor.

Oh- so she's a wannabe flipper fast buck artist who got stuck being a landlord. How did that happen? At least she had the means to hold on, unlike a lot of others. The neighborhood really went to hell when the houses started getting boarded up, I'm sure. Doesn't help when servicers drag out foreclosures forever so the places can really go to hell, basically abandon places until the Municipality has to tear them down.

Remarkable how the creation of huge & insupportable debt can be so profitable. That's really what happened to your neighborhood & a lot of others. Now that the last nickel has been squeezed out, the financial wizards are done with it.

But the problem couldn't be that, could it? Of course not. It's de Gubmint & their danged sec 8 housing program! They're just making it worse! It brings in Those People!

If it wasn't those people, it wouldn't be anybody.

Good stuff here for you if it doesn't burn your eyes out-

http://www.chicagonow.com/getting-real/2013/03/chicago-housing-bubble-affected-by-neighborhood/

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/assets/interactive/abProp/vacantResponsive.html

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm fairly convinced they're either a bot setup here by one of the liberal admins, or, the same person. If they are indeed really two separate humans, they must indeed happen to be indoctrinated the same to have such crazy similar ideology.



I'd love to get in on the gravy train (this town we're in is beyond saving so mine as well make $) but I've got two pretty sick parents I have to care for. Once they aren't sick any longer/not here any longer, definitely will be seriously considering buying a few of these properties (when houses are going for $15-$20k it's not hard to buy a few), rehabbing them, and then renting them out. My only issue is I don't know if I could handle allowing animals to remain in one of my places tearing it up. I have the means to make them leave (regardless who they are) and I'm not sure if I have enough restraint to stand by and let the legal process work while my property is destroyed just so some PC idiot(s) can feel all jelly when it's my $ on the line. Sort of a decision I'll need to make before going down the renting road...

Remarkable. A guy who starts out all sanctimonious is really dying to get on the gravy train he professes to despise, provides a nice chest thumping flourish to go with it.

 

[chucky2]

From what I've seen it's almost impossible to evict someone in Section 8 for tearing up your house snip

And this is what I mean, I just don't think I could put up with the BS. Fires happen, and sometimes they happen for the right reasons, you know what I mean?

 

[halik]

It's someone's property, they can rent it as section 8 housing if they want to. If it brings down your house price, too bad. As long as it's legal, you aren't entitled to be compensated for that. Just like you aren't entitled to be compensated if your neighbor has a rusty old truck in the driveway making the neighborhood look bad.

The question isn't about people renting to section 8, it's more about HUD section 8 buildings. Property owners would be stupid to allow one in their neighborhood w/o compensation.

 

[halik]

So, uhh, why do landlords rent thru sec 8 anyway? Are they compelled to do so by govt or by our spiffy Job Creator/ Ownership Society shaped economy?

Maybe this 35 year running upgrade for the financial elite means a downgrade for many of the rest of us, huh?

Couldn't be!

Oh, and your sheets are kinda showing a little bit. Might want to tuck 'em in just to give a good impression.

Invariably Sec 8 landlords concentrate in low-income areas, where the rent defaults are so high that the government guarantees actually offset the additional costs of section 8 tenants and paperwork.

The problem is that's not what where talking about here, the topic is putting section 8 into middle and upper class neighborhoods where rent defaults are minimal, and thus those government guarantees have essentially no value.

As it stands, the latter makes no economic sense for either the landlords or the people that own property in those neighborhoods, which is why I suspect this whole plan will go nowhere. It's simply a shitty deal for all the counterparties; If you offer above-market rent vouchers for section 8 tenants and property-tax abatements for the neighbors, we can talk.

I'm also gonna take a guess that you don't own any investment property; recent california transplant to Colorado perhaps?

 

[theeedude]

The question isn't about people renting to section 8, it's more about HUD section 8 buildings. Property owners would be stupid to allow one in their neighborhood w/o compensation.

Why would HUD be required to pay compensation unless it's taking their property?

 

[chucky2]

Christ are you delusional.

Seek help.

Although what is funny is that you and werepossum congratulate each other every other post about how awesome your logic and reasoning is, compared to make-believe bots.

It'd be more hilarious if it weren't obvious that you have delusions.

It's OK bot, AnandTech has lots of resources, don't get your binary panties in a bunch. You'll be allowed to run perpetually I'm sure...

 

[werepossum]

And this is what I mean, I just don't think I could put up with the BS. Fires happen, and sometimes they happen for the right reasons, you know what I mean?

Yeah, I couldn't do that. Couldn't sleep at night.

Invariably Sec 8 landlords concentrate in low-income areas, where the rent defaults are so high that the government guarantees actually offset the additional costs of section 8 tenants and paperwork.

The problem is that's not what where talking about here, the topic is putting section 8 into middle and upper class neighborhoods where rent defaults are minimal, and thus those government guarantees have essentially no value.

