A family in public housing makes $498,000. HUD wants them to stay.

[mfcorey1]

A family of four in New York City makes $497,911 a year but pays $1,574 a month to live in public housing in a three-bedroom apartment subsidized by taxpayers.

In Los Angeles, a family of five that’s lived in public housing since 1974 made $204,784 last year but paid $1,091 for a four-bedroom apartment. And a tenant with assets worth $1.6 million — including stocks, real estate and retirement accounts — last year paid $300 for a one-bedroom apartment in public housing in Oxford, Neb.

In a new report, the watchdog for the Department of Housing and Urban Development describes these and more than 25,000 other “over income” families earning more than the maximum income for government-subsidized housing as an “egregious” abuse of the system. While the family in New York with an annual income of almost $500,000 raked in $790,500 in rental income on its real estate holdings in recent years, more than 300,000 families that really qualify for public housing lingered on waiting lists, auditors found.

But HUD has no plans to kick these families out, because its policy doesn’t require over-income tenants to leave, the agency’s inspector general found. In fact, it encourages them to stay in public housing.

“Since regulations and policies did not require housing authorities to evict over income families or require them to find housing in the unassisted market, [they] continued to reside in public housing units,” investigators for Inspector General David Montoya wrote.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-family-in-public-housing-makes-dollar498000-hud-wants-them-to-stay/ar-BBlOM1x?ocid=mailsignout

[MADem]

1. I don't think they should be kicked out, but I think they should pay WAY more in rent.

Having some high earners in the neighborhood is good for diversity--just charge them "the going rate" for a private unit of the same size and amenities. Take away any "taxpayer subsidies" and charge what the market would bear for such a home.

Then use the extra money towards more public housing for those who are less advantaged.

[rpannier]

2. I agree with you

Didn't until I read your reasoning
Sometimes there are more choices than just 2

[MADem]

3. I am not a fan of segregated housing for the poor, anyway.

I think the model where there's diversity in an apartment/condo complex, where some people pay the full freight, and others get a subsidy, is a better model. I don't like the idea of warehousing poor folks all in one area. It seems rather prison-like/ghettoizing to me.

It also makes it hard as hell for the poorer people to have access to things like good grocery stores, banks, post offices, etc. A lot of poverty housing is found in "food/service deserts" where it's a long walk or a bus ride to find places to buy stuff--and even at that, it's often overpriced.

[rpannier]

4. Agree

The more segregated by wealth they become the less services are offered for those left behind

[Gormy Cuss]

11. HUD's not a fan of it either.

That's why there is no reg to kick out those who have higher incomes. Moreover, while the over-income tenants may be getting a bargain in terms of the rent, they are living in housing that is more often than not in the lowest income neighborhoods in their communities and likely higher crime areas with crappier schools than this families could afford. At some point the family or individual was income-eligible for the unit. Why they stay may be related to attachment to community - IOW, they grew up there and their friends and extended family also live in the development.

The real issue here is that there are insufficient units because no new (net) units are being added. Public housing counts have in fact been shrinking because old, high density developments have been mothballed in favor of lower density communities. Subsidized housing communities (where the units are privately owned but all units publicly subsidized) have also been on the decline because of expiring use restrictions. Tenant-based subsidies like Section 8 vouchers don't close the gap because there just aren't enough eligible units in the private market to meet the demand.

So now some little pissant in the IG's office is painting the over-income tenants as the bad guys when in fact the failure is on the part of government policies falling short of the goal to provide safe, decent housing options to low-income people.

eta: I haven't seen the report but I'm willing to guess that the vast majority of over-income tenants are within 200% of eligible income --IOW, working people but hardly well-off.

[MADem]

12. Which is why I think there should be a relation to income--either the wealthier people

"income out" of subsidies, pay more, and have the option of staying put in the old neighborhood, and the cash they aren't using can be applied to those who need them, or the rich people can decide that it's time to move on up to the east side, and leave the old block, and then the unit becomes available for someone else.

The trick is to stop subsidizing rich people. The more they make, the more of the burden they need to assume. It shouldn't be usurious at the lower incomes but anyone making enough money to afford their own rent needs to pay their own rent, at the market rate.

No one is a "bad guy" here. There's a bug in the system, is all. We just need to fix the bug and not ascribe motives to people. I don't think anyone crafted the system with the idea that this would happen--they probably figured that most people would move up and out as soon as they could...but people do get comfortable.

