If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   Mortgage interest deduction = good; section 8 rent subsidies = bad   (townhall.com) divider line 102
    More: Ironic, mortgage interest deduction, itemized deduction, subsidies, government failure, upward mobility, lived better, Shaun Donovan  
•       •       •

1252 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jan 2013 at 11:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



102 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 11:05:05 AM
Not that this will happen, but maybe section 8 should have similar rules to unemployment, as in a time frame and the only way to extend the time frame is to prove you are looking for employment. This might put it back to where it began as an assistance program to get you back on your feet rather than just a way to live off others permanently
 
2013-01-09 11:10:18 AM

ac982000: Not that this will happen, but maybe section 8 should have similar rules to unemployment, as in a time frame and the only way to extend the time frame is to prove you are looking for employment. This might put it back to where it began as an assistance program to get you back on your feet rather than just a way to live off others permanently


You realize that a lot of people in section 8 are crazy or old right?  Will people have to prove they're still crazy?
 
2013-01-09 11:19:05 AM

James!: ac982000: Not that this will happen, but maybe section 8 should have similar rules to unemployment, as in a time frame and the only way to extend the time frame is to prove you are looking for employment. This might put it back to where it began as an assistance program to get you back on your feet rather than just a way to live off others permanently

You realize that a lot of people in section 8 are crazy or old right?  Will people have to prove they're still crazy?


Or they *are* working and just can't afford full market rents.  Section 8 doesn't mean the government pays all the rent, just that the government subsidizes the landlords to (effectively) offer below market rents to eligible tenants.  Far from being a freebee to the poor, the Section 8 program provides enormous subsidies to big developers who otherwise wouldn't be able to build apartments and make money without government guaranteed rent levels.

/I'll gloss over the distinction between voucher-based vs. location-based Section 8 programs here.
 
2013-01-09 11:36:35 AM

James!: ac982000: Not that this will happen, but maybe section 8 should have similar rules to unemployment, as in a time frame and the only way to extend the time frame is to prove you are looking for employment. This might put it back to where it began as an assistance program to get you back on your feet rather than just a way to live off others permanently

You realize that a lot of people in section 8 are crazy or old right?  Will people have to prove they're still crazy?


No and they should be provided subsidized guns to protect their homes.
 
2013-01-09 11:39:06 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Or they *are* working and just can't afford full market rents.


That.

Try being a single parent working at a low-wage job.
 
2013-01-09 11:39:27 AM
I like how one of the complainers in the article is, from the sounds of it, a guy that's made a pretty decent living renting houses out and collecting the federal subsidies. I wonder how he'd do if the government pulled that teat from his mouth.
 
2013-01-09 11:41:37 AM
Well one is letting someone keep their own money by reducing their tax bill for a certain amount of income that went towards a loan - which they probably took on with the impression that the interest would be deductible.  The other is giving someone other people's money by just paying for a portion of their housing costs, even though they likely pay no income taxes, and the reason for us doing this is .... I guess bribery so they don't revolt?  Or if you're an idealist, the reason could be generosity for the poor or whatever.
 
2013-01-09 11:41:48 AM

James!: ac982000: Not that this will happen, but maybe section 8 should have similar rules to unemployment, as in a time frame and the only way to extend the time frame is to prove you are looking for employment. This might put it back to where it began as an assistance program to get you back on your feet rather than just a way to live off others permanently

You realize that a lot of people in section 8 are crazy or old right?  Will people have to prove they're still crazy?


Or old?
 
2013-01-09 11:45:15 AM

spiderpaz: Well one is letting someone keep their own money by reducing their tax bill for a certain amount of income that went towards a loan - which they probably took on with the impression that the interest would be deductible.  The other is giving someone other people's money by just paying for a portion of their housing costs, even though they likely pay no income taxes, and the reason for us doing this is .... I guess bribery so they don't revolt?  Or if you're an idealist, the reason could be generosity for the poor or whatever.


I would just like to follow that up by saying that I'm not in favor of getting rid of either.  I think if we're looking for savings - now that the Cold War is over, that $700 Billion defense budget should be the primary target.

