Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will backfire. The main benefit of Section 8 is that rental payment is guaranteed and reliable.

It does have policy downsides, because it effectively increases average rent, so it's complicated. But the bottom line is that a landlord would be less likely to rent to a Section 8 receipient if responsibility for payment switched from the government to the individual.

Isn't the point of this whole thing that the landlord would have no idea the renter is getting a voucher since they are paying in cash? So the renter would have more housing options but it would also be easier for landlords to evict should they not pay.

What makes any normal person believe that the all the cash issued from HUD would even go to housing? that is nutts. So instead of a $3k voucher, you get $3k deposited into you bank account instead. Give this much cash to people who hsitorically have no experience in money management (EBT, AFDC, vouchers, grew up in poverty, never had a bank account or bad credit) and it almost always spent on things that provide immediate gratificaiton-shoes, clothes, eating out, phones, drugs, booze, or worse, women giving the money to dead beat boyfriends.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will backfire. The main benefit of Section 8 is that rental payment is guaranteed and reliable.

It does have policy downsides, because it effectively increases average rent, so it's complicated. But the bottom line is that a landlord would be less likely to rent to a Section 8 receipient if responsibility for payment switched from the government to the individual.

Isn't the point of this whole thing that the landlord would have no idea the renter is getting a voucher since they are paying in cash? So the renter would have more housing options but it would also be easier for landlords to evict should they not pay.

In low rent neighborhoods Section 8 tenants are preferred over non-Section 8 tenants because non-payment of rent is not a risk. In higher rent neighborhoods landlords do credit checks to screen out people who might not pay their rent.

The main problem. from a landlord's persepctive, with Section 8 is the inspection requirements.

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 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!!!

Anonymous wrote:This will backfire. The main benefit of Section 8 is that rental payment is guaranteed and reliable.

It does have policy downsides, because it effectively increases average rent, so it's complicated. But the bottom line is that a landlord would be less likely to rent to a Section 8 receipient if responsibility for payment switched from the government to the individual.

Isn't the point of this whole thing that the landlord would have no idea the renter is getting a voucher since they are paying in cash? So the renter would have more housing options but it would also be easier for landlords to evict should they not pay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They need to gate the benefits by requiring minimum amount of residency before handing out a voucher or an apartment. Say, verifiable DC residency for 3 out of last 5 years. Or require a DC birth certificate. It’s galling that folks can come to DC, get benefits, then crowd out the natives.

And come here for the purpose of accessing more lucrative benefits. No wonder the number of people claiming to be ‘unhoused’ keeps increasing and yet higher levels of public funding don’t seem to make much of a dent. DC is incentivizing people to move here for enhanced public support.

Yes this is the problem with providing assistance to homeless people at the local level. It actually makes the problem worse because the generous benefits entice other homeless people to move there.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They need to gate the benefits by requiring minimum amount of residency before handing out a voucher or an apartment. Say, verifiable DC residency for 3 out of last 5 years. Or require a DC birth certificate. It’s galling that folks can come to DC, get benefits, then crowd out the natives.

And come here for the purpose of accessing more lucrative benefits. No wonder the number of people claiming to be ‘unhoused’ keeps increasing and yet higher levels of public funding don’t seem to make much of a dent. DC is incentivizing people to move here for enhanced public support.

Can DC impose a workfare requirement for housing assistance? In our area some of the voucher residents are out panhandling every day in the same spots (they even bring their own seats) by the grocery store. Meanwhile, DC appears to have stopped removing litter from roadsides or sweeping up debris after fender benders. Can’t a reasonable work requirement be imposed for able-bodied people indefinitely on the public dole? Bill Clinton required that for a time. DC could use the labor.

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.

They need to gate the benefits by requiring minimum amount of residency before handing out a voucher or an apartment. Say, verifiable DC residency for 3 out of last 5 years. Or require a DC birth certificate. It’s galling that folks can come to DC, get benefits, then crowd out the natives.

This will backfire. The main benefit of Section 8 is that rental payment is guaranteed and reliable.

It does have policy downsides, because it effectively increases average rent, so it's complicated. But the bottom line is that a landlord would be less likely to rent to a Section 8 receipient if responsibility for payment switched from the government to the individual.

Is this even legal to do this? I'm sure there will be conservative legal groups that would love get a SCOTUS case over this. It will give them an opportunity to set a precent that limits HUDs jurisdiction and rule making authority going forward.

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.

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