Unhoused and subsidized in DC

[Anonymous]

Are there any statistics about percentage of locals vs transplants among unhoused and low income/voucher housing residents?

[Anonymous]

You cannot access most homelessness services if you aren’t a resident of the jurisdiction. That usually requires demonstrating that your last permanent address was in the area. You may be able to stay in an emergency shelter, but you likely won’t be eligible for any sort of permanent housing program.

People cross from DC into Montgomery County all the time because the county has better homelessness services. The county sends those folks back to DC.

[Anonymous]

The PP is incorrect. People are allowed to self certify in DC without ID.

Upper NW has an area in which vouchers are funded at 187% of HUD market rate, highest in the nation.

[Anonymous]

Also, it takes YEARS to get a Section 8 voucher. Nearly every program in the U.S. gives preference to local applicants, which effectively means that only locals ever receive one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The PP is incorrect. People are allowed to self certify in DC without ID.

Upper NW has an area in which vouchers are funded at 187% of HUD market rate, highest in the nation.

You are confusing the DC Housing Authority with homelessness services. They are completely separate programs.

[Anonymous]

I don't live in DC but I recently was helping someone w/low income try to find somewhere to live in NoVa. I was SHOCKED at how long the waiting lists are, if they are even open, for subsidized housing. Like years if the lists are open at all. This isn't the case in DC?

[Anonymous]

Isn't it crazy to accommodate so many in DC, why can't federal government give them incentives to go to areas where cost of living is low and entry level jobs in abundance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The PP is incorrect. People are allowed to self certify in DC without ID.

Upper NW has an area in which vouchers are funded at 187% of HUD market rate, highest in the nation.

They’re a windfall for shady landlord investors. When a unit is covered by a voucher it automatically loses it rent controlled status. So greedy landlords enjoy the cash windfall, reduce rent-controlled restrictions, and watch as longtime tenants on low or fixed incomes leave because of some of the social challenges resulting from concentrations of voucher tenants in the building. In a few short years the investor landlord can redevelop the building as upmarket housing and has been paid handsomely by the taxpayer in the meantime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it crazy to accommodate so many in DC, why can't federal government give them incentives to go to areas where cost of living is low and entry level jobs in abundance?

Or repopulate dying towns.

It's way too complex and nuanced a subject for DCUM but the lack of population mobility - for which there are sometimes good reasons - is one of the problems we face as a country.

We should also build low income housing directly instead of using section 8. Section 8 just ends up increasing rents. Can't we take what we've learned from the problems with "projects" and section 8 and try something new. Some sort of middle ground where we build it but create a process to transfer ownership to the tenants over time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it crazy to accommodate so many in DC, why can't federal government give them incentives to go to areas where cost of living is low and entry level jobs in abundance?

That's exactly what they should be doing.

[Anonymous]

There have been times when I lived out of my car for a few months, there have been times when I had to move somewhere else because it was too expensive. I don't get why there is some kind of expectation that the jobless and homeless somehow need to be subsidized to live in the most expensive parts of the country.

Particularly as many who bust their asses and work in the area have a hard time being able to afford to live here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it crazy to accommodate so many in DC, why can't federal government give them incentives to go to areas where cost of living is low and entry level jobs in abundance?

That's exactly what they should be doing.

Unfortunately it's political. The areas where cost of living is low are red. Meanwhile the entry level jobs that are in abundance are either in blue high cost of living areas or are manual labor. The blue side doesn't want to be seen as forcing people to do backbreaking labor, with all the connotations that brings, while the red side thinks there is a conspiracy to replace them, with all the connotations that brings. Neither could agree to it and the rhetoric from both sides would be horrific.

It's a good idea though. The tricky part is coming up with an effective incentive or disincentive.

Theoretically something modeled on the refugee resettlement program could work but can't imagine that being done at scale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it crazy to accommodate so many in DC, why can't federal government give them incentives to go to areas where cost of living is low and entry level jobs in abundance?

Or repopulate dying towns.

It's way too complex and nuanced a subject for DCUM but the lack of population mobility - for which there are sometimes good reasons - is one of the problems we face as a country.

We should also build low income housing directly instead of using section 8. Section 8 just ends up increasing rents. Can't we take what we've learned from the problems with "projects" and section 8 and try something new. Some sort of middle ground where we build it but create a process to transfer ownership to the tenants over time.

NYC tried exactly that about 40 years ago. Guess what's happening now with those properties?

Those that are located in neighborhoods that have significantly gentrified are now available only to rich retirees and trustfunders because those are cash only deals; no bank will give a mortgage for something that has income based sales restrictions. The rest are in dire straits because the maintenance and upkeep cost money and the tenants do not have enough money to keep their buildings in good shape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PP is incorrect. People are allowed to self certify in DC without ID.

Upper NW has an area in which vouchers are funded at 187% of HUD market rate, highest in the nation.

You are confusing the DC Housing Authority with homelessness services. They are completely separate programs.

I'm not confusing anything. It is an overlapping population.

https://dhs.dc.gov/page/services-individuals-experiencing-homelessness

https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/home-front/opinion-the-dc-housing-vouchers-system-is-broken-its-on-the-mayor-to-fix-it/

https://thedcline.org/2022/07/22/why-has-dc-used-only-one-fifth-of-this-years-new-housing-vouchers-so-far/ - This guy who came to DC for job that did not pan out - why not go back where there was a lower cost of living or where he had a support network?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PP is incorrect. People are allowed to self certify in DC without ID.

Upper NW has an area in which vouchers are funded at 187% of HUD market rate, highest in the nation.

They’re a windfall for shady landlord investors. When a unit is covered by a voucher it automatically loses it rent controlled status. So greedy landlords enjoy the cash windfall, reduce rent-controlled restrictions, and watch as longtime tenants on low or fixed incomes leave because of some of the social challenges resulting from concentrations of voucher tenants in the building. In a few short years the investor landlord can redevelop the building as upmarket housing and has been paid handsomely by the taxpayer in the meantime.

That was the case for years, that a unit came out of rent control. It has recently been changed. I don't think there is any count of the hundreds or more units that were lost to the rent control program over the preceding years. For more on the PP's point, see the WP series on Sedgewick Gardens, was before the pandemic, prob @ 2019.