Those crazy military budgets, and the diversion of those resources from the people was always blamed on the Soviets and the imaginary "arms gap".  Now we spend more than the rest of the world combined on "defense" and just our NATO allies alone (not including the US) spend double what China and Russia do combined.
 
2013-01-09 11:47:10 AM

James!: ac982000: Not that this will happen, but maybe section 8 should have similar rules to unemployment, as in a time frame and the only way to extend the time frame is to prove you are looking for employment. This might put it back to where it began as an assistance program to get you back on your feet rather than just a way to live off others permanently

You realize that a lot of people in section 8 are crazy or old right?  Will people have to prove they're still crazy?


www.thecompleteperformer.com
Who are you calling crazy?
 
2013-01-09 11:47:20 AM
Among people who do work. People like Walmart employees or anyone else making $10/hr they're not going to be able to afford full rent and they never will. Walmart doesn't pay people enough to live on thats what welfare is for.
 
2013-01-09 11:47:50 AM
With the Townfail and WND links, I can only assume Drew's click-through income is sagging.
 
2013-01-09 11:47:53 AM

Blues_X: Try being a single parent working at a low-wage job.


Thankfully they've known what causes pregnancy for long enough that I've been able to avoid that.
 
2013-01-09 11:48:36 AM
As someone that was technically homeless for a few months in 2005, and was still still too well off (with just $300 to my name and no job at the time and no UI benefits) to qualify for Section 8 or TANF while out of work and looking for a place to live, and still holds a small grudge, keep the subsidies.

I did manage to qualify for low income housing at least once I found a job (only $8.50/hr at the time in Oregon) and a written pledge of monetary support from family. You had to have a minimum but not exceeding a maximum income to qualify for low income housing.

Thankfully those days are long behind me. I saw most of the people in similar situations were just trying to survive. The real problem people couldn't hold jobs to stay in one rental place for more than a month or two, and ended up living out of cars and under bridges because Section 8 doesn't have enough money to help everyone that needs it and the mental health resources that these people needed just are not accessible.
 
2013-01-09 11:48:44 AM

ac982000: Not that this will happen, but maybe section 8 should have similar rules to unemployment, as in a time frame and the only way to extend the time frame is to prove you are looking for employment. This might put it back to where it began as an assistance program to get you back on your feet rather than just a way to live off others permanently


How about we get rid of Mortgage interest deduction which would cause house prices to plummet and make houses more affordable so less people would need Section 8?
Or, How about we require companies like Walmart whom cause 5-10 billion dollars in government assistance to be spent because they pay their employees so poorly?

You know someone is a real Ahole or severely uninformed when they pick on poor people and not the people causing them to be poor. And yes, I have no sympathy for people who can work and leech off the system. But many Section 8 individuals have full-time jobs and in many cases more than one of them.
 
2013-01-09 11:48:50 AM
TownHall = potato
 
2013-01-09 11:49:43 AM

LarryDan43: James!: ac982000: Not that this will happen, but maybe section 8 should have similar rules to unemployment, as in a time frame and the only way to extend the time frame is to prove you are looking for employment. This might put it back to where it began as an assistance program to get you back on your feet rather than just a way to live off others permanently

You realize that a lot of people in section 8 are crazy or old right?  Will people have to prove they're still crazy?

No and they should be provided subsidized guns to protect their homes.


*Golf clap*
 
2013-01-09 11:50:23 AM

spiderpaz: Well one is letting someone keep their own money by reducing their tax bill for a certain amount of income that went towards a loan - which they probably took on with the impression that the interest would be deductible.  The other is giving someone other people's money by just paying for a portion of their housing costs, even though they likely pay no income taxes, and the reason for us doing this is .... I guess bribery so they don't revolt?  Or if you're an idealist, the reason could be generosity for the poor or whatever.


How about this? We get rid of both.
 
2013-01-09 11:50:35 AM
www.jamiefarr.com

Inconsolable.
 
