I hope the district doesn’t do this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh section 8 renters, amirite? It’s getting hard enough to find quality tenants when it’s illegal to screen by criminal history.

Section 8 people straight up tear up properties. I am serious. Look at all the nice new condos in Navy Yard and the issues the voucher folks have created. They just don’t respect the free housing they get.

https://www.vox.com/policy/355088/rent-tenants-cash-vouchers-housing

DC has to stop providing benefits that are materially better than surrounding jurisdictions and mid-Atlantic cities. People are actually coming to Washington for the generous vouchers. And then local politicians have no clue why they spend so much money and the problem gets bigger.

This is about national politics. DC hasn't opened its role for Section 8 in ages. It's already illegal to discriminate against voucher holders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s a great idea. People with housing vouchers can move into much nicer places and even rent homes in nice neighborhoods instead of being stuck in places that accept the voucher.

So if this goes through, section 8’ers will be able to combine the benefits of 2 or 3 recipients and use it to rent houses on the same block in Cleveland Park or north Arlington as many posters here.

That would be absolutely fantastic. The diversity you say is our strength will be a few doors down from you!


Let’s celebrate!!!

You are funny. I like your sarcasm.

I just wanna see people get what they claim they want. Which is something that many DCUM’s seem to struggle with. They claim to care soooooo much about diversity and equity, but for some reason gravitate towards neighborhoods that are almost exclusively white and UMC. Weird, right?

Hopefully this will help.

I don’t think this policy is a good idea, because it will drive rents up and there will be more fraud with benefits. People will move in with their family members and just pocket the money. I think section 8 needs to have a universal maximum amount. It doesn’t make any sense to give people $3,000+ for rent because they live in an expensive area. It would benefit more people if the cap were 2000 or 1500 a month.

Actually, landlords significantly inflate prices for vouchers. If renters could just go get an apartment, it would be cheaper b/c they would pay market rate and not inflated rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s a great idea. People with housing vouchers can move into much nicer places and even rent homes in nice neighborhoods instead of being stuck in places that accept the voucher.

So if this goes through, section 8’ers will be able to combine the benefits of 2 or 3 recipients and use it to rent houses on the same block in Cleveland Park or north Arlington as many posters here.

That would be absolutely fantastic. The diversity you say is our strength will be a few doors down from you!


Let’s celebrate!!!

You are funny. I like your sarcasm.

I just wanna see people get what they claim they want. Which is something that many DCUM’s seem to struggle with. They claim to care soooooo much about diversity and equity, but for some reason gravitate towards neighborhoods that are almost exclusively white and UMC. Weird, right?

Hopefully this will help.

I don’t think this policy is a good idea, because it will drive rents up and there will be more fraud with benefits. People will move in with their family members and just pocket the money. I think section 8 needs to have a universal maximum amount. It doesn’t make any sense to give people $3,000+ for rent because they live in an expensive area. It would benefit more people if the cap were 2000 or 1500 a month.

Actually, landlords significantly inflate prices for vouchers. If renters could just go get an apartment, it would be cheaper b/c they would pay market rate and not inflated rates.

That will work well until they spend the money on alcohol or drugs. Then get evicted for nonpayment of rent. There needs to be a drug testing requirement and anyone that test positive for illicit drugs should not be eligible for direct cash rent assistance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s a great idea. People with housing vouchers can move into much nicer places and even rent homes in nice neighborhoods instead of being stuck in places that accept the voucher.

So if this goes through, section 8’ers will be able to combine the benefits of 2 or 3 recipients and use it to rent houses on the same block in Cleveland Park or north Arlington as many posters here.

That would be absolutely fantastic. The diversity you say is our strength will be a few doors down from you!


Let’s celebrate!!!

You are funny. I like your sarcasm.

I just wanna see people get what they claim they want. Which is something that many DCUM’s seem to struggle with. They claim to care soooooo much about diversity and equity, but for some reason gravitate towards neighborhoods that are almost exclusively white and UMC. Weird, right?

Hopefully this will help.

