# Curious



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

I am re-posting in the correct forum.

Would you let your elementary/middle school age child(ren) live with your parents during the week if it gave them better access to resources (such as schools or activities).

The child(ren) would come home on weekends, but would be gone all week.


----------



## primjillie (May 4, 2004)

I had a response all typed and they closed it! Anyway, my answer is no. I want my children to live with me and be raised by me. We moved (on purpose) when our children entered elementary school. We moved into a great school district (same city) and bought a house right down the street from the elementary school. I want to be the one to take my kids to school everyday, volunteer at the school, pick them up, go to school conferences, go to baseball after school, etc. I know it isn't always easy to move, but we planned on it as soon as we had children because we knew it was important to be in a good school district, so I think if you plan for it, there is no need for the kids to go live somewhere else. I also don't feel that is my parent's responsibility to raise my kids. They have done their duty!


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

I completely agree with you.

I just can't imagine a situation where I would send my crew off to live with my parents or anyone else.


----------



## laohaire (Nov 2, 2005)

Yes, I agree. A child's parents are the greatest resources they can ever have. Well, at least in most families (I hope!).

I would not want anyone else to raise my children, unless absolutely necessary (i.e. DH and I dead).

And, yeah, as a side issue that would be a huge burden on the grandparents. I know far too many grandparents either virtually or even legally raising their grandkids, and it's so hard for them, and not the ideal situation for ANYone.


----------



## jamsmama (Jul 16, 2005)

I would ask that person why they had children in the first place.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Houdini* 
I am re-posting in the correct forum.

Would you let your elementary/middle school age child(ren) live with your parents during the week if it gave them better access to resources (such as schools or activities).

The child(ren) would come home on weekends, but would be gone all week.

Yes. If I thought my children were mature enough. We are actually considering a boarding school for our daughter when she goes into the 9th or 10th grade. I am becoming a SDA (I'm waiting to get baptised) and this is quite common. Not all the kids live in dorms, some live with family church friends or relatives. I've talked to a great number of adults and current students that have gone off to live this type of arrangement, and they loved it.

Added: I went back and read the OP again and realized it said elementary children -- the answer would definitely be NO to that. A child that was 13 and 14 and had established values and was going into a similar home enviroment, it would have to be a Maybe.


----------



## newmommy (Sep 15, 2003)

No, I would not. BUT, my best friend did. She did not miss her DS at all.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Houdini* 
I completely agree with you.

I just can't imagine a situation where I would send my crew off to live with my parents or anyone else.

Well, it was either that or be homeless and hungry living on the streets, and then my kids would be taken and put into foster care.
At least this way they are with their grandmother who loves them with all her heart and soul and they are in the best school available, never go hungry and have a safe home. They come here every week-end.
Also, I was the one who worked 3 jobs, paid off all my mother's debt and helped her buy a house. Not too many children have done anything more than a Mother's Day card for their mother.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Yes. I do. Both of my 10 yr olds stay with my mother during the week. Better schools and resources.
Also, if you read my past thread about us going homeless, it was just better for my family.
They don't go hungry, anymore. And we don't have to live on the streets.
They come home every week-end.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jamsmama* 
I would ask that person why they had children in the first place.

WTF? When I had my kids I was very well off, had a house, had two jobs, attending college, etc. Life gets rough sometimes. You never know when it will turn upside down.
Lose 8 children in your family in less than a year and see if you can live through the grief and stay on top of the world.







:


----------



## felix the cat (Oct 13, 2006)

No. I think family is the most important thing, even more so that better schools or learning resources.


----------



## primjillie (May 4, 2004)

I think a lot of us do more than a card for Mother's Day. I think that remark was a little snide.


----------



## newmommy (Sep 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
Well, it was either that or be homeless and hungry living on the streets, and then my kids would be taken and put into foster care.
At least this way they are with their grandmother who loves them with all her heart and soul and they are in the best school available, never go hungry and have a safe home. They come here every week-end.
Also, I was the one who worked 3 jobs, paid off all my mother's debt and helped her buy a house. Not too many children have done anything more than a Mother's Day card for their mother.









mamaintheboonies, clearly your situation warranted it. But I don't think the OP mean't cases like your's (OP, I may be wrong).

I thought she just mean't being in a better school district, not because things were going awry in the family home.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmommy* 







mamaintheboonies, clearly your situation warranted it. But I don't think the OP mean't cases like your's (OP, I may be wrong).

I thought she just mean't being in a better school district, not because things were going awry in the family home.

Thank you for the hug. I did try to move to the cities, but the house we rented had lead and my kids got lead poisoning.
Where I am living now, there are no good schools, no resources for families like mine. My dd and ds are way better off living with my mother.
Yes, i miss them both like crazy when they are not here, and especially when I don't get to talk to them by phone for a few days. I wish life was fair, but it's not.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
Yes. If I thought my children were mature enough. We are actually considering a boarding school for our daughter when she goes into the 9th or 10th grade. I am becoming a SDA (I'm waiting to get baptised) and this is quite common. Not all the kids live in dorms, some live with family church friends or relatives. I've talked to a great number of adults and current students that have gone off to live this type of arrangement, and they loved it.

I think there is a big difference between 9th-10th grade and elementary/middle school age kids, though I doubt I would send them away even at that age.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

I could see it if it was temporary situation, though I would say we would all move in.

Now that you have a home, I guess I don't see why they would still be somewhere else.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
Well, it was either that or be homeless and hungry living on the streets, and then my kids would be taken and put into foster care.
At least this way they are with their grandmother who loves them with all her heart and soul and they are in the best school available, never go hungry and have a safe home. They come here every week-end.
Also, I was the one who worked 3 jobs, paid off all my mother's debt and helped her buy a house. Not too many children have done anything more than a Mother's Day card for their mother.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

I can see the perspective this person is coming from.

I get some people come acrossed hard times, we have BTDT. I have never sent my crew to live with someone else.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
WTF? When I had my kids I was very well off, had a house, had two jobs, attending college, etc. Life gets rough sometimes. You never know when it will turn upside down.
Lose 8 children in your family in less than a year and see if you can live through the grief and stay on top of the world.







:


----------



## HollyBearsMom (May 13, 2002)

This is rampant where I live and not due to extenuating circumstances like MITB.

The cost of homes is very high here and the most affluent areas have the best schools as I am sure is true most areas. The big trend right now is middle class families who were brought up in affluent areas are buying big houses in what are traditionally less-affluent towns. Kind of get "more house for your money" and in some cases they can't afford to live in the town they "want" in the types of house they "want". In these less affluent towns property taxes, auto insurance are all less so even bigger bonus. Instead of working to improve the schools they send the children live with family so they can get the same "better" education their parents did.

Whats even worse is the parents who knowingly buy their big McMansions in bad school districts and then rent/buy an apt or condo in a "good" school district and use it as a mailing address. There was a big expose about that in the local paper recently.

that said in MITB case I would have done exactly what she did but in my current case I couldn't imagine sending my kids away just for a better education. If I didn't think the schools were doing a good job I would get involved, move or send them to private. I have that ability but know that many don't.


----------



## kewb (May 13, 2005)

I can't really say what I would do. It would truly depend on the circumstances at the time I needed to make a decision.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Houdini* 
Now that you have a home, I guess I don't see why they would still be somewhere else.

If they came to live with me, we would be over the housing limit and end up getting evicted and homeless.

I don't have the money nor resources to buy a house for us, yet.

My mother's house is too small for all of us to live there. She would end up losing her home and then there would be three homeless families, as one of my sisters and her family reside with my mother, also.


----------



## MommaCrystal (May 25, 2006)

Has anyone looked into the legality of this? At least where I live the custodial party/legal gardian has to register the child for school. They must provide a birthcertificate for the child. If that is not a biological parent then court documents with proof of custody or gaurdianship must be shown. The custodial party/guardian has to show proof of residency be often a utility bill with their name on it or something else (legal) addressed to them at the proper residence.

So, I'm guessing that unless you went to court and had the grandparents named as guardian or something then the grandparents couldn't register the child at the school. Neither could the parents because they couldn't show proof of residency.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Not meaning any disrespect (I am trying to understand), but....

Does the housing authority not know about your oldest kids? Why get a house that isn't big enough for all of you?

If your mom's house is bought...why would she be evicted?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
If they came to live with me, we would be over the housing limit and end up getting evicted and homeless.

I don't have the money nor resources to buy a house for us, yet.

My mother's house is too small for all of us to live there. She would end up losing her home and then there would be three homeless families, as one of my sisters and her family reside with my mother, also.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommaCrystal* 
Has anyone looked into the legality of this? At least where I live the custodial party/legal gardian has to register the child for school. They must provide a birthcertificate for the child. If that is not a biological parent then court documents with proof of custody or gaurdianship must be shown. The custodial party/guardian has to show proof of residency be often a utility bill with their name on it or something else (legal) addressed to them at the proper residence.

So, I'm guessing that unless you went to court and had the grandparents named as guardian or something then the grandparents couldn't register the child at the school. Neither could the parents because they couldn't show proof of residency.

This is exactly how it is in our district. The address being used must be the custodial parents/legal guardian's home. There are people who try to screw the system and illegally enroll their kids, which is why they have gotten so strict where I am. When my crew were in public school, we open enrolled them to the district my mom lives in. They got in only because there was room after all the kids in district were assigned classrooms.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Houdini* 
Does the housing authority not know about your oldest kids? Why get a house that isn't big enough for all of you?

The only houses that were big enough were in the ghetto. I refuse to move back. There is a huge shortage of affordable housing for families outside of the inner city.

The apartment I am in right now, I am the first and, so far, only one who has a housing voucher. It has not been fun living here. When you use a voucher, you have to stay for an entire year....if you want to move, there are tons of obstacles you have to get through.

All you really have to do is read the posts on this thread and elsewhere to realize people don't care about other people, especially large families.
No one is going to purchase 4-5 bedroom homes in safe neighborhoods just to rent them to families living in poverty.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommaCrystal* 

So, I'm guessing that unless you went to court and had the grandparents named as guardian or something then the grandparents couldn't register the child at the school. Neither could the parents because they couldn't show proof of residency.

You just sign a Power of Attorney paper here. No need to go to court or hire a lawyer. Just get it notarized at the bank.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
All you really have to do is read the posts on this thread and elsewhere to realize people don't care about other people, especially large families.
No one is going to purchase 4-5 bedroom homes in safe neighborhoods just to rent them to families living in poverty.

Not really sure what this is all about. I haven't seen any posts on here that have indicated noone cares about other people or big families.

I honestly don't see renting a place with my kids living somewhere else. I have had to move from places I lived and live with others....I would have never sent my kids somewhere else.

I guess I don't get the reasoning.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Houdini*
I haven't seen any posts on here that have indicated noone cares about other people or big families.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *jamsmama* 
I would ask that person why they had children in the first place.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Houdini*
I would have never sent my kids somewhere else.

I guess I don't get the reasoning.

Well, hopefully, you will never be in a position to understand.


----------



## laohaire (Nov 2, 2005)

Well, I rescind my initial response on the grounds that it was in response to a very vague initial post.

Based on the OP... no, I still wouldn't. Not just to "take advantage of better schooling opportunities."

But I don't know if more details would change my mind.

Also I'm a person who went to boarding school in 9th grade, and loved it (I chose that path and felt it was the right one for me). I was also raised by a very attached mother (well, parents, actually). Anyway, I still wouldn't board kids younger than 9th grade either under the regular circumstances that I can think of off the top of my head.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
Well, hopefully, you will never be in a position to understand.


Ok....I forgot the first one.

As far as my comments go.....there is no situation I would ship my kids off for. We stick together no matter what.

Sorry you felt you had no other choice.


----------



## nyveronica (Jun 1, 2005)

whooo-eeee! Was there a sale on "judgment jeans" this week?


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Houdini* 
As far as my comments go.....there is no situation I would ship my kids off for. We stick together no matter what.

Even if it means you are all homeless and you get to watch your kids starve to death? You would prefer that over letting someone who loved and cared about your children take care of them while you got back on your feet?


