The Observation Deck

Here is a study of the impact of Section 8 housing and geographic clustering of units:

http://www.urban.org/publications/309465.html

One quote:

To some extent, location patterns among Section 8 recipients may simply mirror the geographic distribution of affordable rental housing. Historically, many affluent suburbs have used zoning and land-use regulations to limit the development of rental housing, especially more affordable rental housing, in order to maintain their property tax base and social homogeneity

Thanks for linking us with to study. It's very interesting in that many myths and concerns are countered with reality.

Should landlords be cautious about accepting Section 8? Well, this study reads that landlords should treat Section 8 applicants as any other. Does Section 8 tear down neighborhoods? According to the study, not necessarily. Does Section 8 impose strain on city social and safety services? According to the study, not disproportionately.

So, if there is no empirical evidence that Section 8 has short- and long-term damaging effects why should we be concerned that Rocky River or Bay are taking in their fair share?

While it hasn't been addressed much in this thread, isn't this a race issue? I remember back in 1997 when I bought a triple and intended to live in the first floor, the tenants, African-American, claimed that they couldn't find anyone else in Lakewood that would rent to them.

When potential renters call in response to ads, do landlords answer "no" when asked if they accept Section 8 or do they wait to see if they can detect whether or not the person is African American then answer?

It isn't so much fear of renting to an African-American. It is fear of renting to some bonehead who will be belligerent, irresponsible, or a nuisance. Or invite 15 of their friends who are over afterwards.

Certainly complaints about “Section 8â€Â￾ can be a broad blanket for racial prejudice, something we must move beyond.

At the same time there are legitimate concerns a community such as Lakewood with soft rental market can express and must express through rational inquiry and analysis in order to protect interests and norms threatened by the self-segregating mechanism of the real estate market that at once sprawls across the region and pushes to develop the downtown core. The mobility made possible for the poor by housing choice vouchers is a part of the mix that allows for the gentrification of core.

A working class community, with a soft rental environment, can be easily overcome with behavioral problems and unscrupulous real estate practices.

A local government and school district is burdened with the cognitive skills and behavioral problems that develop from trauma experienced in poverty.

We do not know if this is or is not the case in Lakewood.

Hence Bill Call has made this inquiry.

Any drill down beyond the Rent Reasonableness Study would need to determine if any specific properties are magnets for behavioral problems - noise complaints, illegal auto repair operations on the street, public drinking, disorderly groups, public urination, low-level drug sales, illegal parking?

Analysis of properties that are magnets for behavioral problems may not necessarily hinge on Section 8.

The issue is neither Section 8 nor race. The issue is the regulation of human conduct, the integration of lower classes into community norms.

Kenneth Warren

The fall out from exporting manufacturing jobs to spend more on advertising is that Class becomes a function of blind consumerism much more so than a function of behavior. It is always a mix of the two. Today we are in one extreme side of it.

Most of the worst people on the RTA with me wore clothes and jewelry and accesories worth more than my entire wardrobe. The same goes for most of the worst behaved people I passed on the sidewalk. In these conditions the War on Poverty is a red herring issue. It's the ADHD generation.

I was pretty fried in the 80s(what has changed?), but they kept putting me in the higher group because I behaved mildly pleasant-like and pondered my homework obsessively.

-----------------------------------------
"Based on a Symposium on Section 8 Mobility and Neighborhood Health, October 26, 1999

The Urban Institute with support from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and The MacArthur Foundation."
-----------------------------------------

Call me cynical, but it looks like HUD, which is in charge of the Section 8 program, funded this study. Would anyone expect HUD to fund a study that finds one of its biggest programs to be a disaster? I am not saying Sect. 8 is necessarily a disaster, but a study conducted with greater independence would be more interesting.

As others have mentioned, what bothers me is uncivilized and/or illegal behavior. I would rather live next to a responsible black, disabled, elderly, or poor for whatever reason flaming lesbian Section 8 renter than an irresponsible homeowner who is a rich white guy.