I don’t think this policy is a good idea, because it will drive rents up and there will be more fraud with benefits. People will move in with their family members and just pocket the money. I think section 8 needs to have a universal maximum amount. It doesn’t make any sense to give people $3,000+ for rent because they live in an expensive area. It would benefit more people if the cap were 2000 or 1500 a month.

Actually, landlords significantly inflate prices for vouchers. If renters could just go get an apartment, it would be cheaper b/c they would pay market rate and not inflated rates.

That will work well until they spend the money on alcohol or drugs. Then get evicted for nonpayment of rent. There needs to be a drug testing requirement and anyone that test positive for illicit drugs should not be eligible for direct cash rent assistance.

More like TVs and car leases. But that doesn't matter, eviction and then loss of eligibility are much stronger deterrents. Especially if combined with prosecutions for fraud.

On the upside it would be a better mechanism for the good actors and allow the system to kick off the bad actors. On the downside there would be even more people stuck in the bad credit loop.

It's an interesting policy dynamic. Are programs like Section 8 primarily about giving people an opportunity and helping hand or are they primarily about housing those that can't or won't pay rent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s a great idea. People with housing vouchers can move into much nicer places and even rent homes in nice neighborhoods instead of being stuck in places that accept the voucher.

So if this goes through, section 8’ers will be able to combine the benefits of 2 or 3 recipients and use it to rent houses on the same block in Cleveland Park or north Arlington as many posters here.

That would be absolutely fantastic. The diversity you say is our strength will be a few doors down from you!


Let’s celebrate!!!

You are funny. I like your sarcasm.

I just wanna see people get what they claim they want. Which is something that many DCUM’s seem to struggle with. They claim to care soooooo much about diversity and equity, but for some reason gravitate towards neighborhoods that are almost exclusively white and UMC. Weird, right?

Hopefully this will help.

I don’t think this policy is a good idea, because it will drive rents up and there will be more fraud with benefits. People will move in with their family members and just pocket the money. I think section 8 needs to have a universal maximum amount. It doesn’t make any sense to give people $3,000+ for rent because they live in an expensive area. It would benefit more people if the cap were 2000 or 1500 a month.

Actually, landlords significantly inflate prices for vouchers. If renters could just go get an apartment, it would be cheaper b/c they would pay market rate and not inflated rates.

That will work well until they spend the money on alcohol or drugs. Then get evicted for nonpayment of rent. There needs to be a drug testing requirement and anyone that test positive for illicit drugs should not be eligible for direct cash rent assistance.

Every city that has tried this has been largely successful. Yes, there are always those who mess it up, but by far, it has helped people get out of poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s a great idea. People with housing vouchers can move into much nicer places and even rent homes in nice neighborhoods instead of being stuck in places that accept the voucher.

So if this goes through, section 8’ers will be able to combine the benefits of 2 or 3 recipients and use it to rent houses on the same block in Cleveland Park or north Arlington as many posters here.

That would be absolutely fantastic. The diversity you say is our strength will be a few doors down from you!


Let’s celebrate!!!

You are funny. I like your sarcasm.

I just wanna see people get what they claim they want. Which is something that many DCUM’s seem to struggle with. They claim to care soooooo much about diversity and equity, but for some reason gravitate towards neighborhoods that are almost exclusively white and UMC. Weird, right?

Hopefully this will help.

I don’t think this policy is a good idea, because it will drive rents up and there will be more fraud with benefits. People will move in with their family members and just pocket the money. I think section 8 needs to have a universal maximum amount. It doesn’t make any sense to give people $3,000+ for rent because they live in an expensive area. It would benefit more people if the cap were 2000 or 1500 a month.

Actually, landlords significantly inflate prices for vouchers. If renters could just go get an apartment, it would be cheaper b/c they would pay market rate and not inflated rates.

That will work well until they spend the money on alcohol or drugs. Then get evicted for nonpayment of rent. There needs to be a drug testing requirement and anyone that test positive for illicit drugs should not be eligible for direct cash rent assistance.

Every city that has tried this has been largely successful. Yes, there are always those who mess it up, but by far, it has helped people get out of poverty.[/quote]

If the government is paying your rent, your aren't out of poverty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s a great idea. People with housing vouchers can move into much nicer places and even rent homes in nice neighborhoods instead of being stuck in places that accept the voucher.