2013-01-09 11:50:57 AM

sirgrim: Blues_X: Try being a single parent working at a low-wage job.

Thankfully they've known what causes pregnancy for long enough that I've been able to avoid that.


So peoples situation never changes?
 
2013-01-09 11:50:57 AM
If only we make things more miserable for the poor then they won't want to be poor anymore.
 
2013-01-09 11:51:01 AM
Poor = Bad
Fark You I Got Mine = Jesus
 
2013-01-09 11:51:14 AM

spiderpaz: Well one [mortgage interest deduction] is letting someone keep their own money by reducing their tax bill for a certain amount of income that went towards a loan - which they probably took on with the impression that the interest would be deductible.  The other is giving someone other people's money by just paying for a portion of their housing costs, even though they likely pay no income taxes, and the reason for us doing this is .... I guess bribery so they don't revolt?  Or if you're an idealist, the reason could be generosity for the poor or whatever.


The MID can also be described as giving someone other people's money by just paying for a portion of their housing costs: those who rent and those who own without mortgages are subsidizing the mortgage payments of those with mortgages. It ends up, in aggregate, to be a regressive taxation because the majority of mortgages (and the supermajority of all money tied up in them) are held by people in the top quintile.
 
2013-01-09 11:51:36 AM

spiderpaz: and the reason for us doing this is .... I guess bribery so they don't revolt? Or if you're an idealist, the reason could be generosity for the poor or whatever.


Or it could be society needs "ditch diggers", some people only qualify to be "ditch diggers", but society expects the "ditches to be dug" for free.
 
2013-01-09 11:51:59 AM

Saiga410: spiderpaz: Well one is letting someone keep their own money by reducing their tax bill for a certain amount of income that went towards a loan - which they probably took on with the impression that the interest would be deductible.  The other is giving someone other people's money by just paying for a portion of their housing costs, even though they likely pay no income taxes, and the reason for us doing this is .... I guess bribery so they don't revolt?  Or if you're an idealist, the reason could be generosity for the poor or whatever.

How about this? We get rid of both.


Shanty towns would spring up around all the major cities.
 
2013-01-09 11:52:19 AM
The government creates dependency and I know this because here's two guys who agree with me.
 
2013-01-09 11:53:35 AM

buzzcut73: I like how one of the complainers in the article is, from the sounds of it, a guy that's made a pretty decent living renting houses out and collecting the federal subsidies.


Yep. And his statement that he's been doing this for thirty years and has only seen one person get out of the system. That's a hell of a sample. One person who rents property. Does he keep tabs on people who move when their year lease is up? I'm also guessing that there is no city in New Hampshire (where this guy is from) has anything but a small housing authority running the Section 8 program. So, one landlord, from a small city saying that he's only seen one person elevate him or herself from the program is compelling evidence, at least to John Stossel, that most (Stossel's words, not mine) people don't get out of the Section 8 system. That's some damn fine reporting there. What a tool bag.
 
2013-01-09 11:53:41 AM

spiderpaz: Well one is letting someone keep their own money by reducing their tax bill for a certain amount of income that went towards a loan - which they probably took on with the impression that the interest would be deductible.  The other is giving someone other people's money by just paying for a portion of their housing costs, even though they likely pay no income taxes, and the reason for us doing this is .... I guess bribery so they don't revolt?  Or if you're an idealist, the reason could be generosity for the poor or whatever.


And buy that, you mean the landlords, right?
 
2013-01-09 11:54:45 AM

Fart_Machine: If only we make things more miserable for the poor then they won't want to be poor anymore.


Look at this thread, though, there's scum and stooges who actually believe that.
 
2013-01-09 11:56:01 AM

spiderpaz: Well one is letting someone keep their own money by reducing their tax bill for a certain amount of income that went towards a loan - which they probably took on with the impression that the interest would be deductible.  The other is giving someone other people's money by just paying for a portion of their housing costs, even though they likely pay no income taxes, and the reason for us doing this is .... I guess bribery so they don't revolt?  Or if you're an idealist, the reason could be generosity for the poor or whatever.


