Opinion Opposing section 8 housing is racist?

[BIKES!]

If this is your position I take it you do not believe people moving out of a crime-riddled neighborhood and into S8 housing within a low-crime neighborhood will "bring the crime" with them. Correct?

It depends on the people. Again, a sizable percentage of those in section 8 are generationally poor due to a culture of poor work ethic, entitlement, children out of wedlock (often for more welfare), and glorification of violence/gang banging and drug dealing.

There of course is a percentage of hard working folks that because of bad luck were born into a cycle of poverty and despite working 60 hours a week at McDonald’s, need help. However, a lot of these people often have many children unattended without a father figure that perpetuate the sad life of no future no hope that often consumes section 8.

There is no perfect answer, but it sure as fuck isn’t to force those who worked hard and made the right decisions in life to absorb these financial and emotional costs.

There are so many Uber wealthy BLM folks that won’t stop screaming about their love of those poor and misfortune. Why can’t they build in their enclaves?

 

[Major Machismo]

This is the most accurate thing I’ve read on Sherdog and I’ve been on here for 17 years. I bought a condo in a very nice, predominantly white town, a few years back. Now I’m not exaggerating, the split second the town made the fatal mistake of letting in section 8 it went to shit and the white flight immediately happened. I was baffled by how much everyone tried to embrace it and then quickly fled. The section 8 folks were all the same, littered constantly, I mean they would just open their car door and throw their garbage on the street. Noise, my God, they would blast music, have parties, invite over ten friends every day. None of them worked! It was insane, and if they did work it was of course a home auto body shop which meant 8 cars parked all across the street so you couldn’t park anywhere. They never even attempted to be friendly or anything, just awful in every sense.

anyone who supports section 8 has never ever lived amongst those people, and you all know the people im talking about. A bunch of Swedes didn’t ruin my neighborhood.

I totally agree, I've white flight 3 time in the last 15 years. Section 8 doesn't work. I also noticed how people backs the policy but run away when the thugs move in.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

The money was already redistributed. Black Americans never got reparations for their labor, that wealth didn't disappear, what are you talking about? The government don't owe your property values to always go up.

What money was already redistributed? The money that millions of whites and Asians are saving (or saved) to buy suburban homes (1) is money they've received from their employers for providing labor their employers value and (2) if they're self employed, money they've received from customers for meeting consumer demands.

The ship for reparations sailed long ago. Virtually everyone is the descendant of people who were victims of injustice. It's impossible to prove that blacks Americans who are alive in the present would be worse off if not for all the injustices committed in human history, much less that they'd even exist.

 

[funcrusher2007]

It’s such a complex issue...
Both sides have a logical and reasonable argument...
On one hand, I’ve seen exactly what happens to an area when section 8 housing is inaction...it’s bad, real bad. Honestly,I wouldn’t live close to it.

on the other hand, cost of living and greed have made It impossible for low income people to afford quality housing.


The answer is somewhere in the middle in my opinion.

section 8 qualification should come with stipulation and requirements. Routine property assessments, loss of section 8 qualification for felony convictions DURING section 8 occupancy, a regulation on how many section 8 properties allotted per square mile. A record of gain full employment and routine audits of section 8 beneficiaries finances.

Renters rights, regulate eviction Laws for landlords who evict for higher profit. Investments in MORE housing in general.simply put there is an artificial demand because there is an artificial supply. Developers aren’t making enough houses because why build 100 houses that sell for 100,000 when you can make 10 that sell for 1,000,000. I see it everyday (I’m a commercial construction superintendent/project manager). Which goes into a broader problem..workers rights..wage stagnation, affordable healthcare,etc.

the problem is so much deeper then just affordable housing...it’s affordable everything.

I’m just spitballing here so feel free to blast my ideas in the water..but this is definitely a conversation that needs to be had.

 

[Jkillah]

A few obvious concerns for your plan spring to mind.
For example, the people in that housing are probably among the least likely to own vehichles, and the most needful if public transit, as well as containing many of the least mobile. Locating them far away from resources (grocers, pharmacies) and care (hospitals, addiction centres) seems incredibly counter productive.

My primary goal is to reduce the harm that these people cause to the rest of society and having them located far from where people want to live would be beneficial towards this end.

However, you could still provide them with most services equal to what they were getting in the city given that it's cheaper to build in remote areas. For example, you could provide them with comparable services for less when it comes to addiction treatment centers. I think having a treatment center right next to the government housing would be a good idea. It would be cheaper to open a doctor's office out there as well. It would be harder to attract grocery stores, but with the right tax incentives you could at least get a dollar general. The most difficult thing would be hospitals, but I think you could open a small hospital designed to treat things that require imediate care.