----------



## primjillie (May 4, 2004)

I don't think it's judgement, I think we are all just very opinionated! lol Especially when it comes to our children. Different people choose different options.


----------



## FancyPants (Dec 25, 2004)

MITB

It sounds to me like you've had an extremely hard life.
I love my mother. She really loves my kids. If I had to choose life in an unsafe area without guarantee of shelter or good food versus my kids living with a woman who adores and is very attached to them and can give them food, shelter, clothes, good schooling and a good childhood I would do it in a heartbeat. Especially if I was beside myself with grief and knew I might be unkind and inconsistent.

You put your kids needs ahead of your desire to have them with you. I do not doubt for a minute that you miss them everyday.
It sounds to me like you made the *most selfless* choice there. I'm personally confused how it could be seen otherwise.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

To answer the OP: No.


----------



## laohaire (Nov 2, 2005)

Heck, I withdraw all my comments. This thread seems like nothing more than attack on another poster. I don't know anything about the other thread, and was only responding based on some vague, unsubstantiated question.


----------



## nyveronica (Jun 1, 2005)

Opinions are welcome all day long; but there is a fine, fine line between passion and judgment.

And of course a lot of people will wave their "tone is not conveyed well on message board" flags at times like this; ick.

How can anyone say they would never do anything ever? Good gravy! Who knows what's around the corner? What nasty curve-balls that can get thrown at us?


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
Well, hopefully, you will never be in a position to understand.


----------



## becoming (Apr 11, 2003)

Nope, never. BUT, if I was in the situation that some of the PP's are/were in, my parents would let me *and* the kids come live with them. My heart goes out to those who have had to make the choice, though.


----------



## primjillie (May 4, 2004)

You are right - none of us knows what will happen and how we will act. But some of us are pretty opinionated about keeping our families together no matter what. I haven't seen a good reason (yet) to break up a family. I only have 3 children, but I can't imagine having to send one or more to a relative (and how do you decide which one?) because I couldn't care for them. Luckily, I have family and friends to help out in case of emergency or tragedy, but I would move, get a second or third job, whatever I had to do to keep my kids together with me. Again, luckily, most of my family and friends own their homes, so we could all go live with them if need be without risk of eviction. I think they would rather have all of us than to have to raise one of my children. But, as I said before, different people choose different options and that doesn't mean either way is right or wrong.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *FancyPants* 
MITB

It sounds to me like you've had an extremely hard life.
I love my mother. She really loves my kids. If I had to choose life in an unsafe area without guarantee of shelter or good food versus my kids living with a woman who adores and is very attached to them and can give them food, shelter, clothes, good schooling and a good childhood I would do it in a heartbeat. Especially if I was beside myself with grief and knew I might be unkind and inconsistent.

You put your kids needs ahead of your desire to have them with you. I do not doubt for a minute that you miss them everyday.
It sounds to me like you made the *most selfless* choice there. I'm personally confused how it could be seen otherwise.









Thank you.
FWIW- they are thriving!!! No longer just surviving day to day, but actually thriving!
It is way better than having them put in foster care or some other System with strangers who may not love them or care about them and might even hurt them.

They are thriving at the school they are in, they are growing by leaps and bounds. They are loved, cherished, and wanted.
Yes, I miss them and my heart breaks that I do not get to see them everyday....but I know it won't be long before we are together again, one whole family.


----------



## Kelly1216 (Feb 26, 2004)

I wolud have liked to voice a small opinion, but I'm a little confused right now. Does the OP have an hardships like MITB? Or is it just schooling?
MITB- I'm sorry for your problems, and have a feeling there is a lot more going on that what you previously posted which would make the situation more understandable for those of us who don't know your life story. But, regardless, I hope things turn arounds for you soon.
To the OP, if I understand everything correctly, no, I wouldn't send them away just based on schooling. If the public schools stink, I would try to send them to a charter school if one is available. There are some great Charter Schools in Michigan, including the one I went to for middle and high school. And, assuming you don't work fulltime outside of the home, there is always homeschooling.
Again, I'm still alittle confused with all the banter going on, so please don't hate me if I'm off based at all!!


----------



## newmommy (Sep 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nyveronica* 
How can anyone say they would never do anything ever? Good gravy! Who knows what's around the corner? What nasty curve-balls that can get thrown at us?

I agree. I said "No" meaning not just to live in a better school environment.


----------



## 59046 (Jun 24, 2006)

No. I believe it is the parents job to be there daily for their kids, and parent them, not the grandparents. I would deal with what was available in my area, if moving was not an option.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
All you really have to do is read the posts on this thread and elsewhere to realize people don't care about other people, especially large families.
No one is going to purchase 4-5 bedroom homes in safe neighborhoods just to rent them to families living in poverty.

I live in a 4 bedroom home in a safe neighborhood, to rent my home would cost you nearly $1500 per month. I am wondering how a family in poverty could really afford to rent a home like this. The utilities are not cheap to run a home this size either. We also have covenants in our neighborhood that restrict us from renting to people who are sectoin 8.


----------



## Evan&Anna's_Mom (Jun 12, 2003)

Well, I would never send my kids to live with my parents because they were abusive to me and I would worry about them abusing my kids the same way. But I can't say that I would never consider having them live with someone else if the circumstances were such that it was better for THEM. Yes, I believe that it is my job to raise them and I can't see a lot of circumstances where I would chose some other arrangement. Certainly not just for better schools or other resources. But I won't rule it out either because I recognize that life sometimes throws in incredible curveballs. If it meant they weren't hungry or homeless, then yes, I might consider having them live away from me. If they chose to go to a boarding school for high school, I would listen and consider it (can't imagine it happening or being able to pay for it, but I'd consider it). If we moved and they wanted to spend their last semester at a school before graduation in their old town, I would consider it. But for elementary school kids, it would have to be a really extreme set of circumstances.


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
We also have covenants in our neighborhood that restrict us from renting to people who are sectoin 8.

What and why is this?


----------



## Synchro246 (Aug 8, 2005)

I noticed that a lot of responses were no because parents and family are importatant . . . Grandparents are family and are imprortant resources too (I don't know if they are 5-days-a-week-exclusively important)
I think if you loved the way your parents parented you and if you, your parents, and the children all felt really good about it then it's fine. It's unconventional, but there's certainly nothing wrong with it. I don't think *I* could do it and I think my mom is fabulous (my dad is dead). My mom currently watches my son two days a week and he get SOOOOOOOOOO much out of it. I just couldn't stand to be away from my son that much (maybe I'll feel differently when he's 10 though)

I think you need to decide this. It's not like it has to be permanant (does it?)


----------



## Synchro246 (Aug 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Houdini* 
I think there is a big difference between 9th-10th grade and elementary/middle school age kids, though I doubt I would send them away even at that age.

HAHA (laughing at myself)! When mine hit 14/15 years old I fully expect for them to be done with me and for me to be done with them. I want to keep loving my kids and I am from a camp that believes that teenagers are wired to still be living with their parents. My mom would probably have a greater positive influence on them and they would probably feel the freedom they need with her at that time. Not that we will be shipping our kids off, but we will be open to early seperation as long as we are all ready and the kid is going to a safe place.


----------



## primjillie (May 4, 2004)

I think watching your grandchild now and then, even a few days a week, is a lot different than pretty much raising them. If you have a child all week, you are going to have make some decisions and provide for that child. There are a lot of day to day decisions to make with a child, and should the grandparent have to call the parent every time a decision has to be made? Also, the grandparent would be responsible for food, school items, entertainment, and maybe even school clothes. If the child is living with the grandparent due to dire straits of the parents, I wouldn't think the parent could afford this. Also, it requires time - providing for the child's transportation, laundry, cooking, helping with homework and just being there with the child, instead of maybe enjoying each other or their retirement years. So after raising their own children, grandparents should raise the grandchildren? Unless it is an extreme circumstance - death of parents, drugs, mental illness - that is a lot to ask. My mom is 74 and even though my kids are grown, my brother has a two year old and I can't imagine my mom having to take this child, even just during the week.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

I would not have dd live at grandparents house for schooling choices. There are other circumstances in which I might feel that was the best choice, but for better schools, no. There are plenty of cheap places to live that also have good schools. Of course, we are unschooling so this would not be a consideration. Dd's grandparents do not do everything the way I would like but if we were dealing with a serious illness, a housing emergency, etc..... I would not think twice about it.


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Personally I would not do it for schooling reasons, but for anything else... IF I had parents that were in my life I would do it.

My grandmother raised me and she did a better job than anyone else ever could. I'm forever grateful that she did. And she was never bitter or resentful that her job was done and she was stuck with raising yet another. For her it was another chance to love a child.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WitchyMama2* 
What and why is this?

If I answer this honestly am I going to be flamed?

One of the reason is that we do not want our property value to go down. This tends to happen in areas where section 8 housing is. The property is normally not taken care of or kept up like it should be. Another reason is that there are people on section 8 that live lives that involve crime and drugs. There are other reasons too, some that have to do with govt involvement with our bylaws, etc.


----------



## jkpmomtoboys (Jun 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
We also have covenants in our neighborhood that restrict us from renting to people who are sectoin 8.

Can you explain how this is not illegal? I think it is...


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jkpmomtoboys* 
Can you explain how this is not illegal? I think it is...

Actually it isn't. It is perfectly legal to have restrictions for a neighborhood, including guidelines for your property, how many animals you can have, and rules about placing your property for rent. You can lease your property, but you cannot set it up to be a section 8 property in our neighborhood. While some will see this as descrimination, it actually is not. See you can place your property for lease privately (you are the landlord) or you can place it through a leasing agent (they are the landlord). The same rules apply for leasing, that you cannot discriminte for sex, race, religion, etc. The only requirement is that these people have good credit, employed, and have references that demonstrate that they can afford to live there. Section 8, has different requirements and the govt either subsidizes all or part of the rent. The people who actually live there have little to no financial responsibility at all.
Members of our family have rental properties, and they cannot be forced to accept sect 8 tenets as this is not defined as descrimination. You have the right to make the choice in whether or not you want the govt involved with your personal property.
When you agree to purchase a home in our neighborhood, you agree to the terms of the restrictions and usage of your property. For example, we must have double garages on our homes if the home exceeds 1500 sq ft. this means you cannot enclose your garage and make it into bedrooms or dens, or what not. You must keep your lawn cut and edged. You can't leave cars parked on the road for more than 3 days. You can't have a car parked in your grass. You can't have chain length fences. You cannot have certain businesses out of your home. Dogs cannot exceed a certain weight amount. You cannot have more than X amount of pets. You can't have any farm animals, this includes chickens but not rabbits. (though we do have a neighbor that has a chicken that walks on a leash) We have about 20 pages of restrictions for our neighborhood -- all legal.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jkpmomtoboys* 
Can you explain how this is not illegal? I think it is...

Its disgustingly shameful but not illegal. In order to qualify for Section 8, houses have to pass a HUD inspection. No one can force a homeowner or leasing agent to allow a HUD inspection, so... no inspection, no Section 8.

The inspection involves things like: making sure there is no lead-based paint, the windows have to open in each room and be a certain height, etc. Its actually quite strict. Even if you are willing to lease your house under Section 8, its a pain to meet their standards, and sometimes the modifications HUD requires are cost-prohibitive.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 
Its disgustingly shameful but not illegal. In order to qualify for Section 8, houses have to pass a HUD inspection. No one can force a homeowner or leasing agent to allow a HUD inspection, so... no inspection, no Section 8.

The inspection involves things like: making sure there is no lead-based paint, the windows have to open in each room and be a certain height, etc. Its actually quite strict. Even if you are willing to lease your house under Section 8, its a pain to meet their standards, and sometimes the modifications HUD requires are cost-prohibitive.

