Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

Time to on government assistanceFollow

#1 Jul 28 2014 at 8:23 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,256 posts
Crain's published an interesting piece about "super vouchers" that allow poor people live in penthouses that go for over 2k a month.

Not exactly a small chunk of change given that rent assistance is only a part of the government help available in Chicagostan. The usual question of "the ****?" gives way to: "how connected do you have to be to be "awarded" one of those pads?" closely followed by: "what am I doing wrong with my life?"

K, back to reading stuff.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#2 Jul 28 2014 at 11:24 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
Poor folk in hi-rises?

Can't have that!! They might think they're human!







Seriously. If the occasional poor person gets a super-nice apartment? I don't care.


Gbaji will, because poor folk don't deserve to mingle with rich folk. Because they are, like, lazy or something.

Edited, Jul 28th 2014 11:25pm by Bijou
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#3 Jul 28 2014 at 11:41 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
2,265 posts
So does it cost more for them to help the less fortunate in live better areas and increase their chances to be a productive member of society by probably triple or give them less for a place in the slums and then pay for the prison cell, government leeching poor that they grow up from putting them in the slums where you're *almost* guaranteed to be a gangbanger or highschool drop out druggy.

You cant create a problem by placing "the dirty poor" in the slums and then complain when they grow up to be slummies(trailer trash). You placed them in a position where they had to become what you dont like to survive. But god forbid you lend a helping hand and show them a better way or give them a chance to better themselves.



Edited, Jul 29th 2014 1:28am by BeanX
____________________________
What I Play
Recently Played
#4 Jul 29 2014 at 4:39 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Man, Chicago is cheap.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#5 Jul 29 2014 at 5:10 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,884 posts
Is a 2k apartment really that high of a place in Chicago? Given what I've seen for rentals around here (very low cost of living and housing prices).
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#6 Jul 29 2014 at 6:20 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Man, Chicago is cheap.

That's what I was thinking.

I don't see a problem mixing in some poors. It's like sprinkling a few chick-peas into your Waldorf salad. Gives it some texture.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#7 Jul 29 2014 at 6:21 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,256 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Poor folk in hi-rises?

Can't have that!! They might think they're human!







Seriously. If the occasional poor person gets a super-nice apartment? I don't care.


Gbaji will, because poor folk don't deserve to mingle with rich folk. Because they are, like, lazy or something.

Edited, Jul 28th 2014 11:25pm by Bijou


Very understanding of you; what about them other poor folk who did not get the assistance because because the chosen ones were chosen? My grandma was on assistance and was getting about $400 a month. Do you see the difference? It is wasteful. It can, and if it can it will, be abused.

I do not think it is a prudent use of tax dollars.

But yeah, those poor people on assistance should not be in high rises. It sends a wrong message.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#8 Jul 29 2014 at 6:24 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
BeanX wrote:

You cant create a problem by placing "the dirty poor" in the slums and then complain when they grow up to be slummies(trailer trash).

This is one of the reasons CHA gives for giving out the "supervouchers".

Quote:
The CHA says in a statement that the “exception payments” for high-cost apartments cover less than 2 percent of the authority's roughly 38,000 outstanding vouchers. The higher payments—known as supervouchers—are necessary to help low-income residents move into better neighborhoods, which have few affordable housing options, the authority says.
Most landlords agree with the effort to expand the use of “housing choice vouchers,” formerly known as Section 8 vouchers, to more prosperous parts of the city. Vouchers have become a bigger part of the CHA's policy since it tore down big public housing projects like Cabrini-Green, offering recipients more flexibility to choose where to live so they can escape the cycle of poverty.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#9 Jul 29 2014 at 6:24 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,256 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Man, Chicago is cheap.


You live in CA, don't you.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#10 Jul 29 2014 at 6:26 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,256 posts
Elinda wrote:
BeanX wrote:

You cant create a problem by placing "the dirty poor" in the slums and then complain when they grow up to be slummies(trailer trash).

This is one of the reasons CHA gives for giving out the "supervouchers".

Quote:
The CHA says in a statement that the “exception payments” for high-cost apartments cover less than 2 percent of the authority's roughly 38,000 outstanding vouchers. The higher payments—known as supervouchers—are necessary to help low-income residents move into better neighborhoods, which have few affordable housing options, the authority says.
Most landlords agree with the effort to expand the use of “housing choice vouchers,” formerly known as Section 8 vouchers, to more prosperous parts of the city. Vouchers have become a bigger part of the CHA's policy since it tore down big public housing projects like Cabrini-Green, offering recipients more flexibility to choose where to live so they can escape the cycle of poverty.


How is that a good argument? We only do it sometimes is hardly helpful here.

The question is who got it and if they happen to be related to the person approving it, because odds are they are.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#11 Jul 29 2014 at 6:32 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Elinda wrote:
BeanX wrote:

You cant create a problem by placing "the dirty poor" in the slums and then complain when they grow up to be slummies(trailer trash).

This is one of the reasons CHA gives for giving out the "supervouchers".

