Opinion Opposing section 8 housing is racist?

[Pullmyfinger]

How is it a 3rd rail? Maybe to people who don't like to talk about the CIA's role in running drugs into inner cities for the profit of Central American rebels. Or to people who like to pretend drug use is a poor people thing? You know the same people, who now insist that we legalize marijuana and treat opioid addiction like a medical issue when they spent the previous 40 years using it to justify more and more abusive policing and sentencing approaches against the poor? Destroying communities and calling it a character issue until their kids were using and it suddenly became a victimless crime. Those people?

It's a 3rd rail because no politician wants to touch the issue.

That's why it's a 3rd rail.

Do you know of any politicians that campaign on really fixing this issue?

 

[blaseblah]

It's a 3rd rail because no politician wants to touch the issue.

That's why it's a 3rd rail.

Do you know of any politicians that campaign on really fixing this issue?

Sanders

 

[Pullmyfinger]

Those people?

Who are they?

You seem to really be well versed in this particular issue.

Who is at fault then?

That's probably difficult to pin down specifically.
You'd have to go back to Carter and Reagan eras for some of that.

 

[Seano]

Poor kids need housing just like white kids.

 

[Pullmyfinger]

Sanders

In his many years of public service, this was a priority for him?

 

[Pullmyfinger]

Poor kids need housing just like white kids.

There are plenty of white kids that are poor.
I agree, they need housing.

All poor kids need housing.

 

[Seano]

There are plenty of white kids that are poor.
I agree, they need housing.

All poor kids need housing.

 

[blaseblah]

In his many years of public service, this was a priority for him?

As part of his campaign he was going to legalize marijuana and use the taxes to put the money back into the communities most affected by the war on drugs.

 

[Pullmyfinger]

Actually, they are pretty much locked into that. You buy a house and pay on the mortgage. When you're ready to move, you're relying on the accrued value in your home to move on to another property. But if you've been stuck in a neighborhood that doesn't appreciate because redlining wouldn't let you buy in a better neighborhood then you don't have the accrued equity to move into a better neighborhood.

Of course the economic impact is much larger than just the equity value of homes. When you don't let people move into better neighborhoods and accrue equity then you're also denying them the ability to borrow against that equity. In the U.S., Americans consistently borrowed against home equity to finance education for themselves and their children and to start new businesses. If redlining has relegated you to non-appreciating neighborhoods, you have far less equity to borrow against. So, instead of borrowing $80k to start a new business with the bells and whistles, you only have access to $10k which doesn't get you as far. OR instead of borrowing against your home to finance a college degree or master's degree, you have to spend years earning the cash and by the time you do, you're years behind the people with more equity.

Those differences end up being cumulative. Remember, the person redlined into the non-appreciating neighborhood is competing against people who were not redlined so if there's one new opportunity, the person who was redlined has less equity to use to compete for it.

And redlining was happening right into the 1970s.

I happen to be a real estate lawyer who owns a title company, I see quite a few properties that have remained in the same hands since the 1950s, 60s and 70s still changing hands today. Those people are from the redlining era. And depending on who they are, they were excluded from the acquisition of house related wealth for most of their lives.

You are the perfect person for this topic.

Do you have any thoughts on racial steering?
How much of that is a factor in this over time?

I realize this will vary in different areas.

 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

As bad as it is here in California, I still believe in local control on issues like this.

 

[Pullmyfinger]

I got you!

I forgot about that video.
There's so much Biden gold.

Sorry I didn't get it when you posted before.

 

[panamaican]

It's a 3rd rail because no politician wants to touch the issue.

That's why it's a 3rd rail.

Do you know of any politicians that campaign on really fixing this issue?

I know plenty of politicians who have campaigned about the problems with the way we treat drug crimes and sentencing. This past election cycle, quite a few of them openly campaigned on the issue. Both parties covered this issue during the 2016 Presidential campaign and the 2018 mid terms.

This is a fairly public subject these days.

 

[Pullmyfinger]

As part of his campaign he was going to legalize marijuana and use the taxes to put the money back into the communities most affected by the war on drugs.

Did he do anything along those lines while serving in his current capacity?

He's had many years to lay some ground work in his own state if he had good ideas.

At least in moving money into the communities most affected by the war on drugs, not necessarily legalizing marijuana.

Whether marijuana were legal or not, there would be ways, as a Senator that he could influence moving tax dollars to help those affected communities.

 

[panamaican]

Who are they?

You seem to really be well versed in this particular issue.

Who is at fault then?

That's probably difficult to pin down specifically.
You'd have to go back to Carter and Reagan eras for some of that.

Those people meaning those people who think this is a 3rd rail when most of America is openly talking about it. The only people who seem to avoid the subject tend to be people who also like to avoid the historical record.

 

[Pullmyfinger]

No, I meant those people (politicians) that were responsible for CIA and Central America.

I should have clarified that.

That's what I meant when I said we would have to look back at Carter and Reagan administrations.