 

[Jkillah]

Government housing probably needs to be generally speaking, worse quality. It shouldn't be arranged like apartment buildings but more like military barracks. it should be shitty so that you don't get comfortable living there. you should be constantly reminded why you don't want to accept that kind of life.

I would make it out of whatever the cheapest durable building material was. I was thinking concrete, but if there is something cheaper and more durable than concrete, use that. Concrete cinder blocks are used for department stores and gas stations. They aren't fancy, but they get the job done. I would design the units to be cheap, durable, and safe, but not luxurious. I would locate the government housing far away so that it wouldn't hurt the property values of anything nearby. I would build government housing next to landfills, prisons, or places like that. Places that people don't want to live so that the only people accepting government housing were those that really needed it.

 

[brother mouzone]

I would make it out of whatever the cheapest durable building material was. I was thinking concrete, but if there is something cheaper and more durable than concrete, use that. Concrete cinder blocks are used for department stores and gas stations. They aren't fancy, but they get the job done. I would design the units to be cheap, durable, and safe, but not luxurious. I would locate the government housing far away so that it wouldn't hurt the property values of anything nearby. I would build government housing next to landfills, prisons, or places like that. Places that people don't want to live so that the only people accepting government housing were those that really needed it.

Yeah im totally with you on this, provided that these remote areas are able to get bussed to the main cities.

I'm not one to want to 'punish' people for being poor but they cant have a positive reinforcement to live off of the government in perpetuity. Free housing means you should give up some privileges, like for example no drugs or alcohol. Probably some rights for that matter, police officers should be able to search people coming into these units. There should be zero weapons or anything of the sort.

Government housing should be heavily policied. They should be safer than living in more than 50% of cities in the country. As it stands now government housing is one of the most dangerous places in the United States.

By using a military barracks style floor plan, you can house waaaaay more people than the apartment unit style. It just makes fiscal sense that if we are going to house people for basically free that it should be done in the cheapest way possible.

 

[ocfightfan]

It's a response to gentrification. Affluent white people moving to urban areas and jacking up the cost of living to where regular people can't afford it.

Gentrification is almost entirely happening in liberal run cities, not the suburbs, which is where the left is targeting. And there is a growing body of evidence that the case for gentrification is bullshit in any case.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/201...on-doesnt-force-out-low-income-residents.html

What this is really about is the left exercising control over the suburbs which tend to be more conservative. They want to herd us all into high density beehives where they control policy and the tax base.

 

[Here's the thing]

I'll go short form because I don't feel like getting dragged into a hundred different people's arguments. But your understanding of the Seattle situation and the Asian situation are pretty much on point.

The original housing acts specifically called for low income housing to be broadly distributed throughout municipalities. The reason was that if you create large pockets of poverty, they become self-fulfilling problems. Essentially, if everyone in the radius is poor then there will no new jobs created, there won't be enough funding for local schools, large pockets of poverty increase the prevalence of crime, etc. Everyone knew this and legislated to prevent it.

However, when the legislation got down to the state and local government level, there was concern about low income minorities moving into white neighborhoods and so local rules were massaged to allow the creation of the very pockets of poverty that the federal government had wanted to avoid. As you note with the Asian immigrants, this had long term negative consequences on those poverty communities that were created and the people who ended up living in them.

People at the local level have been fighting to the have law implemented as intended for decades but, in the early years, the race segregationists held more power than the integrationists so their version was the starting point. Those people didn't oppose the housing issue because they didn't want to live among poor people, they opposed it because they didn't want to live among minorities (and not just black minorities, any minorities). Regardless of why people today oppose it, the original opposition was explicitly racist.

Fast forward 60 years and most people don't know the history. They think that some random liberal politician is trying to force poor minorities into their well-to-do communities without realizing that the policy fight has been going on for longer than most of them have been alive.

The history doesn't matter much to me though. All that matters is what section 8 does. Also, if people want to argue that section 8 is a good policy because it allows poorer people to live in nicer areas, that's a fair argument to make. I don't agree with it, but at least it's not racist. But when you say specifically," if you are against section 8 housing, it's cause you are racist," that is bullshit. It doesn't matter what race poor people are. It's the affect they have on your community that is the issue. That was the entire point of this thread.

