Would you say the Section 8 voucher program has worked well for low income people?

[her209]

Housing Choice Vouchers Fact Sheet

And since Romney and Ryan want to push for voucherizing Medicare and poorly performing public schools, do you expect similar results for the above two to that of Section 8? Why or why not?

 

[boomerang]

Gotten any snow up there in Canada yet?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Rent control policies in cities tend to kill off or at least minimize any benefits from housing vouchers. No prospective landlord (especially those with in-law units) would ever rent to someone with a voucher under rent control laws. Then agian rent control laws tend to also remove off the market many in-law rentals unit for everyone else as a rule.

 

[IronWing]

Sec 8 has worked great for slumlords, its number one backers.

 

[Rainsford]

I'm not sure the programs are comparable. Section 8 is a way to enable very low income people to participate in the rental market in a way that their incomes would otherwise not allow. In other words, it raises the "floor" on affording housing.

The voucher programs championed by Republicans (like health care and schools) usually involve giving everyone some amount of money to buy for themselves a previously government provided/controlled service. The idea isn't to give a boost to those at the bottom of the ladder so much as it is to get government out of the business of whatever the service is or bring the free market into it more.

To be honest, I like the IDEA of voucher programs for schools and health care, I'm just concerned about the implementation and unintended side effects. For instance, school vouchers could lead to better off students fleeing under-performing schools without providing a way for the poorer students at those schools from actually leaving. Now this could mean the under-performing schools would improve to attract more voucher money, or it would mean the bad schools get worse because they have no funding and the cost of education at the better schools goes way up. Obama outlined a similar issue with Medicare vouchers, with healthier/richer people boosting the bottom lines of health insurance companies while Medicare itself falls apart for the people who really need it.

 

[DCal430]

Sec 8 has worked great for slumlords, its number one backers.

Most multifamily section 8 property, at least in California is nice and decent. Don't let the image of run down projects fool you.

 

[MovingTarget]

Sec 8 has worked great for slumlords, its number one backers.

Yes, section 8 needs some reform, but the caricature that you paint about section 8 landlords and tenants is just that...a grotesque misrepresentation. I have been on both ends of section 8. As a child, our family and financial situation hit rock bottom and the only way my mother could live in an area conducive to raising children was through section 8. We worked our way up to a point where we got off section 8 assistance and even purchased a property to rent out - which went to section 8 tenants. I was much older when this happened, but we didn't have any issues with section 8 tenants compared to non-section 8 tenants. Section 8 really is a godsend for those wanting to improve their situation. Without it, I and many others would simply not be where we are today.

 

[IGBT]

rent control has assured a dwindling base line of rental real estate and has deprived renters of upward mobility in rental markets. Section 8 increases urban decay and greatly undermines pride in owner ship and is most obvious by greatly diminished curb appeal of the property. Section 8 lowers the cultural quality. Increases crime/drugs/hostility.

 

[DCal430]

I my self though would never rent to section 8. Neighbors did once, the people on the housing voucher program didn't pay their share of the rent, it took almost a year to evict them, due to high court backlog, and when they were evicted they did over 100,000 in damages to the home. My neighbors were powerless to do anything about it. The worst thing those who did it never saw any punishment.

 

[MovingTarget]

rent control has assured a dwindling base line of rental real estate and has deprived renters of upward mobility in rental markets. Section 8 increases urban decay and greatly undermines pride in owner ship and is most obvious by greatly diminished curb appeal of the property. Section 8 lowers the cultural quality. Increases crime/drugs/hostility.

I'm not sure if the comparison to rent control is a valid one simply because while section 8 is national, rent control policies simply do not exist beyond a few major cities. A lot of section 8 tenants are in the suburbs, not apartments.

I also find your other claims suspicious. How does section 8 "assure a dwindling base line of rental real estate", "deprive renters of upward mobility in rental markets", "increase urban decay", "greatly undermine pride in ownership", "greatly diminish the curb appeal of property", and the real doozies - "lower the cultural quality" and "increase crime/drugs/hostility". You really seem to go out on a limb there, especially on those last two. Do I detect a tinge of racism and/or classism there?

 

[MovingTarget]

I my self though would never rent to section 8. Neighbors did once, the people on the housing voucher program didn't pay their share of the rent, it took almost a year to evict them, due to high court backlog, and when they were evicted they did over 100,000 in damages to the home. My neighbors were powerless to do anything about it. The worst thing those who did it never saw any punishment.