Quote:
The CHA says in a statement that the “exception payments” for high-cost apartments cover less than 2 percent of the authority's roughly 38,000 outstanding vouchers. The higher payments—known as supervouchers—are necessary to help low-income residents move into better neighborhoods, which have few affordable housing options, the authority says.
Most landlords agree with the effort to expand the use of “housing choice vouchers,” formerly known as Section 8 vouchers, to more prosperous parts of the city. Vouchers have become a bigger part of the CHA's policy since it tore down big public housing projects like Cabrini-Green, offering recipients more flexibility to choose where to live so they can escape the cycle of poverty.


How is that a good argument? We only do it sometimes is hardly helpful here.

The question is who got it and if they happen to be related to the person approving it, because odds are they are.
They only put people into some apartments sometimes seems to be their policy regardless of whether it's a high rise or not.

I'm not all that familiar with Chicago housing or CHA policy, but from the article it didn't sound like putting up one family in a high-rise meant 5 other families had to live in the gutters.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#12 Jul 29 2014 at 6:43 AM Rating: Good
***
3,046 posts
Maryland has been doing this for years and if I wasn't happily living with Jonwin, I would have accepted the voucher, I could have gotten few years after I moved in here and looked for a place Columbia MD.

Not that people who own homes in the older neighborhood of Columbia are happy with poor people moving in next to them, but many of the problems there are due to the fact that the houses were built in the late 60's and early 70's and landlords are not known for doing the major upkeep the homes need. Much as I loved living in the house my parents had built in 1971, I know by now the structure would need major work to be liveable now.

Plus the family that brought it from my parents took out the book selves my parents place in nearly every room in the house. They owned walls of books, and I kept up the tradition.

Edited, Jul 29th 2014 8:44am by ElneClare
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#13 Jul 29 2014 at 6:50 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
I don't think this is an efficient usage of assistance funds, and having small numbers getting significantly higher housing payments is a highly corruptible position.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#14 Jul 29 2014 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
The question is who got it and if they happen to be related to the person approving it, because odds are they are.

The article doesn't address the idea of a corrupt process at all. Who knows, maybe it is but there's no reason to jump to that based on the article. If you wanted to talk about corruption in the CHA voucher program, you should have found an article about that.
Elinda wrote:
I'm not all that familiar with Chicago housing or CHA policy, but from the article it didn't sound like putting up one family in a high-rise meant 5 other families had to live in the gutters.

Well, there's a finite amount of money in the pot and the article mentions a long list of people waiting to receive vouchers. So a person getting $2,500 or $3,000 in assistance probably is slowing that process down a little.

Timelordwho wrote:
I don't think this is an efficient usage of assistance funds, and having small numbers getting significantly higher housing payments is a highly corruptible position.

I agree with that. I think the idea of allowing for the vouchers to help mix the population is fine but it sounds as though they used to be capped at 150% median rent and now they're at 300%. 150% seems reasonable to me.

Edited, Jul 29th 2014 8:32am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Jul 29 2014 at 7:36 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The article doesn't address the idea of a corrupt process at all.
It's made in China. Everything is broken.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#16 Jul 29 2014 at 7:37 AM Rating: Good
***
3,046 posts
But I always wanted to live on the Gold Coast. When I was little, I love the two round apartment building on Lake Shore Drive. Smiley: smile
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#17 Jul 29 2014 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
The question is who got it and if they happen to be related to the person approving it, because odds are they are.

The article doesn't address the idea of a corrupt process at all. Who knows, maybe it is but there's no reason to jump to that based on the article. If you wanted to talk about corruption in the CHA voucher program, you should have found an article about that.
Elinda wrote:
I'm not all that familiar with Chicago housing or CHA policy, but from the article it didn't sound like putting up one family in a high-rise meant 5 other families had to live in the gutters.

Well, there's a finite amount of money in the pot and the article mentions a long list of people waiting to receive vouchers. So a person getting $2,500 or $3,000 in assistance probably is slowing that process down a little.

Timelordwho wrote:
I don't think this is an efficient usage of assistance funds, and having small numbers getting significantly higher housing payments is a highly corruptible position.

I agree with that. I think the idea of allowing for the vouchers to help mix the population is fine but it sounds as though they used to be capped at 150% median rent and now they're at 300%. 150% seems reasonable to me.

Edited, Jul 29th 2014 8:32am by Jophiel


The problem, I think, is when you give assistance levels higher than what a reasonable amount of people outside the assistance system receive. Don't get my position wrong, I'm quite in favor of offering assistance programs, but offering to pay above median rates seems bizarre, because you'd be paying more than half the general public, and I'm assuming less than half the public needs these assistance programs. If the beneficiary wants to use their voucher at a more expensive place and is willing to pay a higher percentage of the overage, that would be fine as well, assuming they meet the program qualifications.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#18 Jul 29 2014 at 9:29 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Timelordwho wrote:

If the beneficiary wants to use their voucher at a more expensive place and is willing to pay a higher percentage of the overage, that would be fine as well, assuming they meet the program qualifications.
This is what I don't understand. According to one of these articles the beneficiary has to pay 30% of the cost of rent. The housing authority issues a voucher for the rest. If someone can afford to pay 30% of $3,000 you'd have to wonder why they're getting housing assistance at all.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#19 Jul 29 2014 at 9:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
I don't think this is an efficient usage of assistance funds, and having small numbers getting significantly higher housing payments is a highly corruptible position.
This has been a rolling debate here for a while too. In theory every city in the metro area is supposed to contribute equally to the low-income housing problem. Equally in that every town would have a number of low-income apartments proportional to their population. Sounds great on paper and everything.