I guess I dont see why its shameful. We live in an area that is sought after to live in. There is a reason for that. We live in one of the better school districts. Crime is low. It is out in the county, but there are still a great bit of resources. Most people in our neighborhood, keep their homes up and abide by the policies.
I've driven too, and been in neighborhoods that had a number of secton 8 housing. Sadly, these areas are riddled with crime, unkept homes, drugs, and people who just don't care. I don't want the place I live to turn into something like that. There is a reason we moved to this area and not to the inner city ghetto. I'm sure there are wonderful nice people in the ghetto (WE have family friends that do), however when you have a home that is section 8 you don't get to choose who your neighbors are -- you could get some gangsters or drug dealers or some other folks you really wouldnt want to live next door to because they are a threat to your family or bring crime to your neighborhood.
I am also quite sure that our homes would meet HUD inspection since they are newer homes and were built to meet strict guidelines.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
Even if it means you are all homeless and you get to watch your kids starve to death? You would prefer that over letting someone who loved and cared about your children take care of them while you got back on your feet?

In my area, we are lucky enough to have enough resources available through the state as well as our church that we wouldn't face that issue.
I guess if you need to get on your feet and you feel that is your best option then that is alright for you.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *laohaire* 
Heck, I withdraw all my comments. This thread seems like nothing more than attack on another poster. I don't know anything about the other thread, and was only responding based on some vague, unsubstantiated question.

Not sure what other thread you mean unless you are speaking of the re-post. It was the same question. I was just curious (as the title says) what the reasoning would be. Not meaning any disrespect (which I have already stated once), just trying to understand.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *primjillie* 
You are right - none of us knows what will happen and how we will act. But some of us are pretty opinionated about keeping our families together no matter what. I haven't seen a good reason (yet) to break up a family. I only have 3 children, but I can't imagine having to send one or more to a relative (and how do you decide which one?) because I couldn't care for them. Luckily, I have family and friends to help out in case of emergency or tragedy, but I would move, get a second or third job, whatever I had to do to keep my kids together with me. Again, luckily, most of my family and friends own their homes, so we could all go live with them if need be without risk of eviction. I think they would rather have all of us than to have to raise one of my children. But, as I said before, different people choose different options and that doesn't mean either way is right or wrong.

Very well said. This sounds much the same as what would happen if we faced eviction or homelessness.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kelly1216* 
I wolud have liked to voice a small opinion, but I'm a little confused right now. Does the OP have an hardships like MITB? Or is it just schooling?
MITB- I'm sorry for your problems, and have a feeling there is a lot more going on that what you previously posted which would make the situation more understandable for those of us who don't know your life story. But, regardless, I hope things turn arounds for you soon.
To the OP, if I understand everything correctly, no, I wouldn't send them away just based on schooling. If the public schools stink, I would try to send them to a charter school if one is available. There are some great Charter Schools in Michigan, including the one I went to for middle and high school. And, assuming you don't work fulltime outside of the home, there is always homeschooling.
Again, I'm still alittle confused with all the banter going on, so please don't hate me if I'm off based at all!!

I am not actually facing the decision for myself. I have talked with a couple of people who faced a decision like this, but for them it was more about better schools. Nothing like MITB is referring to.
I personally am a SAHM/Full-time student who also homeschools using a virtual academy.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

My children lived with my Dad and his wife for 2 months during a time that we were homeless. We'd been evicted from our apartment, Dh had a large gap between jobs, etc. It was incredibly painful, but we sent them so that they could have some safety and stability and be cared for by people who loved them while Dh and I worked out the housing stuff.

It was temporary. I personally cannot imagine my kids living anywhere but with me. And to get into a certain school or something like that? No way. That just would not work for me at all. I can't say why someone else would or wouldn't though.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
however when you have a home that is section 8 you don't get to choose who your neighbors are -- you could get some gangsters or drug dealers or some other folks you really wouldnt want to live next door to because they are a threat to your family or bring crime to your neighborhood.

That is such BS. In order for someone to even qualify for Section 8, they cannot have any crimes/convictions. You cannot have any history of drug abuse in your past, neither. They have to have a completely clean record. It's stupid because all the drugs and crime are from ppl with the money who can afford such habits.
Meanwhile, those of us who are clean and poor, have to live in crime infested areas and raise our children and get looked down upon by ppl who stereotype.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
Another reason is that there are people on section 8 that live lives that involve crime and drugs.

You will lose your Section 8 if you commit a crime or get involved with drugs. If I even had a neighbor over who smoked marijuana, _I_ would be punished and end up homeless.

Quote:

The people who actually live there have little to no financial responsibility at all.
Another lie. One thrid of your entire income is a lot when your income is very small. If you don't pay your rent portion you get evicted. If you have an eviction on your record you cannot get Section 8.


----------



## Cutie Patootie (Feb 29, 2004)

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheFence
however when you have a home that is section 8 you don't get to choose who your neighbors are -- you could get some gangsters or drug dealers or some other folks you really wouldnt want to live next door to because they are a threat to your family or bring crime to your neighborhood.








MITB Not all rental property owners feel this way. Unfortunetly, it is very expensive to have lead removed which is a major issue for us with old housing. Dh looked into Section 8 but we can't afford to do the lead removal at this time.







We would gladly rent to a large family and we do not base a persons moral value and compass on their lack of moolah.







:


----------



## Mamma Mia (Aug 3, 2005)

MITB -







I agree with FancyPants. It sounds like you have made some difficult decisions regarding the welfare of your children and you have done well by them. I'm also sorry that you can't escape the reality of judgment against the poor on a site of AP/NFL parents. That seems counterintuitive. Big hugs to you.


----------



## Mama2Bug (Feb 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
I've driven too, and been in neighborhoods that had a number of secton 8 housing. Sadly, these areas are riddled with crime, unkept homes, drugs, and people who just don't care.

How do you know they don't care? They have no control over the upkeep of the Section 8 homes. The govt. is meant to take care of that. And as MITB mentioned, Section 8 has incredibly strict guidelines for past history and current behavior, so the Section 8 residents are not likely the cause of most crime and drug use in a given area. That is just the kind of area our shining beacon of a government likes to place the Section 8 housing in. You know, to keep poor folks in "their place."







:







:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
There is a reason we moved to this area and not to the inner city ghetto. I'm sure there are wonderful nice people in the ghetto (WE have family friends that do)

I'm sorry, this cracked me up. It sounds so much like "Oh, I'm not racist! Some of my best friends are black/asian/middle eastern/whatever!"

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
however when you have a home that is section 8 you don't get to choose who your neighbors are -- you could get some gangsters or drug dealers or some other folks you really wouldnt want to live next door to because they are a threat to your family or bring crime to your neighborhood.
I am also quite sure that our homes would meet HUD inspection since they are newer homes and were built to meet strict guidelines.

You do know, of course, that these things could all happen just as easily happen if your neighbors are white, heterosexual, middle-aged office workers. You do, right? Because they could. Jane and Joe's son could join a gang and have his friends over. Mike the doctor could deal pain meds from his home. Fred and Marla the white supremecists could move in on any given day.

Money doesn't equal the absence of unsavoury qualities.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

I am on section 8. We use a voucher system and we have an annual update/recert process and a detailed inspection of the house and property. Our house did not pass the first two times it was inspected. Perhaps it varies depending on who you get but they weren't just giving it the once over glance and signing off.

The connections between section 8/HUD and drugs/crime/and poverty are sometimes clear. Poverty can force us to live in environments that we would never ever chose otherwise. It also can cause people to do things they'd never otherwise do, associate with people they'd rather not, live next door to people they do not feel good about, and eat expired food from a food bank but that's not the point here. Desperate people sometimes do desperate things and live in unpleasant places. They work long hours, hope the lights don't get shut off, and stretch out the macaroni to feed all the kids. But just because we can see the connections doesn't mean that all people on HUD are this way or that people with means do not deal drugs or have rough company. HUD can literally save a family.

It's extremely insulting IMO to suggest that a mother who has found herself in such a difficult place is basically accused of not caring about her kids or not valuing family. Isn't sending your children somewhere you know they will be safe and loved and provided for the opposite of not caring?









I do not know MITB's situation perfectly. I do not know that I would do things exactly as she did. We all handle stuff differently. (Just for school I don't think I would have them live elsewhere, but then we don't do school so maybe that doesn't matter.) I did however send my kids away for a time, and it was the single hardest thing I have EVER done in my lifetime. Being away from them was very painful and I only had to do it for 2 months. I get that we all are not going to relate to this in the same way but what a difference it would make if we tried for just a second to see ourselves in people who are struggling and hurting.

"See yourself in others. Then what harm can you do?" ~ The Buddha


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence*
When you agree to purchase a home in our neighborhood, you agree to the terms of the restrictions and usage of your property. For example, we must have double garages on our homes if the home exceeds 1500 sq ft. this means you cannot enclose your garage and make it into bedrooms or dens, or what not. You must keep your lawn cut and edged. You can't leave cars parked on the road for more than 3 days. You can't have a car parked in your grass. You can't have chain length fences. You cannot have certain businesses out of your home. Dogs cannot exceed a certain weight amount. You cannot have more than X amount of pets. You can't have any farm animals, this includes chickens but not rabbits. (though we do have a neighbor that has a chicken that walks on a leash) We have about 20 pages of restrictions for our neighborhood -- all legal.

Well stone the crows!

There goes the neighbourhood.

I think I'd pick my grubby little inner city location over that kind of hell any day, tbh. Even if it meant my kids had to live elsewhere or board 5 days a week.







:


----------



## Joannarachel (Dec 10, 2005)

Nope.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
That is such BS. In order for someone to even qualify for Section 8, they cannot have any crimes/convictions. You cannot have any history of drug abuse in your past, neither. They have to have a completely clean record. It's stupid because all the drugs and crime are from ppl with the money who can afford such habits.
Meanwhile, those of us who are clean and poor, have to live in crime infested areas and raise our children and get looked down upon by ppl who stereotype.









I completely disagree with this. I know several people just in my area who qualify and live in Section 8 housing. They have records that include probation and other arrests. I have lived in Section 8 housing as well and while the majority of the people I met and lived near were great, they were some that had drug habits. I also know some who could care less about the property and would have it destroyed before they moved on.

I do agree the people who do these thing while on Section 8 make it very difficult for people who are clean and are respectful of the rules of property to get housing, but I can totally see not wanting to rent to a Section 8 family.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
You will lose your Section 8 if you commit a crime or get involved with drugs. If I even had a neighbor over who smoked marijuana, _I_ would be punished and end up homeless.

Again, I know a few people who have had drugs in their homes and who have criminal backgrounds that still receive Section 8. Maybe the rules are different for different states.

"The people who actually live there have little to no financial responsibility at all." (Not certain of the OP of this is was from a quote on MITB's post to which she responded below)

Another lie. One thrid of your entire income is a lot when your income is very small. If you don't pay your rent portion you get evicted. If you have an eviction on your record you cannot get Section 8.

My brother is currently on Section 8 and they $40 for rent because the only income they have is from student loans. They also receive cash assistance and food stamps. The rent is probably 1/3 of their income, but they definately have a good portion of money left over each month to purchase items outside of necessities.

In my state, you are off of Section 8 for a period of time if you have an eviction on your record. You will be able to use Section 8 again after this timeframe.


----------



## tboroson (Nov 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jamsmama* 
I would ask that person why they had children in the first place.

That. Is one of the most disgusting things I have ever read on MDC. Seriously. Like, sitting here with a pit in my stomach wishing you were here so I could puke on your shoes disgusting. Clearly you have no concept whatsoever of what it means to be poor. I don't just mean, you don't know what it means not to have money. It means you've clearly never given consideration to how quickly someone can go from upper middle class to destitute in a manner of weeks. You've never thought about what a parent might feel, having to move from a lovely home in a serene neighborhood to an apartment in a neighborhood where drug deals are performed in open air and the gunshots you hear aren't hunters in the fall. Or even if you haven't fallen from middle-class priviledge, do you deny a person the right to have children, to love them and care for them, just because knowing that in the future, "doing right" by them may mean making some unconventional choices?

Historically, it was common to send children away to distant family to learn skills. Worldwide, there are places where it's still common, for instance in places that are war-torn. Do you propose that no one who lives in Bagdhad has the right to have children because they don't know if their city will be peaceful by the time the children are old enough to have to walk to school on their own? Or that they're obligated to keep their children in their neighborhood because they had the audacity to bring them into the world?

