Talk:Section 8 (housing)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Meager information

I understand that the COMBINED rent and UTILITIES  cannot exceed a certain amount.

So what counts as a utility? cell phones for mom and each of the kids? cable TV? broadband internet access? more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.210.183 (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Fuel costs (e.g. bills for electricity, natural gas, bottle gas, or coal) for heating, cooking, water heating, air conditioning, and "other electric" fees (general use of electricity), in addition to water, sewer, and garbage collection services. If a unit does not contain a refrigerator or a cooking appliance (a range or a microwave), and the tenant must furnish their own, the appliance is considered a utility, and will receive an allowance. Phone bills, internet bills, car payments, and similar service charges are not generally considered to be utilities, and do not receive subsidies from PHAs. 24 CFR 982.517 serves as an informative primer on how utility allowances work, but specific policies will depend on the operating PHA. 68.185.201.138 (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

In summary, utilities, for the purposes mentioned herein, include any utility that is essential for living in the home. These utilities may include: electric, gas/fuel, water, garbage, and sewer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyn562 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Some local governments have, only recently, made it illegal for landlords to refuse section 8 tenants. In most of the country a landlord may refuse to accept Section 8.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Federal fair housing law prohibits discrimination based on the following protected classes: race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status and national origin. Not contained in the protected clasess is "socioeconomic group" or "income status". However, it could be (and has been) argued that not accepting Section 8 has a "disparate impact" on a protected class. If, in a given market area, the majority of Section 8 voucher holders are, say, handicapped, it could be argued that a landlord's policy not to accept Section 8 is disparately impacting handicapped persons. In addition, states and even municipalities may have stricter fair housing laws than the Federal law. For example, in some areas, it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Though sexual orientation is not a Federal protected class, depending on where you are located, it may be a locally protected class. It is conceivable that some localities could make "socioeconomic group" or "income status" a protected class. User:Dflayfield July 31, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.158.102 (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the deal with that. Federal courts have ruled that, bottom line is, federal statute clearly states that participation by landlords in section 8 is voluntary. Landlords do not have to accept it according to statute. Thay can and do have the right to refuse to accept section 8 for any reason so long as it is not discriminatory under federal statute (ie: cant say they don't take section 8 because it means they need to take tenants of a certain ethnicity, for instance) But they sure as heck CAN refuse because they do not want to deal with inspections, or don't want to deal with an HA that constantly screws up the HAP checks, etc. And it has been ruled that due to the supremacy clause in the constitution, that state fair housing laws cannot trump this. So far as I know only locality still getting away with not complying with that, which still claims landlords cannot refuse section 8, is the state of CT, and that is probably only gonna last as long as no landlords there file suit in federal court over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.92.128 (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

as a further clarification, local statutes in Chicago, DC and the state of CA that stated not accepting section 8 was a violation of equal housing laws were struck down. These statutes were based on the concept that discrimination based on means of income is unlawful under under federal statute. However, it was ruled that since the HAP check goes directly to landlord, and not tenant, it is not income for the tenant, and does not qualify as "means of income" under federal statute. This was countered with the claim that at a state or local level it is considered such, and therefore violates local fair housing law. This was ruled irrelevant as per the supremacy clause, as local or state law cannot supersede federal law.

Now what would be interesting is if someone put forth the claim that a disproportionately high percentage of minorities compared to the general population depend on section 8 in a given area (there are obviously many places where this is the case - probably most urban areas fit that description) and by not accepting section 8, the landlord would be defacto discriminating against certain protected minorities. That MIGHT fly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.92.128 (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Eligibility

• Who qualifies?
• Why is there a 2 year wait list in some cities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.24 (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait lists occur when the number of applicants exceeds the number of vouchers issued to the agency by HUD.

It's not by city, but by agency. You may find, for instance, that a local city housing authority may have a 7 year wait list, at but the state level has some other agency with vouchers available with no wait list. Or local landlords administering project based vouchers have some available. Or in some cities, local community agencies may have voucers. In some cities there may even be more than one "housing authority!" 66.202.87.162 (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)sean

The approval decisions appear rather sketchy from the perspective of the applicant. I've emailed my local agencies, even though I qualify on paper I only to get:

Unfortunately, there is no opportunity to apply for Section 8 at this time. Our waitlist is closed and, at this point, we have no plans to open the list. Our program is administered by <x> County Housing Authority and we have very few vouchers.

This means you do qualify, but the program at the agency you applied with is full, and their waiting list is so long they are not adding anyone to it (some agenacies have waiting lists in excess of 7 years long!) 66.202.87.162 (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)sean

You can check out some below-market rent apartments in <x> - some are income restricted (and age-restricted, if you qualify). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.24 (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[[ == this is good for law class ==]]

Everything is good until you get to:

EDIT: Families are allowed to port anywhere in the United States (and Puerto Rico) where there is a public housing authority WITH A HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER/SECTION 8 PROGRAM in jurisdiction THAT IS ABLE TO TAKE PORT-INS.