Problem is that in some cities rent is much higher than in others. So you run into the problem where you can either pay to house 20 people in Ritzville or 200 people in Slumland. The two sides fight constantly about the problem. One side accusing the well-to-do neighborhood of not pulling their weight, and the other pointing out we could house many more people the other way. Back and forth they go with the consequences being a token few low-income housing projects in the nice neighborhood, and the majority in Slumland where the budget-limited program can help the most people for its dollars.

So do we give a small amount of help to a large number of people, or do we give a large amount of help to a small number of people? Or do we go all Libertarian and just strap them to a sewing machine for the rest of their natural life?

Decisions, decisions... Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#20 Jul 29 2014 at 9:40 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
The higher rent areas should just have additional property taxes levied on them to subsidize the affordable housing in other districts.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#21 Jul 29 2014 at 9:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
So do we give a small amount of help to a large number of people, or do we give a large amount of help to a small number of people?

I guess the issue here is that being in a $3k/mth single bedroom apt isn't really "large help" any more than being in a $1200/mth apartment. I mean, the view is probably nicer from the $3k apartment and maybe the gym is better equipped but the extra money isn't really "helping" them in a significant way. ****, they'd be better off with a $1200 apartment and $1800 in food, utility assistance, clothing or whatever. Granted those things aren't within the CHA's bailiwick but you know what I mean.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Jul 29 2014 at 9:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
The higher rent areas should just have additional property taxes levied on them to subsidize the affordable housing in other districts.
But, as the argument goes, if they're still in the slum are you really helping them any? How do you get people out of that cycle of poverty if you're just keeping them in a low-income neighborhood with limited access to good educational opportunities and employment? What does that do to the crime rate? Etc, etc. The need to have housing assistance is just a symptom of the larger problem to be fixed, or something like that.

Edited, Jul 29th 2014 8:48am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#23 Jul 29 2014 at 10:44 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
So do we give a small amount of help to a large number of people, or do we give a large amount of help to a small number of people?

I guess the issue here is that being in a $3k/mth single bedroom apt isn't really "large help" any more than being in a $1200/mth apartment. I mean, the view is probably nicer from the $3k apartment and maybe the gym is better equipped but the extra money isn't really "helping" them in a significant way. ****, they'd be better off with a $1200 apartment and $1800 in food, utility assistance, clothing or whatever. Granted those things aren't within the CHA's bailiwick but you know what I mean.

According to the article, or the CHA, it is more help to put people into higher income neighborhoods. They stand a better chance of breaking the poverty cycle.

More variables: If you put up a small number of people in expensive places and they become self-sufficient within a generation or so, you're shortening the waiting list.


edit - what spg said. Smiley: mad



Edited, Jul 29th 2014 6:45pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#24 Jul 29 2014 at 10:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Smiley: nod
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#25 Jul 29 2014 at 10:54 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
The higher rent areas should just have additional property taxes levied on them to subsidize the affordable housing in other districts.
But, as the argument goes, if they're still in the slum are you really helping them any? How do you get people out of that cycle of poverty if you're just keeping them in a low-income neighborhood with limited access to good educational opportunities and employment? What does that do to the crime rate? Etc, etc. The need to have housing assistance is just a symptom of the larger problem to be fixed, or something like that.

Edited, Jul 29th 2014 8:48am by someproteinguy


The problem is you are only sending ~2% of the people to "good" neighborhoods. This is where your argument breaks down. A larger problem is that the CHA is picking "winners and losers". Offering other programs that solve the other systemic problems is a better solution.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#26 Jul 29 2014 at 11:06 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
But, as the argument goes, if they're still in the slum are you really helping them any? How do you get people out of that cycle of poverty if you're just keeping them in a low-income neighborhood with limited access to good educational opportunities and employment? What does that do to the crime rate? Etc, etc. The need to have housing assistance is just a symptom of the larger problem to be fixed, or something like that.

Sure, but then the middle class folks might get jealous, and as you can see from this thread, the middle class folks need to feel superior to the poor folks because the BIG LIE of the moral hazard of providing an above subsistence lifestyle to the poor is alive and well in America. "You can't let the poor live there, that's as nice or nicer than where I live! Much of my identity revolves how much better I have than those people!"

Sad, really, but a good object lesson of why it's so easy to manipulate US citizens into a perpetual underclass so long as you let them feel better than SOMEONE.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 86 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (86)