Liberals do the same thing when they call people who want stronger boarders racist. Not wanting people coming who don't speak English, who are dirt poor and desperate, who clog up schools and the healthcare system, and who bring crime into the country because they come from dumps in their home countries, doesn't make you racist at all. It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the affect illegal immigration from Central America has.

One more example is when Trump talks about shithole countries. All the idiots scream "THAT'S RACIST". But the countries he's talking about are total dumps for the most part. Nobody is saying "Black people are bad people that cause countries to be shitholes". He's simply saying, "That country is a dump." How the fuck does that mean he's saying black people are the cause of it? To liberals, I guess you can only criticize a person or place if they are white, otherwise you're a racist.

 

[JSN]

Gotta love how it's "jacking up the cost of living" and not increasing property values. Yeah, fuck them for not committing crime to keep property values low. Regular people deal drugs and shoot each other to keep rent low, cause ya know, regular people are more concerned with cheap rent in crime infested areas than safe neighborhoods where businesses can operate.

There’s no winning with libtards. If there are no grocery stores then it’s a food desert. If you put in a grocery store then you’re a gentrifier.

 

[panamaican]

The history doesn't matter much to me though.

Cool. But then what's the point of responding to a post that's specifically about the history, lol.

 

[MMABrooklyn]

What money was already redistributed? The money that millions of whites and Asians are saving (or saved) to buy suburban homes (1) is money they've received from their employers for providing labor their employers value and (2) if they're self employed, money they've received from customers for meeting consumer demands.

The ship for reparations sailed long ago. Virtually everyone is the descendant of people who were victims of injustice. It's impossible to prove that blacks Americans who are alive in the present would be worse off if not for all the injustices committed in human history, much less that they'd even exist.

Yea, I'm not going to let your anti Black talking points slide:

"The finding advanced in peer reviewed articles in economic journals is clear: there is no evidence that Black Americans have a lower savings rate than white Americans once household income is taken into account (Hamilton and Chiteji, 2013). For example, Maury Gittleman and Edward Wolff (2004) using data from the Panel Study on Income Dynamics (PSID), tracked the financial position of black and white families and found that, once income is controlled, if anything, black families actually have a slightly higher savings rate than their white counterparts."



Where's the wealth that Black Americans labored for during slavery? Where's the wealth that was stolen from the Freedman Bank? There's people alive to today who lived through Jim Crow, wtf are you to talk about the ship as long sell? Your family didn't build this nation, what you done to say such a thing?

Explain the bold.

 

[skysolo]

You here that. If you have ever lived in subsidized housing, the police should be able to unilaterally search your residence with no warrant. Suck it constitution.

Free housing means you should give up some privileges, like for example no drugs or alcohol. Probably some rights for that matter, police officers should be able to search people coming into these units.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Yea, I'm not going to let your anti Black talking points slide:

"The finding advanced in peer reviewed articles in economic journals is clear: there is no evidence that Black Americans have a lower savings rate than white Americans once household income is taken into account (Hamilton and Chiteji, 2013). For example, Maury Gittleman and Edward Wolff (2004) using data from the Panel Study on Income Dynamics (PSID), tracked the financial position of black and white families and found that, once income is controlled, if anything, black families actually have a slightly higher savings rate than their white counterparts."



Where's the wealth that Black Americans labored for during slavery? Where's the wealth that was stolen from the Freedman Bank? There's people alive to today who lived through Jim Crow, wtf are you to talk about the ship as long sell? Your family didn't build this nation, what you done to say such a thing?

Explain the bold.

Things people did in the past shaped the world we live in. I'm not denying that. The fact that some people's ancestors were poorer than other people's ancestors because of some injustice doesn't create an imperative to make their descendants richer and thereby punish other people's descendants in the present.

You can't prove that a single person alive today would be worse off if not for every injustice in human history, much less that such a person would even exist.

 

[Jkillah]

Yea, I'm not going to let your anti Black talking points slide:

"The finding advanced in peer reviewed articles in economic journals is clear: there is no evidence that Black Americans have a lower savings rate than white Americans once household income is taken into account (Hamilton and Chiteji, 2013). For example, Maury Gittleman and Edward Wolff (2004) using data from the Panel Study on Income Dynamics (PSID), tracked the financial position of black and white families and found that, once income is controlled, if anything, black families actually have a slightly higher savings rate than their white counterparts."