Elderly/disabled housing works like that in some places in MA--it's mixed units, some people are rich, some are poor, and the rent is based on percentage of total income. Some are subsidized, some are not--no one asks who's who in the zoo, they're all survivors.

[Gormy Cuss]

13. While there's room to charge more, it would need to be done carefully

or you've just created an incentive for all over-income tenants to move, thus defeating the goal of having a stable community with some income diversity.

I was a bit surprised to see that someone in small town Nebraska was highlighted because it seemed like a breach of confidentiality laws, but let's look at the Oxford NE housing authority:

Resident Characteristics
as of June 30, 2015

Oxford Housing Authority operates 20 affordable units across its public housing portfolio.
Bedroom Sizes of Public Housing Units

The bedroom sizes of Oxford Housing Authority public housing units range from 1 bedroom apartments to 1 bedroom apartments. The housing authority’s public housing inventory includes: 100% 1 bedroom apartments.
Vacancies in Public Housing Portfolio

As of Oxford Housing Authority’s most recent Resident Characteristics Report (June 30, 2015), the 16-month average number of units occupied was 17 out of a total 20 rental units. This represents a 16-month average vacany rate of 15%.
Family Type

Of the 13 households who reported head of household data in the housing authority’s most recent RCR report, 6 (46.15%) were elderly, 7 (53.85%) were non-elderly, 10 (76.92%) were disabled, 0 (0%) contained children and 0 (0%) were headed by a female.

Note that they only have 20 units, all of them 1 BR and thus largely for adults, with half of those units occupied by persons with disabilities and a third occupied by seniors. There is also apparently enough turnover to have a fairly high vacancy rate.

So who is the person with the assets hurting here?

[MADem]

16. Rich people don't need to be subsidized. Let them stay, but they can pay their own rent.

The diversity is nice, but it should not EVER be at the cost of subsidizing a wealthy person. The rich people who can afford to pay a market rent should pay that. If they want to take their money and go elsewhere, let them. But if Granny loves the neighborhood and would miss her old pal Mrs. So-and-so in the next unit over, then they should be allowed to stay put with their friends and familiar surroundings, but not be subsidized. The money that had been used to subsidize them can be used to find another landlord, in that neighborhood or another one, willing to HUD out one of their units for someone who needs help.

I know someone who is an older person, disabled, currently living with sibling-parent in a cramped situation, who has been on a waiting list for some decent elderly housing for a good TWO years. He could have gotten into other less optimal units (after maybe an eight month or so wait), but he's holding out for a particular community that meets his disability needs and he's willing to wait to get it. It's good housing in a nice complex with decent amenities and perfect for someone who needs single level living with wide, well maintained sidewalks, someone to shovel snow, mow the grass, etc. There are lots of subsidized units in this complex and everyone in there "knows the score"--live quietly, be pleasant to your neighbors, help each other out, don't be obstreperous, etc. People love it there. One you get in there, you only leave to go to a nursing home, because it's a good situation. The rent paid is a function of the income of the person living there, with the remainder subsidized. It's almost entirely one bedroom units, so it's singles/couples. I think there are a few two bedrooms on the periphery, but I think the people in them pay full price.

That place never has a vacancy. If someone moves out, or moves on, boom--there's someone moving in as quick as they can repaint and clean the carpets. See--not every place has tons of vacancies. Some places do have long wait lists.

As for your example, I think it is fine to let the rich person live there--but just don't pay their rent. If they can afford to pay, they need to do that. Take that subsidy money and use it to help someone else.

[Gormy Cuss]

34. Remember, the over-income tenants qualified based on income when they moved in.

And again ignoring the outlier, most over-income tenants are probably within 200% of income eligibility (as I wrote above that's my guess, an educated guess based on my professional experience.) What this usually represents is someone who has moved from public assistance to full time employment. In urban areas like NYC that increase doesn't translate into much more buying power in the rental market and probably would require moving far away from the community and your attachments to it, to start over in an area where you have no friends, no family, a longer and more complex commute, and some housing insecurity because a job loss or market rent increase could make the new rental unaffordable.

Someone who is rich or even well-off has the means to compensate for most of the above and they have moved out to other housing. I'd be interested to hear what the very well off tenants have to say about their choices.

Bear in mind that what these over-income tenants pay is the full rent assigned to the unit. There is no tenant-based subsidy to these residents. The subsidy they receive passively is in the form of the pro-rata amount that HUD pays the housing authority for operating expenses and rehab.