That seems more a problem with local funding of the court system, not section 8 in and of itself. I've seen renters do that type of damage without being on any assistance whatsoever. You really should interview your tenants well and be sure to check into their previous housing history. I don't think that you can discriminate solely based on a renter receiving section 8 assistance though. I could be wrong, but that may run afoul of equal housing laws.

 

[DCal430]

That seems more a problem with local funding of the court system, not section 8 in and of itself. I've seen renters do that type of damage without being on any assistance whatsoever. You really should interview your tenants well and be sure to check into their previous housing history. I don't think that you can discriminate solely based on a renter receiving section 8 assistance though. I could be wrong, but that may run afoul of equal housing laws.

While the long eviction time is the courts fault, but I feel vengeance damages for evictions is more likely with Sec 8 people.

 

[DCal430]

When you buy a home too make sure their are no multifamily section 8 apartment, i.e Multifamily housing complex with a large percent of section 8 renters, in the area. These areas tend to crime ridden.

 

[hardhat]

I am directly involved in the administration of a small town section 8 housing project designed for people over 62 or disabled, so my perspective is different than most people. For the projects in my town, Section 8 basically provides good quality housing at a price that the tenants could never afford. The alternative would be living with a relative, multiple friends, in a 1 room apartment, etc.

The apartments that I administer actually cost more, and generate more revenue, than similar apartments in the area. This is absolutely necessary, or the owner wouldn't put up with the bureacracy, the constant oversight, or choose these tenants. I personally feel that in my case the apartments are a worthwhile government investment, because there hasn't been abuse of the program. However, I can see there is potential for abuse, so I can understand why so many people want to end the programs.

 

[Wreckem]

That seems more a problem with local funding of the court system, not section 8 in and of itself. I've seen renters do that type of damage without being on any assistance whatsoever. You really should interview your tenants well and be sure to check into their previous housing history. I don't think that you can discriminate solely based on a renter receiving section 8 assistance though. I could be wrong, but that may run afoul of equal housing laws.

You can discriminate against Sec 8 by not being a Sec 8 property. As a property owner you have to opt into the Sec 8 program. People opt to do Sec 8, because they still get the market rate for their rental and its easy to keep the property rented. Most will also carry proper insurance that will cover negligent/malicious damage caused by tenants. That said, the story about $100k in damages can happen with any renter.

 

[nehalem256]

It is common for section 8 housing to have multi-year wait lists. From this we can deduce that the program is not helping people temporarily down on their luck and deserving of government assistance. As such the program should be eliminated.

 

[Wreckem]

When you buy a home too make sure their are no multifamily section 8 apartment, i.e Multifamily housing complex with a large percent of section 8 renters, in the area. These areas tend to crime ridden.

This is a stereotype. Its like that with some Sec 8 housing, particularly the very urban developments. But the overwhelming majority of sec 8 beneficiaries are the elderly.

 

[nehalem256]

The alternative would be living with a relative, multiple friends, in a 1 room apartment, etc.

OMG!!!!!! The horror

 

[DCal430]

This is a stereotype. Its like that with some Sec 8 housing, particularly the very urban developments. But the overwhelming majority of sec 8 beneficiaries are the elderly.

A lot of section 8 multifamily apartments only rents to the elderly or the disabled, these are actually fine. The ones that rent to families are the ones you should avoid.

 

[hardhat]

The alternative to section 8 could also be homelessness. Also, just because some section 8 housing has long waiting lists does not mean that all projects do, nor that there can't be exceptions made to the waiting list to help those in need.

 

[DCal430]

I know these housing projects need to be made, and that these people have a right to live in these places, without these places many of these families would be on the streets. I know these people have a right to be in nice and decent areas. I know it is wrong of me to think like this, but i just don't want them built near me.

 

[ericlp]

It's worked great for destroying a lot of nice neighborhoods I am sure.

 

[werepossum]

I'm not sure the programs are comparable. Section 8 is a way to enable very low income people to participate in the rental market in a way that their incomes would otherwise not allow. In other words, it raises the "floor" on affording housing.

The voucher programs championed by Republicans (like health care and schools) usually involve giving everyone some amount of money to buy for themselves a previously government provided/controlled service. The idea isn't to give a boost to those at the bottom of the ladder so much as it is to get government out of the business of whatever the service is or bring the free market into it more.