As it stands, the latter makes no economic sense for either the landlords or the people that own property in those neighborhoods, which is why I suspect this whole plan will go nowhere. It's simply a shitty deal for all the counterparties; If you offer above-market rent vouchers for section 8 tenants and property-tax abatements for the neighbors, we can talk.

I'm also gonna take a guess that you don't own any investment property; recent california transplant to Colorado perhaps?

Well said. Done correctly, Section 8 is a win-win, providing affordable housing (albeit by making other people pay inflated rents) for the very poor and also providing economic incentive for owners to maintain decent houses in poor neighborhoods where rents would be too low (in relation to the default rates) to be a feasible investment. Done incorrectly (i.e. for political/SJW reasons), Section 8 housing would take middle and upper middle class neighborhoods and turn them into poor neighborhoods.

 

[chucky2]

Oh- so she's a wannabe flipper fast buck artist who got stuck being a landlord. How did that happen? At least she had the means to hold on, unlike a lot of others. The neighborhood really went to hell when the houses started getting boarded up, I'm sure. Doesn't help when servicers drag out foreclosures forever so the places can really go to hell, basically abandon places until the Municipality has to tear them down.

I'm not sure how someone can be so wrong so much of the time - is this why you're so bitter? I don't know her that well, but she also works at a bank making good money, had already flipped a couple of houses before this one successfully, and really just got bit by timing of housing crash. The neighborhood didn't go to hell when the houses started getting boarded up (they don't do that here for fear of further dragging down property values) it went to hell when low income folks started moving in and the people with money/good values started moving out. Once a town gets a rep it's not going to come back from it.

Remarkable how the creation of huge & insupportable debt can be so profitable. That's really what happened to your neighborhood & a lot of others. Now that the last nickel has been squeezed out, the financial wizards are done with it.

But the problem couldn't be that, could it? Of course not. It's de Gubmint & their danged sec 8 housing program! They're just making it worse! It brings in Those People!

So bitter, so wrong...it must truly hurt to be you. See above for what happened to all the neighborhoods on Chicago's South Side. You can't have people moving in that are cool with their place looking like shit, contributing to making the neighborhood looking like shit (littering is so common now, they actually have village public works stop and pick up litter), acting a fool, their kids really acting a fool, etc and have it not have an affect. Who that is middle class or above is going to want to live in or by a place like that? Let me answer that for you via all the middle and upperclasses that moved away: None/So few that the neighborhoods are doomed.

If it wasn't those people, it wouldn't be anybody.

I hate to break it to your bitter heart, but, its really is Those People. Life sux, I know...

Good stuff here for you if it doesn't burn your eyes out-

http://www.chicagonow.com/getting-real/2013/03/chicago-housing-bubble-affected-by-neighborhood/

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/assets/interactive/abProp/vacantResponsive.html

OK? You don't think I know about vacant homes? WTF I know your mind is severely indoctrinated and compromised, but I didn't think it was that gone...

Remarkable. A guy who starts out all sanctimonious is really dying to get on the gravy train he professes to despise, provides a nice chest thumping flourish to go with it.

So much confusion, it really has to be terrible to have a mind in such a state. I thought it was sort of obvious that while I wouldn't support low income housing (except perhaps expressly for seniors/truly disabled) in a town I cared about, that I'd for sure take advantage of doing it in a town already a shithole/shitholed. If that wasn't obvious to you, I guess now it is? Look at that, no chest thumping needed... :thumbsup:

 

[nickqt]

It's OK bot, AnandTech has lots of resources, don't get your binary panties in a bunch. You'll be allowed to run perpetually I'm sure...

Delusional and awful at humor to boot.

Good to know.

 

[chucky2]

Delusional and awful at humor to boot.

Good to know.

Next up the Jhhnn thread?

 

[nickqt]

Next up the Jhhnn thread?

Whatever you believe is reality because you say it is, hoss!

You tell me what galaxy we're in and whose house I'm swimming under, and I'm there. Obviously.

 

[chucky2]

No Benghazi?

 

[1prophet]

Sheesh. Now I have to wonder whether you really are this stupid. Just in case you honestly are this stupid, I will rephrase:
There is zero chance this will ever affect the rich progressives who institute these rules in their gated communities and secure condo buildings. They (the rich progressives who institute these rules) can shit on the middle class in total security.

See, I even put the new text in italics since I know you can only look at one thing at a time. I'll even explain it: There is zero chance that any of these new Section 8 homes will be in the gated communities of the wealthy elite. There is zero chance that any of these new Section 8 homes will be condos in the access-controlled, uniformed security, concierge-sporting apartment buildings of the wealthy elite.

If this is still too obtuse, please take it up with your therapist. Um, one of your therapists; don't bother them all.