[MADem]

35. If they are paying the full amount, fine and dandy. The pro-rata expenses would

probably be stuff like security deposit and first/last waiver--that's not that big a deal. I don't object to people staying put at all.


People who put down roots in a neighborhood tend to care about it, and care about their neighbors, too. They also know when something just doesn't look right.

The issue, really, isn't leaving people where they're at, that improves a neighborhood--the issue is subsidizing people who don't need it.

[kcr]

45. But then they'll just move to fancier neighborhoods

If they have to pay full price they might as well. I can see maybe increasing it, but there would have to be some incentive I would think.

[MADem]

46. No. Not necessarily. People who put down roots in a community often want to stay in that

community. Not everyone wants to "move on up" and live with phonies and pretenders that they don't know--it's why the public-private model is so good; a person can move beyond subsidies and stay put.

Some people value their neighbors, their church, their clubs. It's not about having fancy digs. If they have what they want, they don't need to go anywhere.

The Mayor of Boston grew up on Tuttle Street in the Savin Hill neighborhood of Boston. He lived there all his life with his mother. He just moved out to a new (to him) house he bought with his girlfriend. Guess where he moved? To the Dot (Dorchester) -- walking distance to his mother's house. It's not a 'better' house, it's not a 'better' neighborhood--but he's at the point where he just might be formalizing his long term relationship, so now he's getting his own place at long last. There's no "fancier" happening there.

There's something to be said for community.

[tazkcmo]

56. I like your thought process

It ends up with good ideas! My father is pushing 80 and lives in a subsidized apartment in a mixed complex. For all the reasons you and others have stated, it's much better than the old model of mass housing for the poor, elderly and disabled.

At the risk of dehumanizing this issue, I would liken it to the way we currently raise livestock. Tens of thousands of cattle concentrated in a small area that foul the land and water and release huge plumes of methane. Spread them out over a larger area and you alleviate the problems. If we can recognize this with livestock, what's the mind block when we address human housing?

[MADem]

57. People are resistant to change, plus, some people (not all, fortunately) feel that if they

rub elbows with the least of our brethren, that some of that "poor stank" will rub off on them.

It's a prejudiced POV, of course. And usually, what happens, if people even make the smallest effort, they'll discover that differences of experience make for really cool conversations. Everyone learns. Everyone grows.

I get what you mean about the warehousing paradigm. It's such a waste of potential, too.

[KitSileya]

43. How about after 2 years of above average income

or something like that, their rent is increased. One year might be a windfall, an unexpected good year isn't unusual, but raising rent should be after sustained prosperity. Of course, should they fall in income/fortune, they go back to regular rent.

[MADem]

47. It's not a bad idea to means test, maybe every three years or so.

And it should be based on income, really, not a few grand in a will from Aunt Martha. Most people who live in publicly subsidized housing don't have huge portfolios, by and large!

[TexasBushwhacker]

60. Even those can be problematic

I'm over 55 and if been looking at subsidized senior apartments, because the unsisized senior communities (independent living) are unaffordable.

The cut off for a 50% rent subsidy is $24300, so about $2000 a month gross. My net is about $1700. Rent for a one bedroom would be $543. Electricity has been running me about $80 a month, so that's $623 or 37% of my net. Not ideal (I'm very frugal) but livable. But if I worked some more hours and my income went over $24300, my rent would go up $125. At that point, if my income went over $29K per year (gross) I would have to pay market rate which is almost $1100.

So I guess I'll keep walking around tricycles where I'm at.

[MADem]

61. Well, you'd hope they'd come up with some kind of formula that raises it a bit more gradually.

The difference of a dollar in income shouldn't result in a rent rise of a hundred and twenty five bucks. Those cut-offs should have a bit of fluff as one approaches the limit. You make a hundred bucks over the limit, your rent goes up a couple of bucks...like that. Two hundred over, a couple more bucks....not "Boom--fork over one-twenty five, pal!" It should go up gradually....and if that's the case, you'd probably be overtaken by cost of living increases so that you didn't end up paying that much more anyway.

Not sure if I am making sense to anyone but me--what I'm trying to say is that the rent rises shouldn't be so hard and fast at the "limit" dollar amount.

[TexasBushwhacker]

62. Yeah, one would think

but this is a tax subsidy property, not public housing owned by the county. The $125 would be bad enough, but there is now way I could afford $1100 a month if I was making $30K. Hell, I couldn't afford that when I was making $38K recently.