Some say poverty is the cause of every problem, but I don't consider poverty a legitimate excuse for acting the fool. I don't believe being poor makes you play your radio too loud. I don't believe it makes you wear your shorts halfway down your butt or causes you to become a compulsive litterbug.

I don't know what happened to the city ordinance that would allegedly punish property owners who put out trash early or who are the root of excessive police calls (or who have tenants guilty of the above). Was that just a campaign stunt by some of our city officials? Then again, if property owners or their irresponsible tenants were constantly ran out of town, you may not need to fine them--they would already be feeling it in the pocketbook.

partly tongue-in-cheek but partly serious too - -
I don't know what the answer is. If Section 8 and other programs are a problem, it doesn't seem likely that they could ever be just cut off completely. I'm not advocating anything too crazy, but maybe decent people need to somehow take things into their own hands in a different way. If all we do is reshuffle the city politicians, things will remain the same in a lot of ways. Maybe one of the good organizers on this board can get everyone to wear green shirts and swarm in protest around the residences of troublemakers. Maybe a bus trip to a slumlord's estate in Westlake or Sandusky could be organized. If someone is a litterbug, maybe we need to get 200 people together to each throw a can in their open car window. Maybe Lakewood needs a Hells Angels clubhouse.

Doug

DougHuntingdon wrote:-----------------------------------------
"Based on a Symposium on Section 8 Mobility and Neighborhood Health, October 26, 1999

The Urban Institute with support from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and The MacArthur Foundation."
-----------------------------------------

Call me cynical, but it looks like HUD, which is in charge of the Section 8 program, funded this study. Would anyone expect HUD to fund a study that finds one of its biggest programs to be a disaster? .........

As others have mentioned, what bothers me is uncivilized and/or illegal behavior. I would rather live next to a responsible black, disabled, elderly, or poor for whatever reason flaming lesbian Section 8 renter than an irresponsible homeowner who is a rich white guy.

I am a little skeptical of that study as well. Mayors would not be requesting special meetings with officials from CMHA about the program if they did not have concerns about the program.

I don't see this as a racial issue but as a cultural issue. We have all driven down a street in Lakewood where you see a series of houses with fresh paint, mowed lawns, flowers etc. next to a house that is barely up to code. My wife use to say to our neighbor that when he sits on his porch he sees flowers when we sit on our porch we see trash. In one ear and out the other.

The real issue here is this: Is CMHA in violation of its own policies and in violation of federal law in the way it administers this program?

I first became interested in this issue when I was talking with an old neighbor. She has a nice duplex that was difficult to rent at $650. The double next door was a wreck. CMHA was paying $825. Proof of anything? No. Evidence of something out of wack? Yes.

I find it telling that phone calls to CMHA remain unanswered.

Well its easy to dismiss the study if it doesn't say what you want it to.

Are you only looking for confirmation that your own perceptions are correct?

Sounds familiar.

Every dump on my street is an owner occupied single home. Is anecdotal information enough for you?

Thanks for your comments. I only dismiss studies that have such blatant conflict of interest. I didn't even read the study--the beginning was enough for me. I don't think you read my post, so I guess we are even. Would I read a study about the positive effects of drunkenness that was commissioned by Bartles and James? probably not

I know there are many bad homeowners. I am the first one to mention them. My signature even gets some of them riled up.

Grace, do you have ideas to combat the ghettofication of Lakewood?

Doug

PS It was before my time, but I know things weren't always perfect in the "good old days," either. Lakewood had Yorktown and other issues back then.

Grace are you related to the "good" O'Malley or the other one?

Doug

DougHuntingdon wrote:Grace are you related to the "good" O'Malley or the other one?

Doug

Doug

This is good. Whenever I walk into Johnny Malloy's we ask if this is the good O'Malley or the other one. Funny how things stick in one's mind.

Do you remember which was which?

I have struck up an interesting friendship with Tim, who owns Malloy's and he is a very good guy with strong opinions on what could make Lakewood better. He has also been willing to jump in with block watches and even asked for a satellite police station near the "Entertainment District."