What on earth is wrong with sending a child to a loving, devoted grandparent? I think most children are intelligent enough to understand that their parents are making hard choices that are meant very much for their better. I went through such *hell* in school that I *begged* my parents to let me go live with my grandmother and go to school in her community. I loved my grandmother so much. It's not like sending the kids off to foster care, with strangers and no stability.

Now, I've never been in a position to have to make that kind of choice about my children. So, it's hard for me to answer your question. But, my girls love both sets of grandparents passionately, and both are devoted, attentive grandparents. If our situation took such a turn for the worse that it became neccisary, maybe I would. I can't say. Personally, we're homeschooling, and from my perspective, I could do that from a tent in a state park. Unfortunately, I don't see the state agreeing with me on that detail. My parents would also most definately host my entire family until we could get on our feet if need be, as would my ILs. Thus, one way or another I could continue homeschooling. But, if my girls were going to school and my life was in turmoil, with our housing uncertain or in a dangerous location? I would consider it.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tboroson* 
That. Is one of the most disgusting things I have ever read on MDC. Seriously. Like, sitting here with a pit in my stomach wishing you were here so I could puke on your shoes disgusting. Clearly you have no concept whatsoever of what it means to be poor. I don't just mean, you don't know what it means not to have money. It means you've clearly never given consideration to how quickly someone can go from upper middle class to destitute in a manner of weeks. You've never thought about what a parent might feel, having to move from a lovely home in a serene neighborhood to an apartment in a neighborhood where drug deals are performed in open air and the gunshots you hear aren't hunters in the fall. Or even if you haven't fallen from middle-class priviledge, do you deny a person the right to have children, to love them and care for them, just because knowing that in the future, "doing right" by them may mean making some unconventional choices?

Historically, it was common to send children away to distant family to learn skills. Worldwide, there are places where it's still common, for instance in places that are war-torn. Do you propose that no one who lives in Bagdhad has the right to have children because they don't know if their city will be peaceful by the time the children are old enough to have to walk to school on their own? Or that they're obligated to keep their children in their neighborhood because they had the audacity to bring them into the world?

What on earth is wrong with sending a child to a loving, devoted grandparent? I think most children are intelligent enough to understand that their parents are making hard choices that are meant very much for their better. I went through such *hell* in school that I *begged* my parents to let me go live with my grandmother and go to school in her community. I loved my grandmother so much. It's not like sending the kids off to foster care, with strangers and no stability.

Now, I've never been in a position to have to make that kind of choice about my children. So, it's hard for me to answer your question. But, my girls love both sets of grandparents passionately, and both are devoted, attentive grandparents. If our situation took such a turn for the worse that it became neccisary, maybe I would. I can't say. Personally, we're homeschooling, and from my perspective, I could do that from a tent in a state park. Unfortunately, I don't see the state agreeing with me on that detail. My parents would also most definately host my entire family until we could get on our feet if need be, as would my ILs. Thus, one way or another I could continue homeschooling. But, if my girls were going to school and my life was in turmoil, with our housing uncertain or in a dangerous location? I would consider it.


I really think the response of questioning why they would have children was directed to my OP which asked about your children living with someone else to send them to 'better' schools or so they have access to more resources.

I don't think the person was thinking along the lines of homelessness or being poor.

I could be wrong though.


----------



## shayinme (Jan 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tboroson* 

Historically, it was common to send children away to distant family to learn skills. Worldwide, there are places where it's still common, for instance in places that are war-torn. Do you propose that no one who lives in Bagdhad has the right to have children because they don't know if their city will be peaceful by the time the children are old enough to have to walk to school on their own? Or that they're obligated to keep their children in their neighborhood because they had the audacity to bring them into the world?

What on earth is wrong with sending a child to a loving, devoted grandparent? I think most children are intelligent enough to understand that their parents are making hard choices that are meant very much for their better. I went through such *hell* in school that I *begged* my parents to let me go live with my grandmother and go to school in her community. I loved my grandmother so much. It's not like sending the kids off to foster care, with strangers and no stability.










: Within the African American community it has always been common to send kids to live with grandparents or relatives for periods of time. In the majority of instances its because Mama/Papa is trying to do better economically. Or in recent times, it could be sending kids down south to get away from a less thn stellar environment. Its really all part of the it takes a villiage to raise a kid sentiment that people have heard but truly are not aware of how it works.

I am the non-custodial Mama of a 14 yo ds, he lives with his Dad and is with me on weekends. Did I ever plan this no, but you know what life happens. Granted its different than what the OP asked since ds is with his dad but still its not the societal norm to be a non-custodial Mama.

Having a older kid, I can say that wanting to have your kid to have access to better resources is a huge thing. My son went to live with his Dad in 1st grade, at the time I was a single working Mama, I made good money, but I worked a lot, I was tired. Being on assistance was not a option for me, my son in going to live with his Dad has had better options than I ever could have given him as a single working Mama. It was not a easy choice and it did not happen easily but in the end I can honestly say he has done well with his Dad though in lately its looking like he needs me more.

To the OP, I say do what is best for your kids, you know them and you know yourself. Chuck the AP list and follow your instincts Mama.









To MITB, Mama you too have done what is best for your babies and there is nothing wrong with that.

Shay


----------



## tboroson (Nov 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *primjillie* 
I haven't seen a good reason (yet) to break up a family.

This, I think, is one of the big disconnects I see in this thread. Many of us would not consider having the kids live with their grandparents to be "breaking up a family." Was it breaking up my parent's family when my siblings and I left for college? Are they somehow no longer our family? No. They are extremely devoted family. They are far better potential caretakers for my children than anyone the state might assign should the state decide that my ability to care for them is insufficient. They *are* family.


----------



## tboroson (Nov 19, 2002)

Another thought on the question of why MITB doesn't just rent a larger house to accomodate her children. This may or may not apply to her (she did answer with her own situation already, but this is a problem that's rampant in my region: If your housing situation is insufficient, the state will take your children away and put them in foster care. Then you apply for subsidized housing in an effort to improve the quality of your home so you can get your kids back. The state will only allow you to rent an apartment/home as large as needed for the number of kids currently in your custody under the state subsidy program (so, if all your kids were taken, you're only allowed to rent a 1 bedroom apartment under state subsidy). But you're not allowed to reclaim your children until you have bedrooms for them. You can't rent an apartment large enough for them when they're out of your care, you can't regain custody unless that apartment is already secured. The only way out of this is to earn enough money to rent that apartment without subsidy - screwing poor people.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Houdini* 
I am not actually facing the decision for myself. I have talked with a couple of people who faced a decision like this, but for them it was more about better schools. Nothing like MITB is referring to.
I personally am a SAHM/Full-time student who also homeschools using a virtual academy.

I can see why someone would do it for better schools. I know of a family that does that here with an elementery school age child. The mother and father both work, and the child is just afforded a safer, better education. Schools in some areas here are horrible and unsafe, education is a big deal, especially for people who may not make the money or the resources to get out of poverty, their children are their future and they need the education to get out of that.


----------



## shayinme (Jan 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tboroson* 
This, I think, is one of the big disconnects I see in this thread. Many of us would not consider having the kids live with their grandparents to be "breaking up a family." Was it breaking up my parent's family when my siblings and I left for college? Are they somehow no longer our family? No. They are extremely devoted family. They are far better potential caretakers for my children than anyone the state might assign should the state decide that my ability to care for them is insufficient. They *are* family.









: ITA w/you. I think its probably a matter of perspective. I know that if my Mama were still alive, I would absolutely trust her with my kids, no matter what. Same with my Granny if she were alive. That's family.

Not trying to detour this thread but I get the impression on MDC that many people do not consider their parents/grandparents family. Not sure if that makes sense. To me unless my folks had been negligent or abusive, there is no reason my kids couldn't be with them. Is it ideal? No, but hell poverty is not ideal. I also wonder if their is a cultural context here, I am a AA woman and I believe MITB is also a WOC and I know that in our respective cultures kids being with grandparents is not a big deal. Yet in white American culture (not sure how else to reference it) there is a much greater emphasis on leaving the nest when you grow up and being on your own. I see that here a lot and on other parenting boards that are predominantly white, where Mamas seem to not lean to family for help insteda people want to create their own tribe instead on belonging to their tribe of birth.

Hope this makes sense.

Shay


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
That is such BS. In order for someone to even qualify for Section 8, they cannot have any crimes/convictions. You cannot have any history of drug abuse in your past, neither. They have to have a completely clean record. It's stupid because *all the drugs and crime are from ppl with the money who can afford such habits.*
Meanwhile, those of us who are clean and poor, have to live in crime infested areas and raise our children and get looked down upon by ppl who stereotype.









LMBO, but their babies daddy or relatives can live with them that do. A lot of people LIE about who will be living with them, staying the night, etc. Drug abuse is hard to prove as well. Do they do drug screenings for all the people in the home, randomly for Section 8 housing? No. I know people who have section 8 housing and use drugs. The man who murdered my brother lived in section 8 housing with his mother, who was a crackhead herself -- yet she had no criminal record. She also prostituted herself for money.
On the bolded area above, you are kidding right??? I am sure some of those people on drugs do have money, mostly from dealing and stealing. Poor people can get drugs too. A good bit of people in Sec8 housing here have much nicer cars than we do, for some reason I doubt the money that bought those vehicles came from legit jobs.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
You will lose your Section 8 if you commit a crime or get involved with drugs. If I even had a neighbor over who smoked marijuana, _I_ would be punished and end up homeless.

Another lie. One thrid of your entire income is a lot when your income is very small. If you don't pay your rent portion you get evicted. If you have an eviction on your record you cannot get Section 8.

So what I said was correct, little to none. 1/3 is LITTLE.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cutie Patootie* 







MITB Not all rental property owners feel this way. Unfortunetly, it is very expensive to have lead removed which is a major issue for us with old housing. Dh looked into Section 8 but we can't afford to do the lead removal at this time.







We would gladly rent to a large family and we do not base a persons moral value and compass on their lack of moolah.







:

I would rent my home to a large family, just not one that was on section 8, because I could not have the control I believe is my right over my own property and who could live here. This isn't about money. We have been poor, so your assumptions about what I base my moral compass on are incorrect.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

"How do you know they don't care? They have no control over the upkeep of the Section 8 homes. The govt. is meant to take care of that. And as MITB mentioned, Section 8 has incredibly strict guidelines for past history and current behavior, so the Section 8 residents are not likely the cause of most crime and drug use in a given area. That is just the kind of area our shining beacon of a government likes to place the Section 8 housing in. You know, to keep poor folks in "their place."







:







: "

Whatever. My husband grandmother lived in sec8 housing for nearly 20 years. Her yard was kept us, by her family. If you aren't working, you can go pull weeds, pick up trash and do things to make your home look better.

"You do know, of course, that these things could all happen just as easily happen if your neighbors are white, heterosexual, middle-aged office workers. You do, right? Because they could. Jane and Joe's son could join a gang and have his friends over. Mike the doctor could deal pain meds from his home. Fred and Marla the white supremecists could move in on any given day."

This is what I find funny, because I choose to live in a place that does not allow you to rent your home out to sec8, I am now prejudice. I explained to you why, yet you take that as prejudice. Statistically I am correct. Maybe it doesn't sound all politically correct to you, but historically and statisticly I am right. You also assume that because I have a certain type of home, or standard of living, or do not want to live in a certain area that I am prejudice. You couldn't be farther from the truth. See, in many ways that is just as bad, as accusing me of being prejudice of the poor. I live in a very diverse neighborhood (i think several posters here could vouch for that) Whites are the minority in my neighborhood for one. We choose this neighborhood, and area for its diversity. We have a mix of religions, races, and sexual orientations all around us. We actually had a neighbor whose son joined a gang, guess what happened to him? His father called the police to come arrest him and take his butt to jail for drug possession. He also was not allowed to come back home due to his criminal behavior and not willing to give up his lifestyle. Most of our neighbors are very intolerant of crime and drugs. They chose to live here for a reason, and we all want to continue to keep it that way. We police our own community in many ways, and I have no problem going to speak to someone about their child or their friends if I think for one moment they are out of line or up to no good.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aussiemum* 
Well stone the crows!