So if this goes through, section 8’ers will be able to combine the benefits of 2 or 3 recipients and use it to rent houses on the same block in Cleveland Park or north Arlington as many posters here.

That would be absolutely fantastic. The diversity you say is our strength will be a few doors down from you!


Let’s celebrate!!!

You are funny. I like your sarcasm.

I just wanna see people get what they claim they want. Which is something that many DCUM’s seem to struggle with. They claim to care soooooo much about diversity and equity, but for some reason gravitate towards neighborhoods that are almost exclusively white and UMC. Weird, right?

Hopefully this will help.

I don’t think this policy is a good idea, because it will drive rents up and there will be more fraud with benefits. People will move in with their family members and just pocket the money. I think section 8 needs to have a universal maximum amount. It doesn’t make any sense to give people $3,000+ for rent because they live in an expensive area. It would benefit more people if the cap were 2000 or 1500 a month.

Actually, landlords significantly inflate prices for vouchers. If renters could just go get an apartment, it would be cheaper b/c they would pay market rate and not inflated rates.

That will work well until they spend the money on alcohol or drugs. Then get evicted for nonpayment of rent. There needs to be a drug testing requirement and anyone that test positive for illicit drugs should not be eligible for direct cash rent assistance.

Every city that has tried this has been largely successful. Yes, there are always those who mess it up, but by far, it has helped people get out of poverty.[/quote]

If the government is paying your rent, your aren't out of poverty

This is very true. If they are still receiving housing assistance for years the program is failing by definition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s a great idea. People with housing vouchers can move into much nicer places and even rent homes in nice neighborhoods instead of being stuck in places that accept the voucher.

So if this goes through, section 8’ers will be able to combine the benefits of 2 or 3 recipients and use it to rent houses on the same block in Cleveland Park or north Arlington as many posters here.

That would be absolutely fantastic. The diversity you say is our strength will be a few doors down from you!


Let’s celebrate!!!

You are funny. I like your sarcasm.

I just wanna see people get what they claim they want. Which is something that many DCUM’s seem to struggle with. They claim to care soooooo much about diversity and equity, but for some reason gravitate towards neighborhoods that are almost exclusively white and UMC. Weird, right?

Hopefully this will help.

I don’t think this policy is a good idea, because it will drive rents up and there will be more fraud with benefits. People will move in with their family members and just pocket the money. I think section 8 needs to have a universal maximum amount. It doesn’t make any sense to give people $3,000+ for rent because they live in an expensive area. It would benefit more people if the cap were 2000 or 1500 a month.

Actually, landlords significantly inflate prices for vouchers. If renters could just go get an apartment, it would be cheaper b/c they would pay market rate and not inflated rates.

That will work well until they spend the money on alcohol or drugs. Then get evicted for nonpayment of rent. There needs to be a drug testing requirement and anyone that test positive for illicit drugs should not be eligible for direct cash rent assistance.

They won’t get evicted because the district makes that hard. The altruistic landlord will have someone in the unit living rent free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s a great idea. People with housing vouchers can move into much nicer places and even rent homes in nice neighborhoods instead of being stuck in places that accept the voucher.

So if this goes through, section 8’ers will be able to combine the benefits of 2 or 3 recipients and use it to rent houses on the same block in Cleveland Park or north Arlington as many posters here.

That would be absolutely fantastic. The diversity you say is our strength will be a few doors down from you!


Let’s celebrate!!!

You are funny. I like your sarcasm.

I just wanna see people get what they claim they want. Which is something that many DCUM’s seem to struggle with. They claim to care soooooo much about diversity and equity, but for some reason gravitate towards neighborhoods that are almost exclusively white and UMC. Weird, right?

Hopefully this will help.

I don’t think this policy is a good idea, because it will drive rents up and there will be more fraud with benefits. People will move in with their family members and just pocket the money. I think section 8 needs to have a universal maximum amount. It doesn’t make any sense to give people $3,000+ for rent because they live in an expensive area. It would benefit more people if the cap were 2000 or 1500 a month.

Actually, landlords significantly inflate prices for vouchers. If renters could just go get an apartment, it would be cheaper b/c they would pay market rate and not inflated rates.