So which was the good one, and which was the one throwing mud?

.

vigilante civic groundskeepers... an interesting idea Doug.

I am curious about something. I've heard it said, (and by that I don't mean heresay but what I understand to be accurate), that Section 8 entered Lakewood under Mayor Sinagra. Is there any truth to this? If it's being said that RR and Westlake are not "pulling their weight" is it just simply because they have decided not to allow it, as Lakewood had not allowed it prior to this change several years ago?

Shawn,

Section 8 housing is not regulated by the municipality. The vouchers are contracts between the federal government, property owner and tenet. Section 8 represents the outsourcing of public housing to the private sector. As such, it's the property owner, private for-profit agent who now calls the shots on subsidized housing allocation throughout the region.

No landlords are forced to rent to voucher recipients. All things being equal, distribution of vouchers is a function of the "market".

If section 8 entered the city under Sinagra this may or may not be attributed to policy changes at the federal level regarding formula used to calculate reasonable rent, or at the local level by shifts in the rental market.

If Lakewood property owners (and those in other inner-ring communities) are receiving a disproportionate share of such subsidies, a few points may be worth pondering.

As inner-ring "shares" of subsidized housing increases, is there a proportionate decrease of such units within the City of Cleveland as a whole? If so, how does this float or sink Clevelands long term strategic plan to "increase the number of luxuary housing units in Cleveland" over the next 20 years? (exact figures can be foung at the website of the Mayor's office....... they've set rather lofty goals)

Under conditions where reasonable rent was truly reasonable, Lakewood could still end-up with a greater portion of subsidized housing. However, if the formula is flawed we must know; who, what, when and why.

Subsidized housing is a regulated market. Whether successful or not, regulation is an mean to a social end.

So, let's see the formula by which CMHA establishes "Reasonable Rent"

I just received the return receipt for my certified letter to CMHA.

I called the office of the person in charge of the Housing Choice Voucher Program. I left a message on her voice mail asking if she had any questions about my request. I also asked when she thought the information would be ready.

On a side note, the Urban Institute is one of the most widely respected non-partisan organizations in the US that research issues of concern in areas like housing, health, seniors, etc. They are funded about 3/4 of the way by the US Government but also by a who's who list of foundations heard every day on NPR (Mott Foundation, Ford Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson, etc.). It is far from supporting US Government policy by any stretch of the imagination. Every study of these sorts are funded by someone or some agency. Truly independent doesn't exist. To find a Section 8 study funded by agency X that has no interest in urban affairs or housing is unlikely. I doubt you will find a more impartial study than that of Urban Institute. To me, anyway.

Also, no surprise that CMHA is not calling Mr. Call back. They are fairly overwhelmed with the amounts of calls from their tenants, landlords, etc. Someone calling into question a study isn't going to get the attention he needs, deserving or not. My suggestion would be to find someone in the agency who does make these kinds of contacts. Or better yet, head down to a CMHA housing office and hang out there for a while in line with everyone else waiting for service.

But I wonder if I can ask again is this thread devolving into a "bash Section 8 in general" thread or is the topic because they tend to allow landlord/tenant leases to be at a rate higher than the surrounding community (again, they don't necessarily pay the entire amount...there is an expectation of the tenant to pay, I believe, at least 1/3 of their income per month for rent).

I want to add again to the folks who have ridiculed the idea that Westlake and Rocky River haven't picked up their "Fair share" of Section 8 housing. When landlords from there are seeking out CMHA for Section 8, then we will see an increase but right now they are not and CMHA nor the municipalities have nothing to say in where they go. I am all for poking holes in urban flight, moving retail farther from the city to the Suburbs, etc. but this is one where clearly the outer ring suburbs have no burden to bear.

I still haven't had a chance to chat with my Section 8 expert but hope to on Thursday as i have business with his agency and possibly another one who might shed more light (Eden Inc on the West Side of Cleveland).

Phil