Hey, there! Log in / Register

Shocker: Rich towns don't like poor people

By adamg on Mon, 08/15/2005 - 9:53am

Yes, quelle surprise. But should the state be subsidizing snobbery? Chris runs some numbers on the state's confusing Community Preservation Act (which lets towns raise taxes and get matching state funds to pay for either subsidized housing or to buy up land so nobody can build subsidized housing on it). He discovers that Cambridge, which has roughly 1.7% of the state's population, is responsible for 58% of CPA housing outlays, which means taxpayers in wealthier towns are subsidizing units in Cambridge (but not Boston, which doesn't participate in the CPA) - and keeping the poor folks out:

... Which is great for those dwellers lucky enough to get a price break, but does absolutely nothing to solve a housing shortage that spans much of the eastern part of the State. ...

Lisa, who lives in Watertown, wants some of that money spent in her town:

... Since the program is financed via state taxes, that means that H2otown residents are paying for affordable housing units in Cambridge. ...

Topics: 
Politics
Free tagging: 
urban planning


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

By carpundit on Mon, 08/15/2005 - 11:25am.

I'm happy to send money to Cambridge so it can build subsidized housing. The more Section 8 - equivalent tenants there are in Cambridge, the fewer there are in Boston.

By eeka on Tue, 08/16/2005 - 1:38pm.

Most people with Section 8 subsidies (and all people with MBHP or Shelter Plus Care subsidies) are people with disabilities such as moderate/profound mental retardation, autism, schizophrenia, or severe cerebral palsy, which make it impossible for them to earn a living wage. Why on EARTH do you not want said people living in Boston?

By carpundit on Tue, 08/16/2005 - 4:40pm.

In my experience, most people with Section 8 housing vouchers are not disabled. Your claim that most are disabled is a surprising one. Can you cite any evidence for it? It is both counter-intuitive and counter to my own observations. Section 8 vouchers are a low-income program, not a disabled assistance program. (I'm sure there are poor diabled people, of course.)

In my experience, section 8 tenants either attract crime or cause it. Many of the recipients I have seen are lying about their eligibility, or merely happy to live off the public dole without making any effort to get off it. The landlords, too, tend to let the properties get run-down because the rent-payer doesn't actually live there (the government). I don't want those people as neighbors and I don't want those properties nearby.

By eeka on Wed, 08/17/2005 - 2:16pm.

I work for a supported housing program. We deal with all types of vouchers. Section 8 vouchers are not just up for grabs. People need to have been displaced or have a disability. I know that way more than 50% of people on Section 8 have a documented disability. I can get some sheets from our voucher office with the exact breakdowns of the reasons people are on Section 8.

Our of curiosity, what IS your experience with people on Section 8? It seems you don't actually understand the program. A person with a Section 8 voucher can live anywhere. They are charged 30% of their income for rent. They have to be either working or on SSI/SSDI. The voucher then picks up the rest of the rent and pays this to the landlord. It is illegal for a landlord to refuse to rent to someone because they are using a subsidy. You are wrong in stating that the person living there is not "the rent-payer," because the person living there is paying rent. "The properties" are the same properties any renter lives in. If you're referring to housing projects, those are a different type of subsidy -- they can be any number of different ones, but they're a project-based subsidy, not a tenant-based subsidy.

Most people with disabilities are not gainfully employed. Programs assisting people with low incomes deal largely with people with disabilities. The two systems are very intertwined when one learns about them while training in the social services. Also, how can you say that the people on Section 8 you've experienced do not have disabilities? Can you tell if someone has a disability by looking at them or talking to them? I can't over the course of a casual neighborly conversation, and I'm licensed to diagnose a number of disabilities. I also can't tell if someone has a Section 8 subsidy unless they choose to tell me, and outside of work contexts, I've only had 2 people tell me they were using a Section 8 voucher. Given that you openly assert that you don't want anyone in your neighborhood who receives assistance, I'm guessing your acquaintances wouldn't readily share with you that they have a voucher.

In terms of people with subsidies attracting crime, there is absolutely a correlation here. The correlation is that people with disabilities are 4 to 10 times more likely to be the victims of crime than people who do not have disabilities (from study abstract on NAMI listserv about a week ago). So, sure, people with disabilities attract crime. This needs to be dealt with by informing the public about disabilities, reducing stigma, providing appropriate services, and integrating people into the community. Not by deciding NOT to have people with disabilities in our community. That's been tried, and it didn't work.

By carpundit on Wed, 08/17/2005 - 4:57pm.

Wow that hit a chord.

Look, I don't have your experience with disabilities - neither your life experience, your training, or your professional interaction. I accept your representations about disabilities on the basis of your greater knowledge.