That will work well until they spend the money on alcohol or drugs. Then get evicted for nonpayment of rent. There needs to be a drug testing requirement and anyone that test positive for illicit drugs should not be eligible for direct cash rent assistance.

Every city that has tried this has been largely successful. Yes, there are always those who mess it up, but by far, it has helped people get out of poverty.

If I’m paying your rent, you’re not out of poverty. You’re still poor, and I’m putting the roof over your head so you can take whatever meager earnings you make and buy 3 pairs of Jordans for each of your 5 kids.

I’m not getting anything out of this arrangement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s a great idea. People with housing vouchers can move into much nicer places and even rent homes in nice neighborhoods instead of being stuck in places that accept the voucher.

So if this goes through, section 8’ers will be able to combine the benefits of 2 or 3 recipients and use it to rent houses on the same block in Cleveland Park or north Arlington as many posters here.

That would be absolutely fantastic. The diversity you say is our strength will be a few doors down from you!


Let’s celebrate!!!

You are funny. I like your sarcasm.

I just wanna see people get what they claim they want. Which is something that many DCUM’s seem to struggle with. They claim to care soooooo much about diversity and equity, but for some reason gravitate towards neighborhoods that are almost exclusively white and UMC. Weird, right?

Hopefully this will help.

I don’t think this policy is a good idea, because it will drive rents up and there will be more fraud with benefits. People will move in with their family members and just pocket the money. I think section 8 needs to have a universal maximum amount. It doesn’t make any sense to give people $3,000+ for rent because they live in an expensive area. It would benefit more people if the cap were 2000 or 1500 a month.

Actually, landlords significantly inflate prices for vouchers. If renters could just go get an apartment, it would be cheaper b/c they would pay market rate and not inflated rates.

That will work well until they spend the money on alcohol or drugs. Then get evicted for nonpayment of rent. There needs to be a drug testing requirement and anyone that test positive for illicit drugs should not be eligible for direct cash rent assistance.

Every city that has tried this has been largely successful. Yes, there are always those who mess it up, but by far, it has helped people get out of poverty.

Actually get out of poverty or just receive massive cash handouts forever and ever?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s a great idea. People with housing vouchers can move into much nicer places and even rent homes in nice neighborhoods instead of being stuck in places that accept the voucher.

So if this goes through, section 8’ers will be able to combine the benefits of 2 or 3 recipients and use it to rent houses on the same block in Cleveland Park or north Arlington as many posters here.

That would be absolutely fantastic. The diversity you say is our strength will be a few doors down from you!


Let’s celebrate!!!

You are funny. I like your sarcasm.

I just wanna see people get what they claim they want. Which is something that many DCUM’s seem to struggle with. They claim to care soooooo much about diversity and equity, but for some reason gravitate towards neighborhoods that are almost exclusively white and UMC. Weird, right?

Hopefully this will help.

I don’t think this policy is a good idea, because it will drive rents up and there will be more fraud with benefits. People will move in with their family members and just pocket the money. I think section 8 needs to have a universal maximum amount. It doesn’t make any sense to give people $3,000+ for rent because they live in an expensive area. It would benefit more people if the cap were 2000 or 1500 a month.

Actually, landlords significantly inflate prices for vouchers. If renters could just go get an apartment, it would be cheaper b/c they would pay market rate and not inflated rates.

That will work well until they spend the money on alcohol or drugs. Then get evicted for nonpayment of rent. There needs to be a drug testing requirement and anyone that test positive for illicit drugs should not be eligible for direct cash rent assistance.

Every city that has tried this has been largely successful. Yes, there are always those who mess it up, but by far, it has helped people get out of poverty.

Actually get out of poverty or just receive massive cash handouts forever and ever?

Handouts. Far easier than the alternative.

Actually getting out of poverty requires work and discipline: Staying in school, avoiding the pitfalls of substance abuse, finding a job and showing up on time every day, using birth control and not having a whole rack of kids.

Who wants to do all that when they can just party instead and get a check?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s a great idea. People with housing vouchers can move into much nicer places and even rent homes in nice neighborhoods instead of being stuck in places that accept the voucher.