Well, would you rather have them all out on the street, reeking of urine and begging you for spare change?
 
2013-01-09 11:58:05 AM
You can't tell from Subby's headline, but Stossel doesn't like the mortgage interest deduction either... it isn't mentioned in this article at all, by the way.
 
2013-01-09 11:58:31 AM

James!: ac982000: Not that this will happen, but maybe section 8 should have similar rules to unemployment, as in a time frame and the only way to extend the time frame is to prove you are looking for employment. This might put it back to where it began as an assistance program to get you back on your feet rather than just a way to live off others permanently

You realize that a lot of people in section 8 are crazy or old right?  Will people have to prove they're still crazy?


Or disabled.
 
2013-01-09 11:58:57 AM
You know, we might not have so many Section 8 tenants if we don't have so many property values inflated by the mortgage interest deduction.
 
2013-01-09 11:59:01 AM

James!: Saiga410: spiderpaz: Well one is letting someone keep their own money by reducing their tax bill for a certain amount of income that went towards a loan - which they probably took on with the impression that the interest would be deductible.  The other is giving someone other people's money by just paying for a portion of their housing costs, even though they likely pay no income taxes, and the reason for us doing this is .... I guess bribery so they don't revolt?  Or if you're an idealist, the reason could be generosity for the poor or whatever.

How about this? We get rid of both.

Shanty towns would spring up around all the major cities.


That's already happening in a few metro areas, what with all the homeless we have. Where I live in Oregon, the city is working on making an official, city sponsored "homeless camp" so they can try and target resources aimed at combating homelessness (drug counseling, rehab, mental health services, etc.) to those that need it without traipsing all over the city. It grew out of Occupy Eugene, after "regular" people attending the protests during the day interacted with Eugene's large homeless population and realized "Hey, we have a homeless problem".

It's a noble endeavor, but I guess these official homeless camps have been tried before and reportedly end badly for most involved with the homeless still homeless and the city having spent a lot of money with few to no results.

//I really need to read up on how such things have turned out in the past. My confirmation bias sense is tingling...
 
2013-01-09 11:59:14 AM

Lord_Baull: With the Townfail and WND links, I can only assume Drew's click-through income is sagging.



I heard some scuttlebutt that due to the behavior of *one* particular TFette I'd never heard of before, this place lost a significant number of paid members recently and therefore cash flow's kinda gone negative. A shame, really.
 
2013-01-09 12:00:02 PM

TabASlotB: spiderpaz: Well one [mortgage interest deduction] is letting someone keep their own money by reducing their tax bill for a certain amount of income that went towards a loan - which they probably took on with the impression that the interest would be deductible.  The other is giving someone other people's money by just paying for a portion of their housing costs, even though they likely pay no income taxes, and the reason for us doing this is .... I guess bribery so they don't revolt?  Or if you're an idealist, the reason could be generosity for the poor or whatever.

The MID can also be described as giving someone other people's money by just paying for a portion of their housing costs: those who rent and those who own without mortgages are subsidizing the mortgage payments of those with mortgages. It ends up, in aggregate, to be a regressive taxation because the majority of mortgages (and the supermajority of all money tied up in them) are held by people in the top quintile.


If you want to eliminate the shred of upward mobility the middle class still has and add more obstacles to go from someone who can't afford a mortgage to someone who has paid off their mortgage, go ahead and eliminate it then.  The middle class has been so dismantled since Reagan came into the picture, there's barely anything left to salvage now anyway.  We can all 300 million of us live in Section 8 housing soon.
 
2013-01-09 12:00:29 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Fart_Machine: If only we make things more miserable for the poor then they won't want to be poor anymore.

Look at this thread, though, there's scum and stooges who actually believe that.


Naw, I think that's a well-off person's way of looking at this. From what I can tell, most Farkers are broke or a couple of paychecks from being broke. They fantasize about how reckless they could be if they didn't have the "burden" of paying their own rent of mortgage and they assume that life is as comfortable for Section 8 residents as it is in their dream. The rich have been successful in teaching the middle class to hate the poor.