Um, what's that all about? Andrewhime

You don't HAVE to port to move. You can get a voucher in, say for instance, Newark, and use it to moce into an apartment in WallaWalla if you so desire. The PREFERRED way of doing it would be to port the voucher and have it absorbed by a local agency in WallaWAlla, but that is not required. You can use a voucher issued anywhere in the US to live anywhere in the US. 66.202.87.162 (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)sean

I work at an housing authority and you do have to port. A voucher is only good in the jurisdiction it is issued in. When a family ports, the agency/city they port to issues them a new voucher. Portability works two ways, the recieving agency can absorb the voucher and pay subsidy form their agency's ACC funds or bill the agency the family originally came from. Either way, there is coordination between the old and new housing authority. A family cannot just leave one jurisdiction and move to another without notifying the housing authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.242.251 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I too worked at a housing authority, and am more than painfully aware that way to many housing authorities think that porting the voucher is mandatory. It is not. They try to insist all the time that we must absorb their vouchers when their client moves here, but fact is we do not. Just think about it logically: A large town or city (such as the one i worked at) may have several organizations or HA's that issue vouchers (and in fact we had about 5 different organizations that issued vouchers). How would would determine which is the one that needs to absorb it? Snertking (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Section 8 of...

...what, exactly? --Coryma 19:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the terminology works, but different types of housing assistance are sometimes called "Section *whatever*". Like IIRC another common one is Section 202. Just a way of naming the specific program. Peoplesunionpro 22:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Section 8" refers to Section 8 of the 1937 Housing Act. This was the Roosevelt era legislation which created the United States Public Housing Authority (a forerunner of HUD), and, which created Federally assited "public housing." Section 8 of the act is entitled "Lower Income Housing Assistance". This section of the 1937 Housing Act authorized the Federal Government "to enter into...contracts with public housing agenices pursuant to which such agencies may enter into contracts to make assistance payments to owners of existing dwelling units in accordance with this section." Over time this section has been ammended many times.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

== Real Name == christine morales The official name of this program is the Housing Choice Voucher program. Is there way to change the name of an entry? feb 18 2015 cmorales253@gmail.com cmorales253@email.com ( yonkers city while plan [[User:Christune morales 02:08, 24 August 2006 (ycw) 420 north ave 2 new rochelle ny 10801 Most christine morales know it as section 8. The name comes from CFR 24, subtitle B, section 8, which is the rules and regulations that define the housing choice voucher program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.87.162 (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC) feb 18 2015 I don't know but it does sound like it would be proper to rename the link to that. "Section 8" should be a redirect to this . User:christine morales 22:32, 28 August 2007 (sft)

Controversy

Just a casual observer, but the criticism section appears to have a slant as though the criticisms are unfounded or wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.235.233.164 (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is not exactly within Wikipedia's NPOV policy. There has been numerous criticisms of Section 8, one big one being that it is an injustice that people work to pay their own rent or mortgages and on top of that have to subsidize other peoples' rent through forced taxation. Granted, HUD works overtime to spin everything to make it seem as if Section 8 vouchers are a noncontroversial program, but it is appropriate to add points for and against Section 8 in this article. USN1977 (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

i challenge any person with an earned income to live in a section 8 predominant apartment complex. try to live a normal life. have fun, there! --98.246.94.67 (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Try one of the LITC based vouchers for Manhattan Plaza in NYC. 85% section 8 in that building. door man, balcony high rise over looking time square in a gentrified neighborhood, indoor swimming pool, tennis courts, rock climbing wall, full health club, indoor parking garage... ya. Easy enough to have fun there. but hey, thats what happens when a luxury high rise goes bankrupt while still putting the building up and wants a federal bailout loan. Such a lovely synergy between corporate and personal welfare there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.92.128 (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

[NOTE] There is no such thing as a "Section 8-predominate apartment complex." To avoid a concentration of impoverished families the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) allows families to relocate in any private-sector property. These will be typically apartment complexes, which are not allowed to have more than 10% of its residents on such program. Other apartment complexes such as Low-Income Tax Credit (LITC) complexes and complexes that have a loan subsidized by the USDA under the Rural Development Program, are also not allowed to have more than 10% of its tenants as voucher holders. However these complexes have their own low-income programs for the elderly, disabled, and/or veteran families, and may only yield their apartments to low-income families (i.e., families with a higher than the median average income for families within the surrounding community may not qualify to live in that complex).