I did find another property that said you only have to qualify once, so I might check that one out. Of course, there is a waiting list. They all have waiting lists.

[MADem]

63. Can I lean in and offer you some advice?

Put your name on that list now if you qualify, and assuming it doesn't cut you out of signing up on other lists. You can always say no when your number comes up, but if there's a list of any length, it could be a year or two before it comes round to you. I have a friend on a list like that who has been waiting two years, and he just might get in if someone dies and a few people move NEXT year!

[TexasBushwhacker]

64. Yeah, I'm going to

But they require a deposit just to get on the waiting list, so I have to decide which one I want to go with. I just found out my lease isn't up til the end of November, so I have some time.

[MADem]

65. BASTARDS!!!!!!! A deposit? Really?

Is it refundable if you don't jump in? What BUMS!!!

I hope you find a good situation--where you live, where you hang your hat and sleep your cares away, matters, I think!

[TexasBushwhacker]

66. Yeah, and it's different at different complexes

At one it was $100, but another wanted the entire deposit that you would pay if you signed a lease. It was $350! Thank goodness the first & last months rent + deposit never caught on here. Some of the pet deposits are ridiculous though.

[MADem]

67. What bums--they make money off your money while YOU wait...grrrrr!!! nt

[TexasBushwhacker]

68. Not at the interest rates these days n/t

[MADem]

69. Many pennies soon a dollar makes! Grrrr!!!!

I think they should just make a list and call the next person, if they say no, go on to the next one--not trouble people for money to sit on a list!

[blackspade]

6. Agreed.

That is a great compromise.

[flygal]

7. My thoughts too! nt

[alarimer]

14. Exactly.

I've lived in apartment complexes that did that. Some people qualified for Section 8 (income requirements), but those who didn't (including me) paid market rates, which, in Texas, was still fairly low.
Edited to add:

It wasn't public housing, per se, but a private landlord that agreed to take tenants on housing assistance. But it was a nice neighborhood and I'm sure the lower-income folks benefited from that (better schools, less crime, etc) and it didn't appear to increase problems there at all.

[stevenleser]

17. Or at least some decent percentage of market price. Maybe 75%-80%? That is enough

incentive to stay and create the diverse community you want but it is not an abusively low rent for a high income family.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. Subsidized housing is a limited commodity that doesn't respond to market tides.

These families are consuming resources that are not readily available to those who are supposed to be the proper beneficiaries.

And politically abuses like this are a boon to the RW.

[MADem]

20. What I am advocating is removing the subsidies for people who are rich.

Those who can afford it, pay. Nothing wrong with means testing. There is no subsidy paid for the richer tenants, so there is no consumption of taxpayer resources. The subsidy money can be allocated to another unit.

Lots of "public" housing is found within private complexes, and this is a much better model than warehousing poor folks in high rises in the middle of a concrete nowhere.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. I understand, and agree, with your point about ending the subsidies but

these families are occupying residences that should be going to people who need that home more than the grifters. Someone making $500,000 annually has an entire market available to them but people looking for subsidized properties are far more limited in their prospects. That is where the real travesty comes in.

[MADem]

24. You're looking at the old paradigm of public housing, though.

Most new public housing is units in new, private complexes. You don't know which neighbor is getting the subsidy unless they share that information with you. I like this model and I think it should be expanded in an aggressive fashion. Many communities will not provide building permits for multi-unit dwellings or "townhome" style dwellings unless a percentage of the units are set aside for subsidized housing.

The way to ensure that the rising tide lifts all boats is to ensure that everyone's got their vessels tied up at the dock, not tossed on the beach away from the water.

[Lancero]

49. Charge them based on means, use that money to fund more public housing.

More funding, more help to those who need it. Yeah, a real travesty.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. What if the property owners aren't forthcoming with additional properties?

That means HUD will have to offer ever-higher subsidies thus inflating the cost to the program and maybe driving up commercial prices as well.

How much more would the family be charged anyway? Unless it's 100% the taxpayers are subsidizing a family perfectly capable of meeting its own needs. If it is 100% then no new money is made, it's a break-even for HUD -- minus HUD's admin/operating costs.

People making $500k don't need subsidized housing even if they pay full cost.

[Lancero]

52. MADem has laid out basic outlines for how it would work.

That said, if the property owners refuse to use the money to expand then it's on them and not the renters.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. His posts don't address where additional rental properties are going to come from.