There goes the neighbourhood.

I think I'd pick my grubby little inner city location over that kind of hell any day, tbh. Even if it meant my kids had to live elsewhere or board 5 days a week.







:

Thats great for you, but not for my family. Our neighborhood is pretty diverse and a great place to live. Family friendly.


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Section 8 is 30% of your income. We pay more rent in our apartment than most "homeowners" do in our area. We hardly have "tons" of money left over. After other bills, there is usually less than $50.00 for the entire month. And that doesn't count gas in the tank. I honestly don't see how people think those on welfare are just raking in the big bucks. That attitude makes me wanna uke

I'm very grateful that my landlord didn't have that attitude towards my family of five. We were homeless and waited months to get a subsidy. When we finally got it there were not a lot of places to rent. We found this apartment and the landlords were reluctant because of the sterotype of "poor people." They had been burned in the past by people on section 8. They decided to let us move in because they couldn't let the actions of other people determine our future. That is kindness and belief in the goodness of other human beings.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WitchyMama2* 
I'm very grateful that my landlord didn't have that attitude towards my family of five. We were homeless and waited months to get a subsidy. When we finally got it there were not a lot of places to rent. We found this apartment and the landlords were reluctant because of the sterotype of "poor people." They had been burned in the past by people on section 8. They decided to let us move in because they couldn't let the actions of other people determine our future. That is kindness and belief in the goodness of other human beings.

YK, I think this is almost amusing, that because people don't want to lease to people on sec8, its discrimination because they are poor. I think historically and statistically one looks at the areas that are inhabited by those in sec8 housing, and its a decison based on reality. There are families in our neighborhood that I am quite sure would qualify as "poor". However their families provided a way for them to live here. They are not looked down upon, they are just one of us, wanting to live in a good area and send their children to good schools. There are single moms who live in the smaller cottage homes, who scrape by most months, and some are on govt. assistance. They definitely are not being labeled as criminals or devients because of this.


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

You said yourself the reasons why you and other didn't rent to people that are on Section 8. I didn't make up the stereotype, you put in black and white right on the screen.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

1/3 of your income to pay for housing is the absolute maximum you should have to spend, it's a big chunk of change & it regressively has a greater impact the lower your income.

But anywho....

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence*
You also assume that because I have a certain type of home, or standard of living, or do not want to live in a certain area that I am prejudice. You couldn't be farther from the truth. See, in many ways that is just as bad, as accusing me of being prejudice of the poor. I live in a very diverse neighborhood (i think several posters here could vouch for that) Whites are the minority in my neighborhood for one. We choose this neighborhood, and area for its diversity. We have a mix of religions, races, and sexual orientations all around us. We actually had a neighbor whose son joined a gang, guess what happened to him? His father called the police to come arrest him and take his butt to jail for drug possession. He also was not allowed to come back home due to his criminal behavior and not willing to give up his lifestyle. Most of our neighbors are very intolerant of crime and drugs. They chose to live here for a reason, and we all want to continue to keep it that way. We police our own community in many ways, and I have no problem going to speak to someone about their child or their friends if I think for one moment they are out of line or up to no good.

Just so i'm clear here...

I'm not accusing you of racial bias. I'm just saying that your punitive, dobbing-in, conservative, intolerant neighbourhood just doesn't really seem like my kind of place. I don't care what colour your neighbour's skins are, nor do I care about their sexual preferences or anything else.

It's what's in the heart that counts. Sheesh.

...........

ANd yeah, my neighbourhood does give me the shits now & again. But in general I think it's good to live in a community where you are not isolated from other people's realities...







:


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *primjillie* 
I had a response all typed and they closed it! Anyway, my answer is no. I want my children to live with me and be raised by me. We moved (on purpose) when our children entered elementary school. We moved into a great school district (same city) and bought a house right down the street from the elementary school. I want to be the one to take my kids to school everyday, volunteer at the school, pick them up, go to school conferences, go to baseball after school, etc. I know it isn't always easy to move, but we planned on it as soon as we had children because we knew it was important to be in a good school district, so I think if you plan for it, there is no need for the kids to go live somewhere else. I also don't feel that is my parent's responsibility to raise my kids. They have done their duty!

I haven't gotten past the first few posts. But this response represents an economic elitist attitude of choice of neighborhoods and schools which doesn't necessarily exist for some people. Additionally, MANY children have *two* homes, among loving and devoted, but divorced parents. Grandparents, (in many cases) can most certainly represent a nurturing, safe and enriched environment. Nor does one's primary residence (or parental gene) indicate one's most attached and supportive relationships. Loving and attentive caregivers _in multitude_ is not somehow detrimental, rather it is synergistic and exponentially beneficial, imo.

Would I want our son to live with MY mother, or MY father, not even if I were dead. But that is another bag of worms. Necessity and available alternatives alter the choices that exist for each of us.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix the cat* 
No. I think family is the most important thing, even more so that better schools or learning resources.


Ummmm....grandparents ARE family for most families.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newmommy* 

I thought she just mean't being in a better school district, not because things were going awry in the family home.


Let's look at this:

Child awakens at oh, 6:30 am to ride bus, get ready, go to school.

AWAY from "home" (however we define it) at school until ~3:30.

Child home approximately 4pm, unless child needs afterschool care until parent able to pick up child and take them home, unless old enough to be home alone after school, until about 6pm? earliest.

Theoretically family eats family dinner, regardless of primary residence. Child has homework for 1 hour, another 1 hour of free play, tv and then it is time for bedtime routine.

Ummm...and then child goes to sleep around 8-9pm? That is what? A max. 3 hours of family time at grandparents. Wow, this is not some dire situation. Additionally, child had maximal exposure to optimal (eta: available) educational resources for about 6-8 hours of the school day. NET gain.

AND then child is at their other loving and attentive home all weekend.









Think outside the box to maximize resources FOR the child.

Pat


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
YK, I think this is almost amusing, that because people don't want to lease to people on sec8, its discrimination because they are poor. I think historically and statistically one looks at the areas that are inhabited by those in sec8 housing, and its a decison based on reality. There are families in our neighborhood that I am quite sure would qualify as "poor". However their families provided a way for them to live here. They are not looked down upon, they are just one of us, wanting to live in a good area and send their children to good schools. There are single moms who live in the smaller cottage homes, who scrape by most months, and some are on govt. assistance. They definitely are not being labeled as criminals or devients because of this.

The reason that many Section 8 housing neighborhoods are higher-crime, higher-drug use areas is NOT because Section 8 housing is there.

Its because when a landlord decides to jump through HUD's hoops to allow Section 8 tenants, its usually because they were having trouble renting their property in the first place. No one wanted to live there. So the landlord decides to try Section 8, because there's always poor people and they will always have renters that way.

Section 8 housing doesn't CAUSE bad neighborhoods. Section 8 housing is offered in bad neighborhoods because elitist peckerheads who want to "protect their neighborhoods" from the scummy low income poor people would never offer their housing to such lowlifes.

Wouldn't it be great if there were safe housing opportunities for poor people, too? Then they wouldn't have to fear for their children and their belongings and their lives because they have no where else to live but in the places no one wants to live.

Also, its true that Section 8 programs require a clean background and people in Section 8 are subjected to annual (if not more often) inspections. They actually are required to be "cleaner" and take better care of their property than the other people in the neighborhood. There are other HUD programs (Shelter Plus Care) that are similar to Section 8. The difference with these programs is that the landlord, or the sponsor, determines who lives in the Shelter Plus house. Many sponsors (I am one) choose a population to work with, such as people who are recovering from addictions, and place them in Shelter Plus housing. Yes, that population is more risky in terms of crime and drugs. But the sponsor should be on top of what is going on, and working with that family/individual.

So, in a neighborhood like OntheFence's (although I cannot imagine anyone CHOOSING to live in such a place - it reminds me of the planet Meg Murray goes to in A Wrinkle in Time where she is trying to rescue Charles Wallace from It, and the neighborhoods are ubiquitous homogenized pasteurized prisons) they could safely allow Section 8 housing without fear, and set their rules and covenants to guide the sponsor-based housing tenants.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
Let's look at this:

Child awakens at oh, 6:30 am to ride bus, get ready, go to school.

AWAY from "home" (however we define it) at school until ~3:30.

Child home approximately 4pm, unless child needs afterschool care until parent able to pick up child and take them home, unless old enough to be home alone after school, until about 6pm? earliest.

Theoretically family eats family dinner, regardless of primary residence. Child has homework for 1 hour, another 1 hour of free play, tv and then it is time for bedtime routine.

Ummm...and then child goes to sleep around 8-9pm? That is what? A max. 3 hours of family time at grandparents. Wow, this is not some dire situation. Additionally, child had maximal exposure to optimal educational resources for about 6-8 hours of the school day. NET gain.

AND then child is at their other loving and attentive home all weekend.









Think outside the box to maximize resources FOR the child.

Pat


Honestly, I am not seeing anything gainful about a child being gone for 6-8 hours in a school setting.

I think it would be hard to teach and guide your child if the bulk of their daily time is spent away from home.

And yes, I understand things can change or occur which make it very difficult to keep kids out of the school environment as described.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *primjillie* 
I think watching your grandchild now and then, even a few days a week, is a lot different than pretty much raising them. If you have a child all week, you are going to have make some decisions and provide for that child. There are a lot of day to day decisions to make with a child, and should the grandparent have to call the parent every time a decision has to be made? Also, the grandparent would be responsible for food, school items, entertainment, and maybe even school clothes. If the child is living with the grandparent due to dire straits of the parents, I wouldn't think the parent could afford this. Also, it requires time - providing for the child's transportation, laundry, cooking, helping with homework and just being there with the child, instead of maybe enjoying each other or their retirement years. So after raising their own children, grandparents should raise the grandchildren? Unless it is an extreme circumstance - death of parents, drugs, mental illness - that is a lot to ask. My mom is 74 and even though my kids are grown, my brother has a two year old and I can't imagine my mom having to take this child, even just during the week.

What if a single parent were living with the grandparents while working evenings for optimal financial support of her children? Again, the grandparents would be doing all the afterschool "parenting". This is perhaps not preferable to working while the children are IN school, but most off-shift jobs pay better than day hours.

There are a myriad of reasons that extended family are loving caregivers of children, electively.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
There is a reason we moved to this area and not to the inner city ghetto. I'm sure there are wonderful nice people in the ghetto (WE have family friends that do), however when you have a home that is section 8 you don't get to choose who your neighbors are -- you could get some gangsters or drug dealers or some other folks you really wouldnt want to live next door to because they are a threat to your family or bring crime to your neighborhood.

Would you agree that this might be a reason for children to live with grandparents and electively have educational opportunities optimized for their children?

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Houdini* 
I personally am a SAHM/Full-time student who also homeschools using a virtual academy.

This is an economic privilege that I also enjoy; however, I am not so myopic to believe that others have the same privileges of health, economic security and community resource access as I; thus the answer to the OP.

Pat


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WitchyMama2* 
You said yourself the reasons why you and other didn't rent to people that are on Section 8. I didn't make up the stereotype, you put in black and white right on the screen.

I dont believe it is a stereotype, I believe the reasons are based on historical evidence and statistics.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
Would you agree that this might be a reason for children to live with grandparents and electively have educational opportunities optimized for their children?

Pat

I personally wouldnt have a problem with people letting their children live with grandparents for educational opportunities. Its their children, not mine.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Houdini* 
Honestly, I am not seeing anything gainful about a child being gone for 6-8 hours in a school setting.

I think it would be hard to teach and guide your child if the bulk of their daily time is spent away from home.

And yes, I understand things can change or occur which make it very difficult to keep kids out of the school environment as described.

I edited to add "available" educational resources to my prior post, because homeschooling isn't an available option for some folks who are sole financial providers for their family.

