Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
regularguy

"Maryland reaches fair housing agreement with federal government"

59 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

From today's Sun:

Quote

Maryland has agreed to finance the development of 1,500 affordable housing units in prosperous neighborhoods throughout the Baltimore region and rewrite policies that civil rights groups say perpetuated segregation for decades.

The agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development settles a fair-housing complaint brought against the state in 2011 by a coalition of civil rights and fair-housing advocacy organizations.

The coalition accused the state of reinforcing housing segregation through by clustering subsidized, affordable housing developments together and in less desirable areas, rather than spreading them throughout the region. On Tuesday, fair-housing advocates applauded the deal as a significant commitment by the state to improve access for low-income renters to well-off neighborhoods that they have been excluded from in the past.

(Link.)

My questions after reading the article:

- What exactly is wrong with upper-middle-class neighborhoods not having houses for low-income renters?

- Is there a constitutional right to live in a "prosperous neighborhood"?

- What do upper-middle-class black and hispanic homeowners think about the possibility of Section 8 housing on their block?

I didn't live in a "prosperous neighborhood" until my salary and my wife's could afford the cost of buying a house in one such neighborhood.

 

Edited by regularguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 minutes ago, blowboatbethesda said:

There goes the neighborhood. 

Fortunately, there are no more building lots for new construction in my neighborhood.

Edit: But I guess that won't prevent the government from buying the house next door and turning it into Section 8.

Edited by regularguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, regularguy said:

From today's Sun:

My questions after reading the article:

- What exactly is wrong with upper-middle-class neighborhoods not having houses for low-income renters?

- Is there a constitutional right to live in a "prosperous neighborhood"?

- What do upper-middle-class black and hispanic homeowners think about the possibility of Section 8 housing on their block?

I didn't live in a "prosperous neighborhood" until my salary and my wife's could afford the cost of buying a house in one such neighborhood.

God I have to repeat myself again; by the sentences.

  1. On paper it is a great idea. In reality NOT. Any neighborhood has it's 'way's'...which section 8's and such don't tend to respect initially. That has been my experience here in Woodlawn. TPIAW....they drag the city with them....
  2. Good question. I think it means anyone that is actually paying for their home without subsides.
  3. Living in Woodlawn I have a mix of both. And guess what ....they are as po'ed as us white folk when section 8's move in and don't take advantage of the opportunity given them and simply continue living as they did in the city....just in nicer digs. Which in turn drags down property values. It is refreshing watching my minority neighbors getting in the face of some of the a-hole section 8's. I stay out of it....being white and all....and obviously a racist. by just being white and not just a property owner. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man. Hst2 is slipping. When I saw the title, I thought he would already have 20 posts on it. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

Man. Hst2 is slipping. When I saw the title, I thought he would already have 20 posts on it. :lol:

Really! I was hoping for a good exchange with the usual suspects on a red-meat topic. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, regularguy said:

Fortunately, there are no more building lots for new construction in my neighborhood.

Edit: But I guess that won't prevent the government from buying the house next door and turning it into Section 8.

The government doesn't turn houses into section 8, landlords do.  I have rental property that I can rent to section 8 recipients if I choose to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, downunder said:

The government doesn't turn houses into section 8, landlords do.  I have rental property that I can rent to section 8 recipients if I choose to.

Really? Hmmm that is news to me. I didn't realize that you had the freedom to select who will live on your property.

I thought the courts said that was a no no....that not accepting Sections 8's was against civil liberties and such.

So you are saying you actually can deny section 8's? Wow

Excuse my ignorance in advance.

Edited by Guido2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Guido2 said:

Really? Hmmm that is news to me. I didn't realize that you had the freedom to select who will live on your property.

I thought the courts said that was a no no....that not accepting Sections 8's was against civil liberties and such.

So you are saying you actually can deny section 8's? Wow

Excuse my ignorance in advance.

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) (42 U.S. Code § § 3601-3619 and 3631), a federal law, doesn’t bar landlords from discriminating based on Section 8. But some states and municipalities do, often as part of a broader ban on “source of income” or “public assistance status” under the state or local fair housing law. For example, Chicago’s municipal code includes a housing discrimination ban based on source of income that includes applicants who have Section 8 vouchers.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/think-twice-before-turning-away-tenants-with-section-8-vouchers.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, bmore_ken said:

Chicago’s municipal code includes a housing discrimination ban based on source of income

I don't live in chicago, but my source of income bars me from buying  a nice beachfront sandcastle.

Where do I apply for this?  I feel I am being discriminated against since I don't make enough money to buy my dream house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, overtaxed said:

I don't live in chicago, but my source of income bars me from buying  a nice beachfront sandcastle.

Where do I apply for this?  I feel I am being discriminated against since I don't make enough money to buy my dream house.

Talk to your representative. I was just answering another person's query. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bmore_ken said:

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) (42 U.S. Code § § 3601-3619 and 3631), a federal law, doesn’t bar landlords from discriminating based on Section 8. But some states and municipalities do, often as part of a broader ban on “source of income” or “public assistance status” under the state or local fair housing law. For example, Chicago’s municipal code includes a housing discrimination ban based on source of income that includes applicants who have Section 8 vouchers.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/think-twice-before-turning-away-tenants-with-section-8-vouchers.html

Thank you ... I stand corrected and more informed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, regularguy said:

From today's Sun:

My questions after reading the article:

- What exactly is wrong with upper-middle-class neighborhoods not having houses for low-income renters?