People cannot hand-wave new rental properties into existence. If property owners aren't forthcoming then HUD will have to pay higher-than-market costs to attract property owners to open new properties. That's bad for everybody.

Frankly, I don't understand the emotional need to allow people who are perfectly capable of supporting themselves to consume very limited resources that are intended for the genuinely needy.

It's crap like this nonsense that gives the GOP traction when they malign government assistance programs.

[Lancero]

54. As I've said - It's on the property owners, the people living in them are not to blame...

For a owners refusal to expand, or even improve, housing.

Emotions do play a part in why some people remain in low income housing even when being able to afford to move out. Is it evil for one to want to remain nearby friends, to stay in what they see as their home? Because that's why these families remain here - It's not a case a millionaire strong-arming a low income person out, they qualified for the housing when they applied and no one ever considered that people might not want to leave the place where they raised a family, no one ever thought they might not want to leave their friends.

The GOP would swing this either way no matter the outcome - Either Democrats are evil because they want to rip a family out of the only home they've known for decades, or the program was inept because it's letting millionaires make use of them.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. But if property owners don't make additional units available then people who are actually needy

lose out.

Emotions do play a part in why some people remain in low income housing even when being able to afford to move out. Is it evil for one to want to remain nearby friends, to stay in what they see as their home?

At the expense of a family actually in need?

YES!

[Lee-Lee]

5. I'm torn

On one hand, I agree that diversity on housing is a great thing and that these people should at least pay more.

On the other hand, I know that on most parts of the country there is a waiting list for housing like this- so when a family with means to pay for their own housing elsewhere continues to occupy one that is one more family on a waiting list that can't have anyyhing....

[Cobalt Violet]

8. Stealing from the low income. Get them the fuck out of there!

Just adding a little perspective from someone who has been homeless and on a waiting list.

[840high]

76. Yep

[B Calm]

9. Seems like the more money some make, the more they have their hand out wanting

free handouts. It's a republican trait!

[merrily]

27. I knew the daughter of a man who lived in a lovely rent-controlled apartment overlooking

Central Park and himself was a slumlord who owned $40 million worth of real estate. He was 80 when she was in her 30's. We lost touch, but I bet she's lived there, among other homes, since he died and left her everything.

[Hestia]

10. It's the landlords who sign up to take on HUD housing and it is generally the poverty

area landlords who are willing to do it, which is why it seems the tenants are in poverty stricken areas. There are reams of paperwork to fill out and a lot of landlords have had bad experiences will no longer take HUD housing.

Here, if you have the cops called on you for whatever reason, you are kicked out; if you are 1 day late on rent, kicked out, and on and on.

I find it hard to believe that over qualifications won't get you kicked out/off the rolls but I think each state is different in how the apply the rules.

[Gormy Cuss]

48. The housing authority is the landlord for public housing units.

Public housing is owned and operated by a local government agency, usually but not always called a housing authority.

You may be thinking of Section 8 programs which connect privately owned rentals with tenants who qualify for subsidy.

[Hestia]

58. What's the difference then between Section & Public Housing? Aren't they the same gr'animal?

[Gormy Cuss]

59. Both are Federally subsidized rental housing programs.

Public housing is the term used for publicly-owned developments (i.e. owned by municipalities, counties, states) Section 8 assistance takes many forms, from subsidies on mortgages to private developers of rental housing who agree to income-based occupancy to the direct tenant assistance programs like the Section 8 vouchers (where the recipient has to find a privately owned unit.)

Most people who haven't been involved in subsidized housing don't realize that some of the places derisively called "the projects" are actually privately owned complexes with what are called unit-based Section 8 subsidies while other are developments owned by a municipal entity.

There are HUD tenant subsidies but the above are the most common types for the general public.

[Beaverhausen]

15. A family of 5 that has lived in public housing for over 40 years?

I don't even understand that.

[MADem]

21. I can see it happening--particularly with multi-generational families.

I've seen that happen with families that aren't rich, either. Sample:

You have a couple and their kids who live in public housing. Lots of kids, so mother is pretty much stay-at-home, maybe takes a job for extra money at Xmas, father has a so-so job which puts him in the lower end of a working class wage. They raise the kids for twenty years or so, then Pa dies, there's no annuity for Ma, so she has to rely on social security alone, and one or two of the siblings stay behind, after the rest of them get married and move out. The siblings who stay behind take care of Ma as she ages, and maybe they don't have great jobs either, but they pool their resources and are doing OK, the lot of them, and they are able to keep Ma in the home she has always known and loves. Maybe one of 'em has a kid without benefit of a reliable father, and staying with Ma and another sibling allows the person to work without sweating the costs of daycare. Before you know it, those twenty-something siblings living with Ma are pushing fifty, working at working class jobs that don't really pay enough to get ahead or afford a down payment on a house, and have spent their entire life in their little subsidized home.