I agree that an enriched and nurturing environment facilitated by responsive loving parents is probably most beneficial IF one has the ability to provide that environment. There are many barriers to this option however: financial, emotional, health, resource access, etc.

Pat


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aussiemum* 

I'm not accusing you of racial bias. *I'm just saying that your punitive, dobbing-in, conservative, intolerant neighbourhood just doesn't really seem like my kind of place.* I don't care what colour your neighbour's skins are, nor do I care about their sexual preferences or anything else.

ANd yeah, my neighbourhood does give me the shits now & again. But in general I think it's good to live in a community where you are not isolated from other people's realities...







:

Let's see, do you know my neighbors? Do you think I live in an intolerant neighborhood? I think that is far from what you will see in my neighborhood. I also don't see where you get that its a conservative neighborhood -- we are a mixture of people, but I will be sure to share this bit of news at the next neighborhood party for a few laughs. Yes, we are intolerant of crimes, drugs and criminals in our neighborhood. Absolutely -- everyone should be, maybe that would help clean our communities up! I also don't think its punitive to not allow govt. access to our property, that can put whomever they chose to live in our homes.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheFence
I've driven too, and been in neighborhoods that had a number of *secton 8 housing. Sadly, these areas are riddled with crime, unkept homes, drugs, and people who just don't care*.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheFence
however when you have a home that is *section 8* you don't get to choose who your neighbors are -- you *could get some gangsters or drug dealers or some other folks you really wouldnt want to live next door to because they are a threat to your family or bring crime to your neighborhood*.
I am also quite sure that our homes would meet HUD inspection since they are newer homes and were built to meet strict guidelines.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
I also don't think its punitive to not allow govt. access to our property, that *can put whomever they chose to live in our homes*.

Ummm.....*money* can also "put whomever chooses" to live in your neighborhood. But, money doesn't equate to "better" neighbors. I do understand your desire for authority over the choice of tenents for your property, based upon whatever criteria the property owner deems appropriate, rather than whatever criteria a governmental agency deems acceptable. This is one of the privileges of property ownership and implies an effort to protect the value of your capital investment. However, the point being made is that limited income does not equate to drug use, criminal inclination, criminal records, crime escalation, or poor property maintence as you are implying a correllation. Nor does a government check list of 'Section 8 housing' credentials equate to "good" (responsible, safe, etc.) or "bad" neighbors. I believe the issue that some posters in this thread have is that the suggestion that *Section 8 neighbors are somehow "less than" neighbors with more income is stereotypical, prejudicial and unflattering about people without money*, especially in light of your definition of "Section 8" people being associated with those negative activities that were listed.

It is the dismissive stereotyping of 'those Section 8 people' that is the rub.

Pat


----------



## primjillie (May 4, 2004)

I think most people are missing the original intent of the question "Would YOU let you children......". We are all just giving our opinion of what WE would do with our children. Unless it was an absolute emergency, MY children are staying with me. If you believe otherwise, go for it. No one is saying it is right or wrong! There is nothing wrong with loving grandparents - I am one. I have a wonderful relationship with my two small grandbabies and watch them quite often. Do I want to raise them or even keep them during the week for schooling purposes? No, not unless I have to. But, their parents are well aware of the benefits of a good education and live in a good, safe school district. Sure, this isn't an option for everyone, but should I feel bad because we have made it a priority and were able to make it happen? I believe most people are more capable of working and achieving a certain goal than they think they are. And a few of us have also stressed that if certain circumstances made us homeless, our family or friends would take us ALL in, not just a few of our children. I'm not sure why some people are getting so defensive when this is just an opinion of our own family situations, not anyone else's!!

Also, regarding section 8 housing - I work with a lady who gets section 8 and she spent time in prison for drugs, so it doesn't work that way where I live. She also had her druggie husband living with her, so they were definitely not the clean type.


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *primjillie* 
should I feel bad because we have made it a priority and were able to make it happen?

Yes, I think everyone _should_ feel badly that not everyone has the same advantage or oppurtunity. What ever happened to empathy and understanding?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *primjillie* 
Also, regarding section 8 housing - I work with a lady who gets section 8 and she spent time in prison for drugs, so it doesn't work that way where I live. She also had her druggie husband living with her, so they were definitely not the clean type.

Again, one example that isn't a fair representation of all people who are on Section 8 (or Shelter Plus Care for that matter, which I am on) Why do people feel its okay to throw around blanket judgements based on the amount of money people have?

The attitide of this thread makes me very sad.


----------



## Mamma Mia (Aug 3, 2005)

The section 8 stuff is derailing the thread. I am loathe to ask someone to start a new thread though, because I don't want to see more excuses to label and judge poor people.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *primjillie* 
I think most people are missing the original intent of the question "Would YOU let you children......". We are all just giving our opinion of what WE would do with our children. Unless it was an absolute emergency, MY children are staying with me. If you believe otherwise, go for it. No one is saying it is right or wrong!

Actually a couple of people have.

Quote:

I'm not sure why some people are getting so defensive when this is just an opinion of our own family situations, not anyone else's!!
 The stereotyping is pretty rough in this thread and it has a way of making people feel defensive.

Quote:

Also, regarding section 8 housing - I work with a lady who gets section 8 and she spent time in prison for drugs, so it doesn't work that way where I live. She also had her druggie husband living with her, so they were definitely not the clean type.
And that is unfortunate. It doesn't mean that Section 8 only deals with dirty drug addicts though.


----------



## primjillie (May 4, 2004)

I only brought up the section 8, because someone said you couldn't get it if you had a drug conviction - I just wanted to say in my area that isn't so. I do have sympathy for people who have had a tough time in life, but I think it's sad that I should feel guilty for working hard and making sure my family is taken care of. Nothing was given to me and my children are my priority and I knew they would be before I even had them. If someone feels like it is best for their children to be elsewhere for whatever reason, that is their business and their life. I am also sorry you are all so defensive - I still don't understand that. If you are doing the best you can for your family, why are you defensive?


----------



## lalaland42 (Mar 12, 2006)

I personally would not have my DD live with other family for school opps under normal circumstances. I am lucky enough to live a relatively comfortable life and to have enough resources to change DD's schooling if necessary. If a catastrophe occurred and DD needed to change schooling because the school she was in is absolutely substandard, I would send her to live with family elsewhere. That would be a last resort though.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *primjillie* 
I only brought up the section 8, because someone said you couldn't get it if you had a drug conviction - I just wanted to say in my area that isn't so. I do have sympathy for people who have had a tough time in life, but I think it's sad that I should feel guilty for working hard and making sure my family is taken care of. Nothing was given to me and my children are my priority and I knew they would be before I even had them. If someone feels like it is best for their children to be elsewhere for whatever reason, that is their business and their life. I am also sorry you are all so defensive - I still don't understand that. If you are doing the best you can for your family, why are you defensive?

I hate the direction that this thread has taken. Personally, I am lucky to not be in a tight financial situation but many, many people in this country are one paycheck away from disaster. While I can sit on the top of a hill looking down on people and say that I made different life choices, the truth is that I have also been extraordinarily lucky. Why are people defensive on this thread? Maybe because some people have taken the stance that "doing their best" is not good enough. Where I am from, a lot of families on Section 8 are there because the mom has left an abusive husband. Can you imagine marrying someone who turns out to be abusive, find the courage to leave only to be told either "you are statistically likely to be a drug abuser" or "I have always supported *my* family, what's wrong with you?" I would be defensive too.

If you are not in the position to need the financial support of the community, good for you but situations can turn on a dime and you might (hopefully not) need that support in the future. Just remember that.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *primjillie*
I only brought up the section 8, because someone said you couldn't get it if you had a drug conviction - I just wanted to say in my area that isn't so.

Quit lying. Quit stereotyping.









http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...cfr982.553.pdf

Quote:

Denial of admission and termination
of assistance for criminals
and alcohol abusers.
This is from the GOVERNMENT! Not county, not state, but the government law.


----------



## lovencloth (Nov 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
Quit lying. Quit stereotyping.









http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...cfr982.553.pdf

This is from the GOVERNMENT! Not county, not state, but the government law.

perhaps you should quit name calling??? And did you actually read what you just linked? It says right in the top paragraph that they can be admitted after 3 years or as per the administrater with completion of a drug rehab program. Next time, try reading instead of just posting random name calling and links


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
Quit lying. Quit stereotyping.









http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...cfr982.553.pdf

This is from the GOVERNMENT! Not county, not state, but the government law.

Did you even READ what you posted? Let me quote a portion of it for you:

However,
the *PHA may admit the household
if the PHA determines:
(A) That the evicted household member
who engaged in drug-related criminal
activity has successfully completed
a supervised drug rehabilitation program
approved by the PHA* (bolding is mine)

The
PHA *may* prohibit admission of a
household to the program if the PHA
determines that any household member
is currently engaged in, or has engaged
in during a reasonable time before the
admission:
(1) Drug-related criminal activity;
(2) Violent criminal activity;
(3) Other criminal activity which
may threaten the health, safety, or
right to peaceful enjoyment of the
premises by other residents or persons
residing in the immediate vicinity; or
(4) Other criminal activity which
may threaten the health or safety of
the owner, property management staff,
or persons performing a contract administration
function or responsibility
on behalf of the PHA (including a PHA
employee or a PHA contractor, subcontractor
or agent).
(B) The PHA may establish a period
before the admission decision during
which an applicant must not to have
engaged in the activities specified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section
(''reasonable time'').

If you read the whole document, no where does it say that you will automaticlly be denied if you have a criminal past. NO WHERE.

So YES convicted criminals can obtain section 8 housing, it is up to the PHA to determine whether or not they will allow it or not, and the amount of time from the past criminal behavior. There is not even a standard length of time given -- like 3-5-10 years, it is based on each individual application and verification from a probation officer, social services, etc. that supposedly the person is "clean" so to speak. The only mandatory prohibition, those who cannot obtain section 8 housing is registered state sex offenders.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovencloth* 
perhaps you should quit name calling??? And did you actually read what you just linked? It says right in the top paragraph that they can be admitted after 3 years or as per the administrater with completion of a drug rehab program. Next time, try reading instead of just posting random name calling and links









There is no standard length of time if say you commit manslaughter or rob a bank or something though.

Wanted to add to the above statement that I found online that each state can have its own requirements for section 8 housing when it comes to criminal behavior. Example: Maryland your past FELONY convictions have to be more than 3 years old.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovencloth* 
perhaps you should quit name calling??? And did you actually read what you just linked? It says right in the top paragraph that they can be admitted after 3 years or as per the administrater with completion of a drug rehab program. Next time, try reading instead of just posting random name calling and links









That was just one link.
http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/hcv/
Just proving that Section 8 is strict. You will not find those laws in place for ppl with money.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
Did you even READ what you posted?

Of course, I am required to not only read every thing but the worker must read it aloud to me and then I must sign and date the papers verifying that I understand it all.

They do inspections on our home. My friend is NA and burned sage in her home, not even an hour later the police and the dogs were there.

That kind of thing is not going to happen in neighborhoods or homes that are not Section 8.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
Of course, I am required to not only read every thing but the worker must read it aloud to me and then I must sign and date the papers verifying that I understand it all.

They do inspections on our home. My friend is NA and burned sage in her home, not even an hour later the police and the dogs were there.

That kind of thing is not going to happen in neighborhoods or homes that are not Section 8.

Then you know that people with past drug and alcohol problems, including those with a criminal history can obtain the HUD "section 8" vouchers. You just called another member a liar when she pointed out that she knew someone who had section 8 housing and had a past criminal history.

I am glad I have not put myself in a situation where the govt can come in at any time, with the police and dogs, into my home. This is my property. This is one of the very reasons we have restrictions on leasing to those with section 8 vouchers -- we do not want the govt intruding into our lives unless absolutely necessary.


----------



## primjillie (May 4, 2004)

I can't believe I'm lying just because I know someone on Section 8 that has a drug conviction? I can't believe the direction this thread has taken........how sad.........