What's that whining and squealing, rich progressive liberals crying about the injustice of having to share their space with the lower class minorities they pretend to care about on everyone else's expense.
George Lucas to build affordable housing in one of the richest parts of America



http://www.cnet.com/news/george-luc...using-in-one-of-the-richest-parts-of-america/




http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/us/george-lucas-retreats-from-battle-with-neighbors.html

But after spending years and millions of dollars, Mr. Lucas abruptly canceled plans recently for the third, and most likely last, major expansion, citing community opposition. An emotional statement posted online said Lucasfilm would build instead in a place “that sees us as a creative asset, not as an evil empire.”


If the announcement took Marin by surprise, it was nothing compared with what came next. Mr. Lucas said he would sell the land to a developer to bring “low income housing” here.
Photo

Plans to develop Grady Ranch had been stalled for years. Credit The New York Times “It’s inciting class warfare,” said Carolyn Lenert, head of the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents.
Mr. Lucas said in an e-mail that he only wanted “to do something good for Marin,” waving away accusations of ulterior motives.


“I’ve been surprised to see some people characterize this as vindictive,” he said, adding that there was a “real need” for affordable housing here. “I wouldn’t waste my time or money just to try and upset the neighbors.”
Whatever Mr. Lucas’s intentions, his announcement has unsettled a county whose famously liberal politics often sits uncomfortably with the issue of low-cost housing and where battles have been fought over such construction before. His proposal has pitted neighbor against neighbor, who, after failed peacemaking efforts over local artisanal cheese and wine, traded accusations in the local newspaper.




The staunchest opponents of Lucasfilm’s expansion are now being accused of driving away the filmmaker and opening the door to a low-income housing development. That has created an atmosphere that one opponent, who asked not to be identified, saying she feared for her safety, described as “sheer terror” and likened to “Syria.”


Carl Fricke, a board member of the Lucas Valley Estates Homeowners Association, which represents houses nearest to the Lucas property, said: “We got letters saying, ‘You guys are going to get what you deserve. You’re going to bring drug dealers, all this crime and lowlife in here.’ ”

 

[werepossum]

What's that whining and squealing, rich progressive liberals crying about the injustice of having to share their space with the lower class minorities they pretend to care about on everyone else's expense.
George Lucas to build affordable housing in one of the richest parts of America

http://www.cnet.com/news/george-luc...using-in-one-of-the-richest-parts-of-america/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/us/george-lucas-retreats-from-battle-with-neighbors.html

Oh my G-d, that is perfect! Low income housing in our neighborhoods is social justice, low income housing in their neighborhood is "inciting class warfare" and "Syria".

I now forgive George Lucas for, well, pretty much everything after the first trilogy.

 

[halik]

Why would HUD be required to pay compensation unless it's taking their property?

Because building a section 8 housing lowers the value of real estate for everyone around it. Presumably if you want local government to approve it on behalf of the neightbors, the neightbors have to be compensated for the negative externality.

I certainly would vehemently oppose a HUD building near me, for that very reason. No different than if Chicago wanted to build an elevated train right next to my townhouse.

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh my G-d, that is perfect! Low income housing in our neighborhoods is social justice, low income housing in their neighborhood is "inciting class warfare" and "Syria".

I now forgive George Lucas for, well, pretty much everything after the first trilogy.

Isn't that what the 'burbs in general are saying to their core cities, a position you obviously support?

All you've established is that Marin County isn't necessarily different in that respect.

 

[halik]

Isn't that what the 'burbs in general are saying to their core cities, a position you obviously support?

All you've established is that Marin County isn't necessarily different in that respect.

I think he's pointing out the hypocrisy of the stereotypical "limousine liberals" that support these sort of things, so long it's not in their neighborhood.

 

[chucky2]

Oh my G-d, that is perfect! Low income housing in our neighborhoods is social justice, low income housing in their neighborhood is "inciting class warfare" and "Syria".

I now forgive George Lucas for, well, pretty much everything after the first trilogy.

What's even more perfect is you absolutely know even if such housing is made available, they're not going to have the normal riff raff moving in that all the less wealthy areas get to enjoy, they're going to be making sure only quality candidates are in there. On top of that, they'll have the $ and the pull to ensure the exterior is always kept nice, rather than treating exterior care like less wealthy communities do/have to.

Then they'll point to their "experiment" as a shining example of what can be accomplished and try and shame people into supporting more of it. When that happens in the less wealthy/less political influence areas and it turns out to be predictably net negative to those areas, will that make the news? Nah. Media won't want to push that story, wonder why...

 

[sm625]

Post #2: I'm bored, I'm going to troll.
Post #3: frothing at the mouth and a comment about gay marriage. That has to do with this subject how?
Post #4: Associate the topic with Alex Jones
Post #5: Who the heck knows what that is or what jack all it has to do with topic.

Establishment lovers do seem to act like bots or drones, but these are taking it a step farther. This is a real thing that is really happening. Billions of dollars of HUD (taxpayer) money is being used to attack the property values of thousands of productive tax payers. WTF? This is not hyperbole. It isnt frickin red meat and it isnt a goddam conspiracy theory you stupid retarded commy trolls.