I know more than a couple of families in this kind of circumstance. Time flies...!

[Beaverhausen]

23. An income of $204K?

That doesn't work in your scenario.

[MADem]

25. You said: A family of 5 that has lived in public housing for over 40 years?

I said "I can see that." In fact, I have seen it--go over to East Boston and you'll see it too. They might not make that much dough, but I could see it happening.

If you have five people, each pulling in forty grand or so a year, some a little more, some a little less, you're at $204, easy.

[Beaverhausen]

26. So why are they in subsidized housing?

It's just not fair.

[MADem]

28. It's not the housing--the physical location--that is problematic.

What is problematic is the subsidy. It's not "subsidizedhousing" -- one word. It's "subsidized" and it is
"housing." Remove the subsidies, and let the family stay in the home they've always known at the fair market rate, if that's what they want.

Use the subsidies that were applied to that family to help another family.


Simple.

[jwirr]

19. I think this is rediculous - especially when there is a housing shortage.

However, I think a lot of this is based on the idea of including different classes in house would eliminate some of the problems. I actually think this was started under a Democratic president. It was specifically aimed at stopping drug dealing in public housing.

The poorer tenants are paying 30% of their income - the amount these families paid does not sound like they are.

[wiggs]

29. The article is more flash than substance, IMO. The 'watchdog' is the department's own

inspector general. The government is looking into its own practices and loopholes and made findings and recommendations....something that should be praised rather than portrayed as government excess a la Reagan's infamous 'welfare queen' case.

The sentence 'HUD' has no plans to kick these families out'...and 'encourages them to stay' seems to me misleading. The 'watchdog' ITSELF didn't recommend kicking all of the 25,000 cases of over income out, found benefits to them staying for both themselves and other tenants...but suggests new policies for identifying and addressing egregious cases like the ones quoted (...so, how many of the 25,000 are egregious? Would have been a good point to make in the article if they weren't just interested in drama...the fact that it isn't mentioned leads me to believe that the percentage is quite small).

This is a situation where the government is investigating and reforming itself to fine tune a valuable program and eliminate loopholes...but the headline and article make it out to seem like just another Obama socialist government nightmare gone off the rails. It is reminiscent of a 2008 McCain trying to find the worst-appearing examples of scientific research (bear mating habits or something like that) in order to paint an overall picture of government incompetence and excess.

[wiggs]

31. 53% of over-income tenants made UP TO $10,000 more than the threshold.

Could be that a significant chunk of tenants made a small amount over the low income threshold (Fifty bucks? 500 bucks? 2,000 bucks?) but were counted in the 53% of over income tenants. Doesn't seem egregious.

I agree with the underlying report that there's an issue with the 47% of over-income tenants that made MORE than 10,000 above the threshold...and that it needs to be addressed....and agree with the recommendations to address them. I don't believe the article accurately portrayed the issue at all.

[wiggs]

33. More stats: less than 1% of all families helped in the program made

more than 10K over the low income threshold. Some perspective would have been good in the article.

[MADem]

37. Ah, the soft, lilting breeze of sanity!!! Thank you for this post!

The program is a good one, and subsidized units within "regular" complexes serve to de-stigmatize people who need a little assistance, and puts them in neighborhoods where, because resources are more readily available, they're not spending all of their scarce spare money just trying to "get to"---as in "get to" the store, the doctor, the bank, the post office, etc.

[erpowers]

30. Move Them Out

The families making over the income limit need to be moved out of public housing. First, this is unfair to the families who do not make large amounts of money and need to live in public housing. Second, it is unfair to families that make large amounts of money and play by the rules which cause them to pay more for their housing. These over the limit families should not be forced to buy mansion, but they could easily afford to buy homes that cost $200,000+. They could afford to live in homes with rents that cost about $2,000-$5,000.

The families living in public housing do not need these over the limit families as role models. If HUD wants the people living in public housing to make good financial decisions HUD should provide financial planning/management classes. If HUD wants the people living in public housing to improve their lives HUD should help people living in public housing get better jobs.