----------



## Canadianmommax3 (Mar 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *primjillie* 
I can't believe I'm lying just because I know someone on Section 8 that has a drug conviction? I can't believe the direction this thread has taken........how sad.........









that was uncalled for.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 

I am glad I have not put myself in a situation where the govt can come in at any time, with the police and dogs, into my home.

They can, they most likely would not. That is the point. It's okay to harrass ppl in poverty, to belittle them and shame them. When realistically, it is those with money who are able to make choices regarding alcohol/drug use.

Ppl in poverty don't have the money nor the means to purchase drugs/alcohol.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *primjillie* 
I can't believe I'm lying just because I know someone on Section 8 that has a drug conviction? I can't believe the direction this thread has taken........how sad.........

You made it sound like they were currently using drugs, which would make you an accessory to the misuse of Section 8. The fact remains that in order to use Section 8, you cannot be using alcohol or drugs. Posters have implied that all families living in poverty are drug abusing alcoholics, and I am pointing out the facts that the government has already put laws and regulations in place to keep drug users/alcoholics from utilyzing Section 8.


----------



## primjillie (May 4, 2004)

The husband is still using drugs - I don't know why you don't believe me when you don't even know these people! Section 8 probably doesn't know he is doing drugs and maybe that is why they are getting away with it. But that is beside the point - it doesn't have anything to do with this thread except to point out that situations vary by regions and people.


----------



## 2happymamas (May 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
You made it sound like they were currently using drugs, which would make you an accessory to the misuse of Section 8. The fact remains that in order to use Section 8, you cannot be using alcohol or drugs. Posters have implied that all families living in poverty are drug abusing alcoholics, and I am pointing out the facts that the government has already put laws and regulations in place to keep drug users/alcoholics from utilyzing Section 8.

Are you saying that people on section 8 are not allowed to have any alcoholic beverages in their homes? Or are they allowed to have a few brews after work in a bar? Tell me how that works.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2happymamas* 
Are you saying that people on section 8 are not allowed to have any alcoholic beverages in their homes? Or are they allowed to have a few brews after work in a bar? Tell me how that works.

No, they could if they can afford to, but with most families there is no money left over. It took me five months and not paying the full telephone bill just to buy a $6 hairbrush.


----------



## 2happymamas (May 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
You made it sound like they were currently using drugs, which would make you an accessory to the misuse of Section 8. The fact remains that in order to use Section 8, you cannot be using alcohol or drugs. Posters have implied that all families living in poverty are drug abusing alcoholics, and I am pointing out the facts that the government has already put laws and regulations in place to keep drug users/alcoholics from utilyzing Section 8.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
No, they could if they can afford to, but with most families there is no money left over. It took me five months and not paying the full telephone bill just to buy a $6 hairbrush.

I understand your situation with the hairbrush.

I guess I was confused by the wording of your first post that I quoted. I thought you meant that persons on section 8 were not *supposed* to drink alcohol. Because we know that persons on section 8 are not *supposed* to use illegal substances. So, it is indeed, not a fact that a "In order to use section 8, you cannot be using alcohol or drugs."

It is a fact that in order to use section 8, you are not supposed to use drugs. But you can drink.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2happymamas* 
I understand your situation with the hairbrush.

I guess I was confused by the wording of your first post that I quoted. I thought you meant that persons on section 8 were not *supposed* to drink alcohol. Because we know that persons on section 8 are not *supposed* to use illegal substances. So, it is indeed, not a fact that a "In order to use section 8, you cannot be using alcohol or drugs."

It is a fact that in order to use section 8, you are not supposed to use drugs. But you can drink.

But if you have ahistory of DUI's or alcohol sunstance abuse, they are more likely to dismiss your application.

It is not easy to get accepted when you apply, so, this whole idea that drug abusers and alcoholics are on Section 8 is just absurd. That is all I was pointing out. Married couples are even less likely to get Section 8, so, the idea that they would not know what a husband was up to, is also ridiculous.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *primjillie*
The husband is still using drugs - I don't know why you don't believe me when you don't even know these people! Section 8 probably doesn't know he is doing drugs and maybe that is why they are getting away with it.

So, you are an accessory to the misuse! If you know about it, why are you allowing it to continue? Meanwhile some family who is not using drugs is sitting in a homeless shelter waiting for an opening.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
They can, they most likely would not. That is the point. It's okay to harrass ppl in poverty, to belittle them and shame them. When realistically, it is those with money who are able to make choices regarding alcohol/drug use.

Ppl in poverty don't have the money nor the means to purchase drugs/alcohol.

Everyone has a choice to make decisions about drug and alcohol abuse, whether they have money or not. I think that is a complete lie about people in poverty not being able to buy drugs and alcohol, they can -- they may not necessarily even use money but goods or their body as a trade or they steal. The man who killed my brother was POOR, he was also a DRUG ADDICT, and he stole $152 from my brother for DRUGS. So yes, poor people do have the means to buy drugs. I am not sure what put this fallacy into your head that only those with money were the ones able to buy drugs and alcohol.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
You made it sound like they were currently using drugs, which would make you an accessory to the misuse of Section 8. The fact remains that in order to use Section 8, you cannot be using alcohol or drugs. Posters have implied that all families living in poverty are drug abusing alcoholics, and I am pointing out the facts that the government has already put laws and regulations in place to keep drug users/alcoholics from utilyzing Section 8.

Do you think people who have section 8 housing dont continue to use? Well let me tell you, past behavior predicts future behavior. I would like someone to explain to me why in my small city why the neighborhoods with the majority of govt housing have a lot of crime and drug problems, and are able to live there???

NO ONE HAS IMPLIED THAT ALL FAMILIES IN POVERTY ARE DRUG USERS OR CRIMINALS. I have lived in poverty and was neither a criminal or a drug user. However statistically in areas of poor socio-economic class there is a higher rate of drug abuse, alcohol abuse and crime.
And just because there are laws and regulations doesnt mean it doesnt go on. I assure you it does!


----------



## 2happymamas (May 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
Everyone has a choice to make decisions about drug and alcohol abuse, whether they have money or not. I think that is a complete lie about people in poverty not being able to buy drugs and alcohol, they can -- they may not necessarily even use money but goods or their body as a trade or they steal. The man who killed my brother was POOR, he was also a DRUG ADDICT, and he stole $152 from my brother for DRUGS. So yes, poor people do have the means to buy drugs. I am not sure what put this fallacy into your head that only those with money were the ones able to buy drugs and alcohol.


Yup. People who are poor do have ways to get mind-altering substances. In my past life (age 18-20), I was really poor. I think I made about $4000 in one entire year. I bought drugs. I bought alcohol. I admit it, I routinely bought them both. As a matter of fact, the odds are pretty dang high that I had MJ at any given time in, *get this*, my section 8 apartment.

It is a fallacy that only those with money purchase drugs and alcohol. It happens.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
It is not easy to get accepted when you apply, so, this whole idea that drug abusers and alcoholics are on Section 8 is just absurd. That is all I was pointing out. Married couples are even less likely to get Section 8, so, the idea that they would not know what a husband was up to, is also ridiculous.


A lot of women in SEct8 housing do not marry, they do this so they can get the housing, also to get food stamps, welfare and other goct needs. There is often a baby's daddy in the picture or a boy friend that stays there. I actually know women who do this. They applied for the housing, they are unmarried but their gangster boyfriend or "partner" lives with them. This is a common problem through out the US and one of the problems that is widely discussed when it comes to welfare and abuse of govt funds for the poor.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
However statistically in areas of poor socio-economic class there is a higher rate of drug abuse, alcohol abuse and crime.

No. There are rates of convictions. Do the police pull everyone over on your block? I bet not. But if they did, I am sure they would find drugs, drunk drivers, etc.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
A lot of women in SEct8 housing do not marry, they do this so they can get the housing, also to get food stamps, welfare and other goct needs. There is often a baby's daddy in the picture or a boy friend that stays there. I actually know women who do this. They applied for the housing, they are unmarried but their gangster boyfriend or "partner" lives with them. *This is a common problem through out the US* and one of the problems that is widely discussed when it comes to welfare and abuse of govt funds for the poor.

You are so full of stereotypes, it is disgusting.







:


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2happymamas* 
Yup. People who are poor do have ways to get mind-altering substances. In my past life (age 18-20), I was really poor. I think I made about $4000 in one entire year. I bought drugs. I bought alcohol. I admit it, I routinely bought them both. As a matter of fact, the odds are pretty dang high that I had MJ at any given time in, *get this*, my section 8 apartment.

It is a fallacy that only those with money purchase drugs and alcohol. It happens.

If you had no children, how did you get Section 8 housing? Just curious. Also, if you had children, why would you choose to use drugs?


----------



## 2happymamas (May 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
They applied for the housing, they are unmarried but their gangster boyfriend or "partner" lives with them.

C'mon now....why does the boyfriend have to be a gangster? I do not understand why partner was put in quotations? I do not understand why that was necessary to make your point. I felt as though it was somewhat judgmental. I think that people need to be careful of how they label others.

How was that for using I statements.............?

That's all.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
This is a common problem through out the US and one of the problems that is widely discussed when it comes to welfare and abuse of govt funds for the poor.

http://www.affordablehousingonline.c...on8housing.asp

Quote:

The Section 8 program has historically been oversubscribed and waiting lists can run into the years. In fact, many housing authorities frequently close their waiting lists and stop accepting applications *because the waiting lists are so long*.
You go on and on about crime and drugs and such and haven't said anything about the millions of families who are homeless.


----------



## 2happymamas (May 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
If you had no children, how did you get Section 8 housing? Just curious. Also, if you had children, why would you choose to use drugs?

I did not have any children. I am not sure, in Indiana, that persons on section 8 need to have dependents. Actually, I *know* having children is not a requirement b/c I got section 8 and did not have any children.

If one must have children in order to qualify for section 8 in Minnestoa, the only thing I can say is that Indiana has different rules.


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
A lot of women in SEct8 housing do not marry, they do this so they can get the housing, also to get food stamps, welfare and other goct needs. There is often a baby's daddy in the picture or a boy friend that stays there. I actually know women who do this. They applied for the housing, they are unmarried but their gangster boyfriend or "partner" lives with them. This is a common problem through out the US and one of the problems that is widely discussed when it comes to welfare and abuse of govt funds for the poor.

Why should the poor be the only ones penalized? Look at the SSI marraige penalty and then tell me why you think so many people remain unmarried..


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Or maybe, the mother just doesn't want to marry a "gangster" man and it has absolutely nothing to do with getting Sec 8.
Not to mention statisically, there are not too many rich/well-off women to "get with" those gangsta boys in the first place.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
No. There are rates of convictions. Do the police pull everyone over on your block? I bet not. But if they did, I am sure they would find drugs, drunk drivers, etc.

No you are wrong.(there are a good bit of resources to support this, a simple college Sociology class for one) There is more violent crimes among poor socio-economic classes, drug related crimes, prostitution, drug related crimes and so on. I am pretty sure that my neighbors are not crack heads or dealers so there is no need to for the police to come in the neighborhood, but they are welcome too. One because my neighbors are not just people I live next door too, but we are all friends and have similar values. Sure people around us would probably have driven drunk, some caught, some not but the last I checked none of our neighbors were involved in murder, sex crimes (yes I check!), robbery, and so on. I am sure there are a few of the baby boomers still smoking their weed, and we have some teens that probably have done far worse than that. But I feel pretty good about not thinking the special ed teacher next door, or the retired couple or the orthodox jews are smoking crack, selling meth or doing X. Maybe ole Mrs. Jones is hooked on pain killers from that tumble she had last year that broke her hip and three bones in her arm -- but for some reason I doubt she is a safety hazard to my children since she doesnt drive or own a gun.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
You are so full of stereotypes, it is disgusting.







:

I am statistically correct. Can you prove me wrong? No.
The majority of families who apply for Section 8 housing, get vouchers for RENT, are unmarried single females.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
If you had no children, how did you get Section 8 housing? Just curious. Also, if you had children, why would you choose to use drugs?