I question this. Manhattan plaza, located at 400 and 404 west 43rd st, ny, ny 10036 is 85% section 8. their litc contract specifies that percentage of units —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.92.128 (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

One real problem with the Program is that the FMR, which is determined by HUD, is much lower than the actual FMR in some of the more populated areas within the same district. For example: the current FMR for a one-bedroom in Charleston County, SC, for 2010 is $763. But in the downtown Charleston area, for example, the FMR is about $1,000 for the same. This prevents families from renting a unit in downtown and other higher FMR areas, forcing families to find homes that are lower in rent, typically in substandard neighborhoods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyn562 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The converse can be true as well. FMR can be higher than reality. Take for example a small depressed urban area surrounded by high income suburbs. Rent in the small city maybe be 700 on average, but the rents 5 miles away are in the thousands. Section 8 families get to have an FMR that matches the whole area average, and can thus afford a much nicer abode to rent in that city than those who earn quite a bit more then they do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.92.128 (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree some discussion of the controversy surrounding the program would not be a bad idea. There is plenty of material out there. For all its problems, though, the program would still need to be compared against the alternatives (like massive single-use government housing projects) that are arguably even worse. --Nomenclaturist (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see more follow up on people who live on section 8 once a family moves into a privately owned home. There have been instances where the tenants move into nice neighborhoods and drive down the property value because they trash the property and are unconciously inconsiderate of the neighborhood they live in by disturbing the peace all hours of the day/night. There are other instances where section 8 tenants allow others people and families to move in the property, so they are able to afford nice cars such as lexus, bmw and mercedes and flat screen tv's; things that tax payers sometime cannot even afford. The private owners are not motivated to act or disclose awareness of such things namely because they don't want to lose their guarenteed income.--young (talk) 2:13pm, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Section 8 housing was establish by congress to help needy families escape poverty, by allowing them to move in a nicer neighborhoods. Today it seems that the program is doing the exact opposite. The program is the considered the largest project and serves approximately 2.2 million families. However what was geared to help poor families escape their harsh circumstances are trapped and are poverty stricken. The tenants are responsible to pay 30 percent of their adjusted gross income and the government pays the remaining. The section 8 program was a good idea when it first started but now its been often abuse, and it leaves families worse off because there is no incentive to do better for most on the program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmarble (talk • contribs) 23:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Jane Jacobs

There is a whole chapter on public housing in The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs that describes a proposal very similar to the basics of the Section 8 voucher program, long before it was ever passed into law. I'm not familiar with the legislative history but I've always thought of her as the "inventor" of the program and wonder if that should be mentioned here. --Nomenclaturist (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs was first published in 1961. Section 8 was passed into law in 1937. How is this long before it was first passed into law?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.92.128 (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The original text of the Housing Act of 1937 did not have the voucher program. The Section 8 voucher program was added via an amendment passed in 1974. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/mfh/rfp/s8bkinfo -- Nomenclaturist (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite for clarity

In the discussion of Sec. 8 in Puerto Rico is the phrase

"PHAs are required to send tenants portion"

What is this supposed to mean? Can it be rewritten for clarity? Mahnut 17:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

should strike that until clarified. I have been involved in administering vouchers for families living in PR and have no idea what that means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.92.128 (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism...

I'm not saying that User:Coolcaesar's addition of the criticism section on 03:14, 4 April 2011‎ was obviously biased and inflammatory... but it clearly was. I removed the trash and added more information than "flawed". Is there anything that I missed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khimaris (talk • contribs) 22:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Rosin's analysis is cogent, incisive, and accurate, which is why it has been extensively cited by critics of Section 8 like R. Rex Parris. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

My opinion probably doesn't count since I don't have a "real" account, but here's my 2 cents anyway... I think there should be a section for criticism. The welfare page includes criticism, so why should this page be exempt? 63.92.241.249 (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Darwin

Not a right?

Just curious why Section 8 is Federal Law, but it's "A privilege-not a right!"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.134.43 (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a privilege, not a right: this means that the program is an entitlement program which can be revoked if it's abused in any way. You can easily be kicked out of the program if you violate the terms of the program. You can be banned for a specific amount of time (about 5 years) or permanently. When you have your eligibility restored you must go through the same process anyone else would have to go through to join the program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyn562 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Self help evictions are illegal whether or not a tenant and landlord are party to a housing assistance payment contract

"unwillingness to initiate judicial action for eviction of a tenant (HUD requires that Section 8 tenants can only be evicted by judicial action, even where state law allows other procedures"

First of all: Since when is a landlord unwilling to use the court system on their behalf?

More importantly, every state and most every county requires that a landlord/owner/manager seek a right of possession via the court system and that self help evictions are illegal. This is regardless of whether a tenant has a housing voucher or not or the landlord receives payments via the housing voucher program

Many states do or did allow evictions to occur without judicial involvement; this federal regulations forbids anyone in such state to use non-judicial evictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyn562 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Section 8 created in 1974

You make it look like Section 8 was created in 1937. Misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C400:8C80:41A7:8879:4183:D9AD (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Picture is not a Section 8 Building

The building in the picture at top, 787 East 149th Street, is not Section 8. It was financed under Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, which has its own form of subsidy distinct from Section 8. Jombocom (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)