...Meanwhile, billions of dollars in aid goes to Isreal. I'm sure they put in an honest day of lobbying. They deserve every penny.
 
2013-01-09 12:00:43 PM

sirgrim: Blues_X: Try being a single parent working at a low-wage job.

Thankfully they've known what causes pregnancy for long enough that I've been able to avoid that.


I too was born smarter and with better decision making skills than many people, that doesn't mean I want to shiat on them.
 
2013-01-09 12:00:45 PM

James!: Saiga410: spiderpaz: Well one is letting someone keep their own money by reducing their tax bill for a certain amount of income that went towards a loan - which they probably took on with the impression that the interest would be deductible.  The other is giving someone other people's money by just paying for a portion of their housing costs, even though they likely pay no income taxes, and the reason for us doing this is .... I guess bribery so they don't revolt?  Or if you're an idealist, the reason could be generosity for the poor or whatever.

How about this? We get rid of both.

Shanty towns would spring up around all the major cities.


Will they be called Obamavilles?

/shiat, I don't want to give these tea party asshats anymore ideas
 
2013-01-09 12:02:18 PM
Maybe one of you smarty economist types can splain to me why the intended effect of the mortgage interest subsidy hasn't "worn off"? I believe (more like assume) that the deduction was first put in place to spur housing sales since, at the outset, the new deduction certainly helped the purchaser afford more house (or just a house), but over time, hasn't the "true cost" been factored into the equation? In other words, aren't most houses simply more expensive than they would otherwise be if there was no mortgage interest deduction?

I understand it's complicated and there are special situations where the deduction is more or less valuable to a particular buyer, but other than on the margins, that shouldn't have a big impact on the entire market.

If the effect has worn off, is there any way to get rid of it without destroying the built in (artificial) price support? Perhaps some smart guys can value the tax break that would be associated with a given property and there could be a one-time (or periodic) offer to provide a federal tax credit in that amount (or some substantial portion of it) for any property owners who were willing to make their property no longer "deductible" - something similar to ground rent buyback programs. Then those properties would forever be "non-deductible" and presumably their value would drop accordingly.

Granted, there would be some initial confusion as the market would have to adjust to two "classes" of residential houses - deductible and non-deductible - but the market is smart enough to figure that out, and over time, I'd expect more and more houses to become non-deductible as current owners can cash out some value from their house rather than maintain some deductibility (especially as more and more houses become non-deductible). Any currently mortgaged house would require some method of approval or sharing in the payout since one immediate impact would be a reduction in property value, but again, over time, the market (both housing and banking) would adjust.

The goal would be to reduce the mortgage interest deduction, which would reduce the overall cost of real estate (and the amount mortgaged), but the reduction wouldn't be "real" in the sense that the overall relative values stay roughly the same.

Ok, smart guys - would this work?
 
2013-01-09 12:03:58 PM
A

TabASlotB: spiderpaz: Well one [mortgage interest deduction] is letting someone keep their own money by reducing their tax bill for a certain amount of income that went towards a loan - which they probably took on with the impression that the interest would be deductible.  The other is giving someone other people's money by just paying for a portion of their housing costs, even though they likely pay no income taxes, and the reason for us doing this is .... I guess bribery so they don't revolt?  Or if you're an idealist, the reason could be generosity for the poor or whatever.

The MID can also be described as giving someone other people's money by just paying for a portion of their housing costs: those who rent and those who own without mortgages are subsidizing the mortgage payments of those with mortgages. It ends up, in aggregate, to be a regressive taxation because the majority of mortgages (and the supermajority of all money tied up in them) are held by people in the top quintile.


The mortgage interest deduction is only taken if the tax payer itemizes. With itemizing one forgoes the standard deduction. The standard deduction is a set value not pegged to income so it disproportionately helps those in the lower brackets. If a person spends 30% of their monthly income on a mortgage (principle, interest, taxes and insurance), the lower income earner won't benefit from the mortgage interest deduction because they standard deduction is a better deal. I don't see any problem with this.
 