Where's the wealth that Black Americans labored for during slavery? Where's the wealth that was stolen from the Freedman Bank? There's people alive to today who lived through Jim Crow, wtf are you to talk about the ship as long sell? Your family didn't build this nation, what you done to say such a thing?

Explain the bold.

Black people of that period would still have mostly been poor. White people were still mostly poor during that period. The wealthy folks in the South were the small few with a lot of land. Noone ever became wealthy through subsistence farming or farming someone else's land as a share cropper or tenant farmer.

Where black people missed out the most on wealth building was in the first half of the twentieth century. They had less job opportunities. It wasn't until World War II that they started having access to good jobs and it was a battle to keep them after the war was over. Black folks today don't really have the same barriers as the did in the first half of the twentieth century. A black person today can easily escape poverty if they learn some type of skilled trade. I'm not saying their wealth will be equal to families who have been middle class for several generations, but escaping poverty is very doable.

As far as explaining the bold, black people are working lower skilled jobs that pay less and they are saving less total earnings. They need to work higher skilled jobs. They should be learning trades. Whether it is blue collar or white collar they should be learning skills that would allow them to earn more money. Then they will be able to save properly. Right now they are still doing a poor job of saving because their income is so low.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Black people of that period would still have mostly been poor. White people were still mostly poor during that period. The wealthy folks in the South were the small few with a lot of land. Noone ever became wealthy through subsistence farming or farming someone else's land as a share cropper or tenant farmer.

Where black people missed out the most on wealth building was in the first half of the twentieth century. They had less job opportunities. It wasn't until World War II that they started having access to good jobs and it was a battle to keep them after the war was over. Black folks today don't really have the same barriers as the did in the first half of the twentieth century. A black person today can easily escape poverty if they learn some type of skilled trade. I'm not saying their wealth will be equal to families who have been middle class for several generations, but escaping poverty is very doable.

As far as explaining the bold, black people are working lower skilled jobs that pay less and they are saving less total earnings. They need to work higher skilled jobs. They should be learning trades. Whether it is blue collar or white collar they should be learning skills that would allow them to earn more money. Then they will be able to save properly. Right now they are still doing a poor job of saving because their income is so low.

The problem with people like the guy you're quoting is that they want to selectively remunerate descendants of historical injustice (which harms other descendants of historical injustices). There's no way to know that the individuals who make up one particular group of descendants would be worse off if not for the injustices done to their ancestors which leftists think should be 'rectified'. History could have unfolded an infinite number of ways if not for some particular injustices, including an infinite number of ways where the descendants of some particular injustices would have never existed.

 

[TeTe]

Section 8 is turning into a mess, at least in FL. There is like a 1-2 year wait list, sometimes even 3.

It's ten years in Cook County now (Chicago). My mother recently to get on the list and when they told her that she said forget it. If you don't have kids, you may as well not bother.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

It's ten years in Cook County now (Chicago). My mother recently to get on the list and when they told her that she said forget it. If you don't have kids, you may as well not bother.

God damn, that is insane.

 

[superpunch]

It depends on the people. Again, a sizable percentage of those in section 8 are generationally poor due to a culture of poor work ethic, entitlement, children out of wedlock (often for more welfare), and glorification of violence/gang banging and drug dealing.

There of course is a percentage of hard working folks that because of bad luck were born into a cycle of poverty and despite working 60 hours a week at McDonald’s, need help. However, a lot of these people often have many children unattended without a father figure that perpetuate the sad life of no future no hope that often consumes section 8.

There is no perfect answer, but it sure as fuck isn’t to force those who worked hard and made the right decisions in life to absorb these financial and emotional costs.

There are so many Uber wealthy BLM folks that won’t stop screaming about their love of those poor and misfortune. Why can’t they build in their enclaves?

I think a real big problem is how easy it is to make a choice that fucks the rest of your life up in that situation. If you have a decent upbringing, your parents and other role models act as tripwires to stop you from ever doing anything too dumb. And then hopefully, by the time you're an adult, you're smart enough not to do those things on your own. Without good role models, it's probably so easy to have a few kids by the time you're 20, get a criminal record, etc. And then once that happens, even if you want to change your life, you're pretty much stuck, right?

Like since I stayed out of trouble, even the trope "learn to code" could actually change my life pretty easily. I could join the military. Lots of things. How's a person with multiple kids or a felony going to do those things?

 

[Broke Lester]

All it took was one sentence to expose you know nothing about Cali.

All it took was one sentence to expose that you can't afford to live in Cali.

Obviously you don't live in Cali. We are in need of cheaper housing.