As for housing, I have some experience, both as a landlord and as a former cop. Whatever the technical merits of your point that the voucher recipient is the rent-payer, I promise you that landlords don't see it that way. Landlords only rent to those recipients because the rent comes from Uncle Sam - he always pays his bills. Those tenants would never get in otherwise. As for the recipients being on SSI/SSRI or working, you forgot a third large category: fraudulently receiving SSI/SSRI and not working. It's a fraud-riddled program and that happens a lot.

Landlords pay less attention to their section 8 tenants than to their cash-paying tenants. Therefore, the properties that landlords rent to section 8 tenants get less attention. The properties are less-well cared for as a result. Add that to the tendency of the unemployed to have substance-fueled, and often extra-judicial, hobbies and habits, and friends of the same inclinations, and you rapidly get a deteriorating neighborhood.

Of course there are deserving recipients of such aid. And there are Section 8 rentals that are exactly like the full-fare rentals in the same building. And there are landlords who treat all their tenants the same. I acknowledge painting with a broad brush here.

All in all, though, I'd rather the problem moved to Cambridge.

By eeka on Wed, 08/17/2005 - 9:11pm.

You realize though that we're largely saying the same thing? This pretty much comes down to people with disabilties being victimized. You're right that some landlords treat people with subsidies differently than people without. Which is discriminatory and illegal. Definitely happens though.

I'm not sure how anyone on Section 8 is living in a run-down property though. Any unit with a Section 8 recipient living there is thoroughly inspected every year. If it's not up to code for reasons that are due to the landlord's neglect, they're given a notice to fix it, and then rent is suspended -- both the portion from the subsidy and the portion that the resident pays. If it's not up to code for reasons due to the tenant's neglect, the voucher program works with the tenant to fix this. If the tenant isn't able to, then he or she is reassessed to see if he or she might be more appropriate for a group residence. Oh, and most people don't know this, but about 50% of the group residences in Boston require a subsidy to live there. And require that the individual contribute 30% of his or her income toward rent. This is actually really good in terms of preparing people in group residences for independence and building dignity and responsibility, but dude, even being institutionalized isn't free!

Again, the way to deal with all of these problems isn't to tell people with disabilities to move somewhere else. It's to increase services and awareness.

Also, regarding the people who shouldn't be receiving SSI and SSDI, I actually wonder where exactly the problem lies. I mean, some licensed healthcare professional signed off on their application. So maybe we have incompetence or bribery or whoknowswhat going on within the healthcare professions. I do know that they check the license number of the person who wrote the assessments that permitted the person to receive SSI/SSDI. So there are either some rather talented fraudsters (which I don't doubt for a second), or there are professionals who are allowing people they shouldn't. Keep in mind though that there are a lot of people who have SSI/SSDI who don't readily present as having a disability. I actually have several folks who are at a worksite 35-40 hours per week, but who receive the accomodation that they're on the clock for 2 hours, then off for 2 hours, or something similar, in order to accomodate their disability and allow them to work. So they're receiving partial SSI benefits. To their neighbors, they look like they work fulltime and are receiving benefits they shouldn't be receiving. There are also people who currently work a full-time minimum-wage job but still are able to receive SSDI because they're at a really high rate due to having been a high-earning professional prior to the onset of their disability. They can work and still collect, and this is perfectly legal and appropriate use of the system. I also have a lot of folks who receive full SSI or SSDI benefits and who don't work at all or work very minimally. Many of these folks are very stable and high-functioning on the surface, but really aren't able to hold a job. They've had to have screwed up several jobs, too, before we can ethically sign off that they're unable to work. Oh, and there are also the people who attend a program during the day that doesn't pay them, or where they're only doing paid work for maybe an hour per day. These folks also appear to be fraudulently using the system, when they aren't.

By carpundit on Thu, 08/18/2005 - 12:43pm.

I give up. You win. I was wrong. Section 8 recipients are good people and excellent neighbors. I hope to see more of them in the Back Bay soon.

By Chris on Mon, 08/15/2005 - 2:07pm.

Adam, thanks for the link. I should clarify the numbers, though: Cambridge doesn't receive 58% of CPA money, it currently has 25% of the budgeted projects on the books. Which makes sense, given that it's the only city in the state to have signed on so far. (Newton seems to be the runner up in size.)

The 58% percent represents Cambridge's share of CPA's housing outlays. That is, rather than being a disproprtionate recipient of CPA funds, Cambridge is nearly alone in dedicating CPA funds to housing and it accounts for a healthy majority of what gets spent on affordable housing.

Boston and cities like Worcester and Lowell, of course, are the biggest subsidizers, since CPA matching funds come out of the state's general revenue. The wealthier towns are for the most part getting a free ride for their historic preservation spending.

By adamg on Mon, 08/15/2005 - 8:46pm.

Thanks for letting me know.