To be honest, I like the IDEA of voucher programs for schools and health care, I'm just concerned about the implementation and unintended side effects. For instance, school vouchers could lead to better off students fleeing under-performing schools without providing a way for the poorer students at those schools from actually leaving. Now this could mean the under-performing schools would improve to attract more voucher money, or it would mean the bad schools get worse because they have no funding and the cost of education at the better schools goes way up. Obama outlined a similar issue with Medicare vouchers, with healthier/richer people boosting the bottom lines of health insurance companies while Medicare itself falls apart for the people who really need it.

Very good analysis of the benefits and potential problems of voucher programs for schools and health care as well as the differences.

Section 8 housing here in Tennessee has worked very well for those on it. It allows those qualified for public housing to escape the projects and get out into actual neighborhoods. It also works well for maintaining neighborhoods by giving potential landlords incentives to buy and revamp houses as well as a hammer to make them keep them livable. Government is much better at making private citizens maintain their Section 8 rental property than it is at maintaining its own rental property. And while people in the neighborhoods complain about neighbors living on the public dime, at least people are buying and maintaining those houses since the government is also much more reliable about paying the rent.

 

[Anarchist420]

For some yes, for others no. That said, egalitarianism is a revolt against nature and that is why the state should not be tried. OTOH, anti-egalitarianism is also a revolt against nature and that is why the Progressive-->National Socialist state should not be tried either. I guess it is human nature to want centralization of power, I don't know. Even when private individuals kill other individuals, they are trying to bind their power and they are then acting like a state... kind of like about half of the CEOs these days especially the newest ones.

I personally think, though, that if public housing continues to exist, it should just be completely public and taxes on the rich can just go up like a liberal (as in graduated) Federal property tax. I know that would be like anarcho-communism, but the section 8 housing as is just fuels lust for power.

Perhaps 5-10% tariffs are okay as in not good and not bad (plus the coolidge corporate and income tax code where there are exemptions and low rates which aids the american worker), but no higher because higher than 10% is out of fair trade territory. The problem is that once they get to the Federalist Party, then the first Hamilton tariff will be restored (which was about 5%), then II will come (which was about 10%), then III will rear it's ugly head (at like 12% or so) until we get to the Morrill Tariff again (where it reaches almost 50% and it's like a damn police state and the revenue cutter service is started which just recycles waste at best).

Section 8 housing here in Tennessee has worked very well for those on it. It allows those qualified for public housing to escape the projects and get out into actual neighborhoods. It also works well for maintaining neighborhoods by giving potential landlords incentives to buy and revamp houses as well as a hammer to make them keep them livable. Government is much better at making private citizens maintain their Section 8 rental property than it is at maintaining its own rental property. And while people in the neighborhoods complain about neighbors living on the public dime, at least people are buying and maintaining those houses since the government is also much more reliable about paying the rent.

The bureaucracy causes taxes, debt, and inflation to go up though. If the govt makes an attempt boost competition, then competition will be reduced... the least harmful state is redistributive with new sunsetting taxes all the time, and term limits in the original social compact, all beyond a shadow of a doubt... What good has the "quasi-privitization" of prisons done? It's just caused more good and ambivalent people to go to jail which was already a bad idea. Perhaps the court system should be more decentralized and I think where I live should be more about what the victim and the community want while respecting the criminal and attempting to make the future better for the victim and the aggressor which will give society a chance at a Good Future. The currently dominant Traditionalist court systems are pro-state and pro-business. Businesses are legal constructs created by men and they aid the state in centralizing power... they suck because of that.

A problem is our culture in which businesses are portrayed as the ultimate good and they don't have that as much in Switzerland... they have less bureaucracy there.

Like I said, aggressing against anyone but the self doesn't work so the NAP is the closest to being the universal virtue because most people can't act in their own rational self interest. Will individuals still aggress against each other without the state? Sure. Will it be on as large of a scale? Maybe, but it won't be on an even larger scale compared to the state and it will sure come close to restoring humanity back to its roots. Do we really want Alex Hamiltons creating all of this artificial crap via central planning? Sorry for biting off Quayle's jank (as well as copying Dr. North's style), but I think it isn't a bad question for each individual to ask their own dumb, neutral, or intelli self.