[MADem]

32. You miss the point. It's not "role models" that are the goal here.

The purpose of mixing subsidized and non-subsidized housing in the same neighborhood is to encourage businesses to move to those neighborhoods. If there are better off consumers in the neighborhood, supermarkets and department stores will locate there. If the consumer base is poor people, you have convenience stores that sell expired milk and liquor stores and check cashing places, and nothing else. Poor people have to take two buses and a cab to get to the grocer--that's money they don't have.

Poor people live in food/shopping/entertainment deserts. Mixed housing is within reach of these things.

The solution is to remove subsidies from people who don't need them, not force them to move out.

[erpowers]

41. Read the Article

I am not sure whether or not you read the article, but it seems like you did not read the article. In the article someone over the housing said that people with high earnings could be role models for those living in public housing.

"The goal, they said, was to create diverse, mixed-income communities and allow tenants who are making good money to serve as role models for others."

[MADem]

42. I did read it, but the dynamic goes well beyond that.

The old "public housing" paradigm has been shown to have problems. The newer 'model' is to incorporate public housing in private complexes where incomes are more mixed.

The role models are less important than the amenities and sense of community that a mixed income neighborhood brings. Often, if the people started out poor, they're not going to be flashing their cash and lording it over their neighbors, anyway. And in mixed income neighborhoods, no one is looking at anyone's paycheck or concentrating on "shared misery." There may be motivation to improve, but it's not because "that person in public housing" suddenly hit it rich. It's because the neighbors all around the unit that is subsidized are paying full price and going to work. No one in the complex knows who is 'on the dole' and who isn't, unless the landlord or custodian is a bigmouth, or the person in the subsidized unit shares that information.

[bunnies]

36. This is absurd.

300,000 families waiting for housing while those who no longer need assistance continue to take advantage. I dont understand how people who do that can sleep at night. If *anyone* should understand how important it is to get people the help when they need it you'd think it would be those that were once in need. SMH.

[choie]

38. I believe Rent is calculsted

At 30% of income for HUD apts. 30% of $480,000 is....

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

39. Seems like it's time for HUD to update their policies. nt

[hunter]

40. Want to see unfair?

Think of all the very wealthy sports teams owners whose "homes" were built on land taken by eminent domain from people in poorer neighborhoods, and whose stadium constructions and rents are subsidized by the public.

Diversity in public housing is very important. Kicking people out of established communities for successfully raising themselves out of poverty is a terrible, terrible idea, and destroys communities and neighborhoods, increasing crime, and decreasing neighborhood services.

Once a family has lived in an apartment for some time, keeping them there with a sliding scale rent, from 100% subsidy to 33%% of income on up to market value but no further, is very appropriate.

Years ago some people in our neighborhood went flaming asshole apocalyptic when a mixed subsidized/market rate apartment complex was first proposed and then built nearby, with some going so far as to sell their homes and move away, I always imagine to gated community hells where all the kids go to private segregated schools, and are sent away to snowboarding/skiing/drinking/drugging/hotel-room-trashing orgies every winter, and surfing/drinking/drugging/hotel-room-trashing orgies every spring break and summer, while their parents dance the divorce and remarriage shuffle. (I have a very negative view of affluent white kids and their parents...)

But there was no apocalypse. People living in these apartments, subsidized or not, see these apartments as their community, and see the local public schools as their schools. There is no "service desert" here. People can walk to grocery stores that have a broad selection, from cheap beer to craft beer, from chicken feet to filet mignon, two pharmacies, a choice of banks, as well as services for sending money to family in Mexico.

For many years as a kid I lived in affluent segregated all-white communities, an accident of my parents' artists-with-day-jobs lifestyle. My middle and high school experience was so awful I quit high school for college. Everyone in our family, my parents and my many siblings, have fled that world for less stifling places of great diversity.

[Vinca]

44. Let them stay, but raise their rents to whatever the market will bear.

It's not fair for these people to continue scamming taxpayers.

[Gormy Cuss]

50. More & better detail on the OIG report and HUD's response from the NLIHC website

NLIHC=National Low Income Housing Coalition, for those who don't know.

Bold emphasis added by me.

Using HUD’s Public and Indian Housing Information Center (PIC) data submitted by 2,257 PHAs, OIG found 25,226 over-income households. Thirty-three percent had income between $10,001 and $30,000 greater than the income limit, 9% had income between $30,001 and $50,000 greater than the income limit, and the remaining 5% were greater still. Fifty-three percent had income up to $10,000 greater than the income limit.