So if this goes through, section 8’ers will be able to combine the benefits of 2 or 3 recipients and use it to rent houses on the same block in Cleveland Park or north Arlington as many posters here.

That would be absolutely fantastic. The diversity you say is our strength will be a few doors down from you!


Let’s celebrate!!!

You are funny. I like your sarcasm.

I just wanna see people get what they claim they want. Which is something that many DCUM’s seem to struggle with. They claim to care soooooo much about diversity and equity, but for some reason gravitate towards neighborhoods that are almost exclusively white and UMC. Weird, right?

Hopefully this will help.

I don’t think this policy is a good idea, because it will drive rents up and there will be more fraud with benefits. People will move in with their family members and just pocket the money. I think section 8 needs to have a universal maximum amount. It doesn’t make any sense to give people $3,000+ for rent because they live in an expensive area. It would benefit more people if the cap were 2000 or 1500 a month.

Actually, landlords significantly inflate prices for vouchers. If renters could just go get an apartment, it would be cheaper b/c they would pay market rate and not inflated rates.

That will work well until they spend the money on alcohol or drugs. Then get evicted for nonpayment of rent. There needs to be a drug testing requirement and anyone that test positive for illicit drugs should not be eligible for direct cash rent assistance.

Every city that has tried this has been largely successful. Yes, there are always those who mess it up, but by far, it has helped people get out of poverty.

Actually get out of poverty or just receive massive cash handouts forever and ever?

Handouts. Far easier than the alternative.

Actually getting out of poverty requires work and discipline: Staying in school, avoiding the pitfalls of substance abuse, finding a job and showing up on time every day, using birth control and not having a whole rack of kids.

Who wants to do all that when they can just party instead and get a check?

Poor people do not live a life of constant partying and unprotected sex. You are just as stupid and filled with idiotic assumptions as those you oppose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s a great idea. People with housing vouchers can move into much nicer places and even rent homes in nice neighborhoods instead of being stuck in places that accept the voucher.

So if this goes through, section 8’ers will be able to combine the benefits of 2 or 3 recipients and use it to rent houses on the same block in Cleveland Park or north Arlington as many posters here.

That would be absolutely fantastic. The diversity you say is our strength will be a few doors down from you!


Let’s celebrate!!!

You are funny. I like your sarcasm.

I just wanna see people get what they claim they want. Which is something that many DCUM’s seem to struggle with. They claim to care soooooo much about diversity and equity, but for some reason gravitate towards neighborhoods that are almost exclusively white and UMC. Weird, right?

Hopefully this will help.

I don’t think this policy is a good idea, because it will drive rents up and there will be more fraud with benefits. People will move in with their family members and just pocket the money. I think section 8 needs to have a universal maximum amount. It doesn’t make any sense to give people $3,000+ for rent because they live in an expensive area. It would benefit more people if the cap were 2000 or 1500 a month.

Actually, landlords significantly inflate prices for vouchers. If renters could just go get an apartment, it would be cheaper b/c they would pay market rate and not inflated rates.

That will work well until they spend the money on alcohol or drugs. Then get evicted for nonpayment of rent. There needs to be a drug testing requirement and anyone that test positive for illicit drugs should not be eligible for direct cash rent assistance.

Every city that has tried this has been largely successful. Yes, there are always those who mess it up, but by far, it has helped people get out of poverty.

Actually get out of poverty or just receive massive cash handouts forever and ever?

Handouts. Far easier than the alternative.

Actually getting out of poverty requires work and discipline: Staying in school, avoiding the pitfalls of substance abuse, finding a job and showing up on time every day, using birth control and not having a whole rack of kids.

Who wants to do all that when they can just party instead and get a check?

Poor people do not live a life of constant partying and unprotected sex. You are just as stupid and filled with idiotic assumptions as those you oppose.

It is a fact that many of them absolutely do this. This behavior is much more prevalent among poor people than rich people. The unintended pregnancy rate is more than 4X higher for women below the poverty level than those with income 200%+ of poverty level. The reality is that poor people (on average) make more bad decisions which is part of the reason why they are poor. Of course some people get unlucky through no fault of their own, but a significant portion of poverty is explained by individual behavior.