- Is there a constitutional right to live in a "prosperous neighborhood"?

- What do upper-middle-class black and hispanic homeowners think about the possibility of Section 8 housing on their block?

I didn't live in a "prosperous neighborhood" until my salary and my wife's could afford the cost of buying a house in one such neighborhood.

 

It's been happening for a real long time in little portions in my area. Usually on the fringes closer to commercial areas.

Usally after the initial hysterics everyone forgets about or move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We'll know they're doing something more than playing silly games when they move low-income families into Guilford, Homeland, Ashburton and places like that. Give the low-income (love the euphemism) residents a sense of how to behave in affluent neighborhoods.

Only one problem -- not gonna happen. Not while there are middle-class neighborhoods they can ruin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is absolutely a good thing to break the normal cycles of poverty in baltimore, but it really does need to be applied state wide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear in my own head here low income= black right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, yeah said:

this is absolutely a good thing to break the normal cycles of poverty in baltimore, but it really does need to be applied state wide.

How does someone else paying for their house break the cycle of poverty?  Seems to me, to just show them that there is no need for them to work hard as they will get the fruits of other people's labor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The reality of the situation is (and no, it's not changing anytime soon) that simply moving people from one neighborhood to another will not achieve the long-term effects that the "theory" has long hoped.  It's been happening in the region for 40+ years now, and I think it would be very hard to make the case that it's been overall very effective.  Instead of spending money on "developing affordable housing"... spend the money on history's largest educational marketing campaign.  What does that mean?  Overwhelming, all-encompassing "marketing" of the importance of education (and vocational training).  Not just throwing more money in the classroom, or sending teachers to more workshops, or buying new books / desks / chairs / etc... but spend it in an almost "propoganda" type advertising / media campaign that targets adults... with the end goal of prioritizing the value of education in the lives of their children.  More teachers, new books, and new computers don't do much good when a jaw-dropping percentage of kids don't show up, don't care, don't do homework, don't retain, etc.  The whole "teach a man to fish" saying bears much truth...

Edited by Ravens2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, overtaxed said:

How does someone else paying for their house break the cycle of poverty?  Seems to me, to just show them that there is no need for them to work hard as they will get the fruits of other people's labor.

It helps break the cycle of poverty because the better schools are not located in poor areas, often there is a better opportunity for work and transportation network in more affluent areas. Areas that are more affluent often have lower overall crime rates and more access to healthy and cheaper groceries and conveniences. It is not a cure all but it is a way out if an individual can take advantage of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sparky1 said:

It helps break the cycle of poverty because the better schools are not located in poor areas, often there is a better opportunity for work and transportation network in more affluent areas. Areas that are more affluent often have lower overall crime rates and more access to healthy and cheaper groceries and conveniences. It is not a cure all but it is a way out if an individual can take advantage of it. 

Better transportation network in more affluent areas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Squeaky wheels get the grease. No one squeaks like the affluent and rich. 

The Beltway was not built for the poor. Nor was a subway that starts in Owings Mills or a Light Rail that starts in Hunt Valley. (now neither one was sufficently built out of course). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, sparky1 said:

Squeaky wheels get the grease. No one squeaks like the affluent and rich. 

The Beltway was not built for the poor. Nor was a subway that starts in Owings Mills or a Light Rail that starts in Hunt Valley. (now neither one was sufficently built out of course). 

The Metro was opposed in Anne Arundel County because it was though it would bring the "wrong people" into the county.  

You might have a point if the Metro skipped North Avenue and Upton, but I don't think so.  Where is the best bus service?  Certainly not in the richer areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 minutes ago, Baltimatt said:

The Metro was opposed in Anne Arundel County because it was though it would bring the "wrong people" into the county.  

You might have a point if the Metro skipped North Avenue and Upton, but I don't think so.  Where is the best bus service?  Certainly not in the richer areas.

Rich people tend to  have cars .....public transportation is somewhat redundant.

Somewhere in my readings about the credits for low income housing.... that point was addressed. NOW besides giving them places to live....some are yelling about poor busing and want shuttles to run from their new digs to the bus stops, and subsidized UBER or taxis and MTA on demand transportation. To compensate for the lack of decent public transprotation out in the burbs.

What a deal.....next thing is going to be meals on wheels deliveries because going to the supermarkety and presenting their 'Freedom card' AKA food stamps is to demeaning.

You watch..thats next.

 

Edited by Guido2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have a point there. I do not know much about the new bus service after the reorganization, but In general I would say that there is a good reason why richer areas have poor bus service. I think every new industrial park should have a rail or bus line to it, and if a developer wants to turn a cornfield or cowpasture into a macmansion farm they should be wholly responsible for building the roads and sewer lines to it, building out the local schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The affluent have cars and the use of those cars are subsidized by everyone else. (Think of who will benefit if Hogan's highway widening exercise goes though).

I don't think they are being given places to live, I think they are presented with an option that some will avail themselves of. It is a similar option the affluent have -- the ability to live somewhere where they can feel safe, send kids to good schools, and enjoy a higher standard of living. They are still paying for it, just getting some help. Think of it as a poor man's mortgage interest deduction if you want. 

I personally think that public transport should be as close to free as possible. but that is a far away dream. 

People talk about ways to help the poor and underclass and beyond the old bromide of let them pick themselves up by their bootstraps, this is a tiny move in the direction to getting at least the second generation out of poverty. 

Or maybe there is some other plan that could work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0