Thirty percent of the over-income households were over-income for less than one year, while 23% were over-income between one and two years. However, 13% were over-income between three and four years, 14% were over-income between five and six years, 15% were over-income between seven and eight years, and 5% were over-income for nine or more years.

OIG comments that the Housing Choice Voucher program terminates a household’s voucher if the household can afford to pay an unassisted rent for 180 consecutive days. OIG does not expect HUD and PHAs to develop policies that would remove all over-income households from public housing, stating, “Any new policies should allow families sufficient time to become stable after becoming financially independent before their public housing assistance would be terminated.” OIG recommends policies to “avoid egregious cases.” The report cites four cases, a New York City household with $497,911 annual income, a Los Angeles household with $204,784 annual income, a New Bedford, MA household with $212,845 annual income, and an Oxford, NE household with assets valued at $1.6 million.

One of HUD’s responses to the OIG report states that if all over-income households were removed from public housing there would be a need to request $116.5 million more from Congress for public housing operating subsidies each year because the higher rents paid by over-income households reduce the amount of operating subsidies PHAs need. OIG acknowledges this economic consequence, but asserts that the loss in additional rents must be weighed against the cost of continuing to deny housing assistance to very low income households in need of assistance. The 15 PHAs contacted by OIG had 12,425 over-income households and 579,890 households on their public housing waiting lists.

[daredtowork]

70. This is the second post on this

And they smell of "welfare queen" posts of me...a lead in to some sort of GOP campaign. There was a similar attempt campaign on SSI that was led in by an audit last year.

I'm suspicions that these OPs are posted by people with fairly low post-counts. I apologize if these are known DUers. If these are known DUers and well-meaning people, I ask them to think about how they may be allowing themselves to be used as pawns of the GOP in this situation.

If a well-off person is getting away with benefiting from resources that are supposed to be for poor people, of course that's a bad thing. If someone is getting away with scamming - that's true of every case where people can get away with something. If HUD needs to improve their procedures - that's true of every bureaucracy. The question is: do we "go after" programs that are needed to help the poor or do we say "fix those problems" and instead "go after" big pork barrel programs that benefit the super rich or the multi-trillion dollar defense budget?

Please don't participate in setting up a campaign to go after programs that benefit poor people. These programs have been cut and cut again repeatedly since the Clinton era. We are in a housing crisis right now in major urban area - please do not participate in and/or encourage a campaign against HUD.

[mfcorey1]

71. My post are to create discussion and information. You are way out in left field with your

assumption of me or any other DU'er who seeks to do the same. It disgust me when a poster's loyalty is questioned. I have been around for awhile and yes, I have a low number of post but greater than yours and I consider myself a very active member. What first brought me to DU was that posters provide information from various sources that I normally would not be able to access or had missed during the day, week, month, etc. So take your suspicions back to that pile of crap from which it came. Peace.

[daredtowork]

72. See post #29

By Wiggs on the "Welfare Queen" nature of this posting. I apologized in advance within my own post if I was questioning a long-time DUer - yet I see you left your own "crap" up despite several comments pointing out how this is a wedge into a "welfare queen" argument.

No one disagrees it's a bad thing if a scammer gets away with something they shouldn't get - especially if it's something a poor person should be getting. But please look at the big picture in terms of the intent of the criticism here.

[mfcorey1]

73. I can accept critiquing the article, but slamming the poster is what inflames me. A civil

discussion and analysis of the article is what we do at DU. We avoid snarking at the poster of the op if there is no malice or intent to criticize the administration.

[daredtowork]

74. I did consider it might be perceived that way

but I also find it a horrific thing when good Democrats carry forth a "welfare queen" meme, effectively doing the work of the GOP. Sorry if you recoil at the accusation, but it's not a good thing you are doing - think about the people who stand to get hurt when those programs get cut because people like you, even though you might be "well-meaning", carried forth that meme.

[mfcorey1]

75. So now, I am responsible for the content of the article. Please!!! I always remember that

Dr. Martin Luther King would read at least five newspapers a day because he felt it was important to always be aware of what the adversary is thinking or might do. It is then the duty to inform as many as you can of what they are trying to do. Continue to live in your bubble and when a pin causes it to burst, you will be taken by surprise. I leave it at that.