 

[blaseblah]

Did he do anything along those lines while serving in his current capacity?

He's had many years to lay some ground work in his own state if he had good ideas.

At least in moving money into the communities most affected by the war on drugs, not necessarily legalizing marijuana.

Whether marijuana were legal or not, there would be ways, as a Senator that he could influence moving tax dollars to help those affected communities.

https://vermontbiz.com/news/august/black-americans-better-vermont-most-states

 

[panamaican]

You are the perfect person for this topic.

Do you have any thoughts on racial steering?
How much of that is a factor in this over time?

I realize this will vary in different areas.

It's a huge factor for the reasons I mentioned previously. Steering people into lower value neighborhoods is bad but it's the lost value, based on lower equity, that becomes the real problem. Remember, home equity is approximately 70% of the average American's net worth. Steering people into low value neighborhoods is steering them into a lower lifetime net worth and all of the issues that go with that.

Also, I think people overstate the general Section 8 issue. No one puts low income Section 8 housing into a good neighborhood. And people who complain about that possibility don't seem to understand the economics. If an individual buys a high value property then they're going to try and maximize rental value. Section 8 tenants don't maximize rental value so no one intelligent would do that. If the neighborhood is good, you'll have more competitive rent options or you can get an attractive sales price.

Now, the real debate happens when someone thinks they're in a better neighborhood than they really are. In those neighborhoods, an investor can acquire properties that are low enough in value to justify Section 8. But, again, they're still trying to maximize rental value. You don't put in Section 8 tenants unless the neighborhood can't support higher rents on its own or there's not much value in simply selling it and moving on. The issue is that the neighbors see the Section 8 tenant and think that the Seciton 8 tenant is driving down property values. But they're too close to the neighborhood, they don't understand that already dropping property value is what made the neighborhood attractive for a Section 8 landlord in the first place.

Think about it like a girl who used to be slim and gradually blows up in weight. When her boyfriend leaves her for a slim chick, the fat girl blames the slim chick for stealing her man, without realizing that her gradual weight increase is what made the new chick so appealing. But, of course, she's too close to the situation to realize she was letting herself go.

That's the mistake many of these people make. They see the Section 8 tenant and think it's the cause, when it's really the result of an already worsening neighborhood.

 

[Pullmyfinger]

It's a huge factor for the reasons I mentioned previously. Steering people into lower value neighborhoods is bad but it's the lost value, based on lower equity, that becomes the real problem. Remember, home equity is approximately 70% of the average American's net worth. Steering people into low value neighborhoods is steering them into a lower lifetime net worth and all of the issues that go with that.

Also, I think people overstate the general Section 8 issue. No one puts low income Section 8 housing into a good neighborhood. And people who complain about that possibility don't seem to understand the economics. If an individual buys a high value property then they're going to try and maximize rental value. Section 8 tenants don't maximize rental value so no one intelligent would do that. If the neighborhood is good, you'll have more competitive rent options or you can get an attractive sales price.

Now, the real debate happens when someone thinks they're in a better neighborhood than they really are. In those neighborhoods, an investor can acquire properties that are low enough in value to justify Section 8. But, again, they're still trying to maximize rental value. You don't put in Section 8 tenants unless the neighborhood can't support higher rents on its own or there's not much value in simply selling it and moving on. The issue is that the neighbors see the Section 8 tenant and think that the Seciton 8 tenant is driving down property values. But they're too close to the neighborhood, they don't understand that already dropping property value is what made the neighborhood attractive for a Section 8 landlord in the first place.

Think about it like a girl who used to be slim and gradually blows up in weight. When her boyfriend leaves her for a slim chick, the fat girl blames the slim chick for stealing her man, without realizing that her gradual weight increase is what made the new chick so appealing. But, of course, she's too close to the situation to realize she was letting herself go.

That's the mistake many of these people make. They see the Section 8 tenant and think it's the cause, when it's really the result of an already worsening neighborhood.

Thank you for taking the time to reply and give your thoughts on that. This thread has been interesting to dig into.
Your perspective, given your profession, is valuable.

I appreciate it very much.

 

[panamaican]

No, I meant those people (politicians) that were responsible for CIA and Central America.

I should have clarified that.

That's what I meant when I said we would have to look back at Carter and Reagan administrations.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB113/north06.pdf

There are people who insist that these things didn't happen. As for who was responsible, it's a pretty complex situation. In some cases, humanitarian aid was paid to drug traffickers when those traffickers were also rebels. In other cases, drug traffickers were protected because the drug traffickers were funding rebellions. In other cases, large drug operations were allowed to grow to help other foreign policy goals, such as destabilizing an enemy or stabilizing a new government (such as in Panama).

 

[MMABrooklyn]

People vs property value is a false dichotomy.

If people need affordable homes, as this wealth gap continue to grow, I don't care about property value.

But they have always had the Democrat party looking out for them.

Both parties been hostile to Black Americans throughout history.