2013-01-09 12:05:16 PM

meat0918: James!: Saiga410: spiderpaz: Well one is letting someone keep their own money by reducing their tax bill for a certain amount of income that went towards a loan - which they probably took on with the impression that the interest would be deductible.  The other is giving someone other people's money by just paying for a portion of their housing costs, even though they likely pay no income taxes, and the reason for us doing this is .... I guess bribery so they don't revolt?  Or if you're an idealist, the reason could be generosity for the poor or whatever.

How about this? We get rid of both.

Shanty towns would spring up around all the major cities.

That's already happening in a few metro areas, what with all the homeless we have. Where I live in Oregon, the city is working on making an official, city sponsored "homeless camp" so they can try and target resources aimed at combating homelessness (drug counseling, rehab, mental health services, etc.) to those that need it without traipsing all over the city. It grew out of Occupy Eugene, after "regular" people attending the protests during the day interacted with Eugene's large homeless population and realized "Hey, we have a homeless problem".

It's a noble endeavor, but I guess these official homeless camps have been tried before and reportedly end badly for most involved with the homeless still homeless and the city having spent a lot of money with few to no results.

//I really need to read up on how such things have turned out in the past. My confirmation bias sense is tingling...


NYC has been trying to increase their shelters but we have a bunch of NIMBYs trying to stop them.  There are years long waiting lists for apartments in the projects so the city gives subsidies for a certain number of section 8 apartments in new buildings.

A bunch of cities are promoting smaller efficiency apartments for people who are new to the city.  The fact is that we rely on people who do jobs that make next to nothing so it's in society's interest to help them.
 
2013-01-09 12:05:16 PM
I lived in a building that had a block of rent control units set aside in Chicago. It was incredibly frustrating how expensive our apartment was and how little money we had left over at the end of the month after coming up with the rent only to share the same floor with people who paid 1/4 of what we did. It also invited an unsavory element to the building in general and more than once I caught people taking a piss in the hall or stairwells and often the elevators reeks of urine or weed.

A lot of the residents really seemed to not appreciate the opportunity to live in a nice part of the city and in a nice building and it was a pretty big slap in the face to their neighbors who were helping subsidize their taking a dump on our building.
 
2013-01-09 12:06:46 PM
Goddammit, stop linking to sites that don't deserve my click.
 
2013-01-09 12:14:24 PM

rtaylor92: I lived in a building that had a block of rent control units set aside in Chicago. It was incredibly frustrating how expensive our apartment was and how little money we had left over at the end of the month after coming up with the rent only to share the same floor with people who paid 1/4 of what we did. It also invited an unsavory element to the building in general and more than once I caught people taking a piss in the hall or stairwells and often the elevators reeks of urine or weed.

A lot of the residents really seemed to not appreciate the opportunity to live in a nice part of the city and in a nice building and it was a pretty big slap in the face to their neighbors who were helping subsidize their taking a dump on our building.


I lived in the same type of property in Boston, though our property management company was very good about vetting people. Occasionally we got one or two tenants in subsidized units that were shiat. But for us, our biggest problem were rich kids. Those where Daddy paid their living expenses, rented out the place in his name, and they didn't give two shiats about the place. That was far more common then poor, subsidized housing people bringing over unsavory guests and doing drugs and getting drunk, and other stereotypical crap people throw at poor people.

I guess your mileage may very; I just hope you don't label all subsidized housing folk as irresponsible druggies and drunks because of your personal experience.
 
2013-01-09 12:15:56 PM
And the GOP is constantly harping that the left is fomenting a class war.

GOP: hey guys, lets figure out a good way to make living in poverty even worse, if we get all the working poor to kill themselves, we can use their corpses to fuel our homes and fertilize the rose garden.

The cost of one next gen useless farking fighter jet could probably feed a million people for a year.
 
2013-01-09 12:17:29 PM

meat0918: James!: Saiga410: spiderpaz: Well one is letting someone keep their own money by reducing their tax bill for a certain amount of income that went towards a loan - which they probably took on with the impression that the interest would be deductible.  The other is giving someone other people's money by just paying for a portion of their housing costs, even though they likely pay no income taxes, and the reason for us doing this is .... I guess bribery so they don't revolt?  Or if you're an idealist, the reason could be generosity for the poor or whatever.

How about this? We get rid of both.

Shanty towns would spring up around all the major cities.

That's already happening in a few metro areas, what with all the homeless we have. Where I live in Oregon, the city is working on making an official, city sponsored "homeless camp" so they can try and target resources aimed at combating homelessness (drug counseling, rehab, mental health services, etc.) to those that need it without traipsing all over the city. It grew out of Occupy Eugene, after "regular" people attending the protests during the day interacted with Eugene's large homeless population and realized "Hey, we have a homeless problem".

It's a noble endeavor, but I guess these official homeless camps have been tried before and reportedly end badly for most involved with the homeless still homeless and the city having spent a lot of money with few to no results.

//I really need to read up on how such things have turned out in the past. My confirmation bias sense is tingling...


Seattle (well, King County) has a number of major homeless camps organized by a few groups that have been running successfully for years. They're not official (and, in fact, the city has been trying to shut them down, with the most recent campaign being against Nickelsville in particular) but are a damn shot better than being on the street. I'm guessing that the Eugene camp will live or die on whether the city chooses to impose a giant stack of rules and regulations and in general treat it like a prison camp, as Seattle has tried to pressure SHARE/WHEEL into doing with TC3 and TC4.
 
2013-01-09 12:17:44 PM

rtaylor92: I lived in a building that had a block of rent control units set aside in Chicago. It was incredibly frustrating how expensive our apartment was and how little money we had left over at the end of the month after coming up with the rent only to share the same floor with people who paid 1/4 of what we did. It also invited an unsavory element to the building in general and more than once I caught people taking a piss in the hall or stairwells and often the elevators reeks of urine or weed.

A lot of the residents really seemed to not appreciate the opportunity to live in a nice part of the city and in a nice building and it was a pretty big slap in the face to their neighbors who were helping subsidize their taking a dump on our building.


I don't know most of my neighbors first names and you all had first-hand knowledge of how much each of them paid in rent and which of them were Section 8? Wow, I'm surprised that a savage, hall-pissing stranger would go into that much detail with you about their living arrangements. You must be very easy to talk too.
 
2013-01-09 12:20:43 PM
As someone who works for an architecture firm that designs "workforce" & senior housing (aka. Section 8), I'm getting a kick. Interestingly, the new-hotness in this type of project is mixing the standard rent apartments with a certain percentage of Section 8 flats and first story commercial businesses. This keeps revenue up, and expands the potential cliental with a range of incomes and reduces the crime and vandalism at the property. Work in this specific industry is booming.

Our latest project in Seattle:
www.johnsonbraund.com

www.johnsonbraund.com

One of our recently opened, subsidized senior housing projects:
www.johnsonbraund.com

www.johnsonbraund.com
/both have electric car charging, rooftop gardens, top accolades for energy efficiency, and were built very affordably. They sold out quickly.
 
2013-01-09 12:21:51 PM

MrSteve007: As someone who works for an architecture firm that designs "workforce" & senior housing (aka. Section 8), I'm getting a kick. Interestingly, the new-hotness in this type of project is mixing the standard rent apartments with a certain percentage of Section 8 flats and first story commercial businesses. This keeps revenue up, and expands the potential cliental with a range of incomes and reduces the crime and vandalism at the property. Work in this specific industry is booming.

Our latest project in Seattle:
[www.johnsonbraund.com image 546x518]

[www.johnsonbraund.com image 546x518]

One of our recently opened, subsidized senior housing projects:
[www.johnsonbraund.com image 546x518]

[www.johnsonbraund.com image 546x518]
/both have electric car charging, rooftop gardens, top accolades for energy efficiency, and were built very affordably. They sold out quickly.


Those are beautiful!
 
Displayed 50 of 102 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report