:


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2happymamas* 
C'mon now....why does the boyfriend have to be a gangster? I do not understand why partner was put in quotations? I do not understand why that was necessary to make your point. I felt as though it was somewhat judgmental. I think that people need to be careful of how they label others.

How was that for using I statements.............?

That's all.

The reason I put "partner" in parenthesis is because they put on their applications they are not married, yet they live with someone as if they are. Thats not judgemental, thats just a fact. I could care less if they are married or not.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
http://www.affordablehousingonline.c...on8housing.asp

You go on and on about crime and drugs and such and haven't said anything about the millions of families who are homeless.

Yes, there are families that are homeless. I believe some families place theirselves based on choices they have made, some chose to actually be homeless, and some it is just poor luck or no fault of their own.

I also wanted to comment on something, I do not believe their are millions of families that are homeless. For one, since 1989 the numbe of homeless families has DECREASED. Their is a greater amount of HUD resources available to homes than ever before that not only provide rent assistance but also funding to purchase small homes, in the city and in rural areas. In the last decade more HUD housing and govt funded neighborhoods have been built and more than 20% of all apartments in the USA have some sort of rent control that is completely seperate from section 8.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WitchyMama2* 
Why should the poor be the only ones penalized? Look at the SSI marraige penalty and then tell me why you think so many people remain unmarried..

I dont care if they are married or not. However MITB insists the govt knows all about who is living in the section 8 homes -- I say no way in hades, because many women apply without including their partner, or their income, on the application.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
Or maybe, the mother just doesn't want to marry a "gangster" man and it has absolutely nothing to do with getting Sec 8.
Not to mention statisically, there are not too many rich/well-off women to "get with" those gangsta boys in the first place.









We only sleep with pool boys.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 

I also wanted to comment on something, I do not believe their are millions of families that are homeless. For one, since 1989 the numbe of homeless families has DECREASED.

Homelessness in the United States

Quote:

The best approximation is from a study done by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty which states that approximately *3.5 million people*, 1.35 million of them children, are likely to experience homelessness in agiven year (National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 2004).

Quote:

They indicate a *dramatic increase* in homelessness in the United States over the past two decades.

Quote:

Recent studies suggest that the United States generates homelessness at a much higher rate than previously thought. Our task in ending homelessness is thus more important now than ever.
HTH explain what I am writing about.


----------



## 2happymamas (May 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
For one, since 1989 the numbe of homeless families has DECREASED.

Sorry, but that is not true. I, for once, must say that MITB is correct in that the number of homeless families has dramatically increased!







I do not know where you got such information, but it is incorrect, IMHO.

The number of homeless has increased steadily since the 1980's, when Good Ol' Reagan cut funding for President Kennedy's CMHC Construction Act of 1963. I guess he thought the money was much better spent on weapons and big missles









The changing in allocations of federal monies by President Reagan is not, of course, the single-handed reason the number of homeless has increased. But, IMO, it is one of the BIG reasons.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
Quit lying. Quit stereotyping.









http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...cfr982.553.pdf

This is from the GOVERNMENT! Not county, not state, but the government law.

I agree, MITB, this is over the line, imo.

Pat


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

3.5 million people, does not equal MILLIONS of families.

Of the 1.35 of children do you believe they are all part of a "family" that is also homeless. No. A portion of those "children" are teens, that are alone, living on the streets and the majority of them are runaways.

Also if you READ the entire piece you would see that the determination of homelessness varied, that the initial findings were in 1996 and again in 2000. *In their research "homelessness" was counted as ONE night without a place to stay. ONE.*

They estimated in one portion of their findings that only 637,000 households were actually homeless, and this could acount from 1 day in a year to 365 days in a year.

Also if you note in this ONE article, that it clearly states that homelessness, and the number of those homeless is hard to calculate. Their are other research organizations that say that homelessness is down.

However, even in this article, there are not MILLIONS of families that are homeless.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
You are so full of stereotypes, it is disgusting.







:


MITB, please reconsider this post.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
No you are wrong.(there are a good bit of resources to support this, a simple college Sociology class for one) There is more violent crimes among poor socio-economic classes, drug related crimes, prostitution, drug related crimes and so on.


Quote:

I am pretty sure that my neighbors are not crack heads or dealers so there is no need to for the police to come in the neighborhood, but they are welcome too.

Do you have any references or documentation to support these theories? Especially the first one please.







:

Pat


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2happymamas* 
The number of homeless has increased steadily since the 1980's, when Good Ol' Reagan cut funding for President Kennedy's CMHC Construction Act of 1963. I guess he thought the money was much better spent on weapons and big missles










While I am no fan of a Bush, when no1 was in office he increased funding for HUD, as has his Son.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/hud.html

I still hold that MITB is wrong in saying that millions of families are homeless in the US right now. I will not dispute that there are 3.5 million homeless people in the US, but she said FAMILIES.


----------



## pumpkinsmama (Aug 20, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
While I am no fan of a Bush, when no1 was in office he increased funding for HUD, as has his Son.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/hud.html

I still hold that MITB is wrong in saying that millions of families are homeless in the US right now. I will not dispute that there are 3.5 million homeless people in the US, but she said FAMILIES.

So it isn't the fact that there are millions of homeless people but the fact that it isn't even more millions of people to fill the quota needed for you to agree it could be millions of "FAMILIES" ?

What is an acceptable number of homeless people for you to become concerned?


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
Do you have any references or documentation to support these theories? Especially the first one please.







:

Pat

Sure thing!

Poverty, Ethnicity, And Violent Crime by James Short
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813320143

Socioeconomic Status, Subcultural Definitions, and Violent Delinquency
Karen Heimer
Social Forces, Vol. 75, No. 3 (Mar., 1997), pp. 799-833
doi:10.2307/2580520


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pumpkinsmama* 
So it isn't the fact that there are millions of homeless people but the fact that it isn't even more millions of people to fill the quota needed for you to agree it could be millions of "FAMILIES" ?

What is an acceptable number of homeless people for you to become concerned?

who said I wasn't. I have been volunteering with homeless organizations since I was a teen. the last few years I have not been involved in a more hands on way because I've been pregnant, breastfeeding, taking care of 4 children, and surviving 2 major hurricanes that hit my area.

i just think MITB doesnt need to exagerate.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
While I am no fan of a Bush, when no1 was in office he increased funding for HUD, as has his Son.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/hud.html

I still hold that MITB is wrong in saying that millions of families are homeless in the US right now. I will not dispute that there are 3.5 million homeless people in the US, but she said FAMILIES.

He increased funding for a subset of people called the Chronically Homeless. These are people, usually with a mental illness, who cannot be maintained in normal housing (such as an apartment) and thus keep getting thrown out. The housing and vouchers available for the "regular" homeless has actually decreased. This includes families. And criteria for homelessness has changed. For example, if you are homeless and are getting out of the cold by spending nights on various friends/family's couches (couch-surfing), you are NOT considered homeless by HUD's standards. However, if you are living in a motel, you are considered homeless and meet HUD's criteria for Section 8. How many homeless people can afford to stay in a motel to prove they are homeless?

In our county, which is an average county, the wait for Section 8 is 54 months. That's a long time to spend out in the cold. If you're a single person, its not unheard of to commit a crime in hopes of getting jail time, where at least its warm and you're guaranteed a meal. Or get smashed enough that you can blow over the legal limit and go to detox, where's there's beds with blankets and food.

In the last two years, the waiting lists have grown and the number of vouchers have been reduced. There is an entire subset of people we call "the unenrollable" who don't even show up on HUD's little data collection reports. They aren't even counted.

Our county alone lost 3000 housing vouchers during 2005. That's 3000 more people on the streets. And we weren't meeting the needs of the homeless to start with - the pending lists were huge even before 2005.


----------



## Maggi315 (Aug 31, 2003)

OK, before this gets shut down...I'm gonna give my comments for whatever they are worth.

OP: I would not have my children live someplace else. But my husband grew up in a boys home because his parents were unable to care for him and he thrived in that environment.

I feel somewhat jealous of those that have caring grandparents who want to be involved. We do not, so for us that is not a choice. In our will, if we should die, our friends will get custody, not our family. And actually our families are OK with that, they don't want custody anyway.

Section 8: I think MITB, you are angry and it seems you have aright to be from the way you have been treated. But as a former landlord (we just moved this spring) we declined having our tenant use section 8. It was a no=win situation from our perspective. First of all, we were pretty sure he was using drugs, but were told that unless we could "prove" it, then he couldn't be kicked out. And he was a 40 yo man who hung out with kids my daughters ages in his apartment. Again, told nothing we could do about that unless actual proof of something wrong.

Section 8 would place limitations on the lease we had, make it difficult to sell the house and make it difficult to evict if needed. In essence, we would now have a 3rd party involved in our rental agreement=the government. No, thank you.

I am very sensitive to the issues of the poor, having been so in the past, although I have been accused of not being sensitive on these boards. But I think I take a different stand than most. I follow what is being discussed on the spirituality boards "The Secret", the law of attraction.

I feel if you are constantly talking about the bad in your life, complaining about it, being angry, etc. you will more of the same. This is the idea behind "The Secret", if you haven't seen the movie, I highly recommend it. It is truly lifechanging and opens up the world to good possibilities.

So that's my 2 cents, probably coming across as condescending, but not really meant to be. But of course, the original OP's question didn't really deal with poverty, just asking about kids living with grandparents. To which my answer would be no.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
Sure thing!

Poverty, Ethnicity, And Violent Crime by James Short
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813320143

Socioeconomic Status, Subcultural Definitions, and Violent Delinquency
Karen Heimer
Social Forces, Vol. 75, No. 3 (Mar., 1997), pp. 799-833
doi:10.2307/2580520

You sited a book?







:
http://anitra.net/homelessness/faqs/causes/index.html

Quote:

But an increasing number of people become newly homeless, so the total number of homeless people is rising. People who considered themselves to be making a good income a few years ago are now at risk of becoming homeless, or have done so.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/20...03_175406.html

Quote:

The *homeless population continues to rise nationwide*. It is estimated that the homeless population reached 3.5 million in the United States. But the US Federal budget has stopped providing fund to build new affordable housing, which forced many local governments to cut the public housing projects.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:lP_Li0m8PgUJww.nationalhomeless.o rg/publications/facts/Why.pdf+NUMBER+OF+HOMELESS+PEOPLE+IN+uNITED+sTATES &hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=11

Quote:

In 2004, 12.7% of the U.S. population, or 37 million people, lived in poverty. Both the poverty rate and the number of poor people have increased in recent years, up from 12.5% in 2003, and up 1.1 million from 2003
I'm sure I could find more.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Maggi315* 
But as a former landlord (we just moved this spring) we declined having our tenant use section 8. It was a no=win situation from our perspective. First of all, we were pretty sure he was using drugs, but were told that unless we could "prove" it, then he couldn't be kicked out. And he was a 40 yo man who hung out with kids my daughters ages in his apartment. Again, told nothing we could do about that unless actual proof of something wrong.

Okay....so, are you saying it's ok to rent to a drug abusing maybe pedophile as long as it is NOT Section 8? I guess I don't understand your point.


----------



## Maggi315 (Aug 31, 2003)

No, the point was without section 8, I was able to evict him with my lawyers help, which we did. But my attorney told us that if we accepted section 8, we would have to go through the government and have that third party that would intervene and eviction wouldn't be so easy.

The fact that he qualified for section 8 is also scary. He is a single man, no dependents, and yet after 3 months on a waiting list, he gets approved? Huh? That doesn't seem right, but he told us that he was ex-military so he got special treatment, not sure if that is correct. When we rented to him, we were trying to help him out, he seemed to be trying to get his life together, his record was clean, and he just started a job (which he quit 2 days after moving in







)

So, long answer, huh? Basically, I just wanted to put in a landlords perspective. I have 5 kids, I have to be selective and pick what options will be best for our family. Getting rid of him immediately was definitely in my best interest and section 8 would have been a problem.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
You sited a book?







:
http://anitra.net/homelessness/faqs/causes/index.html

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/20...03_175406.html

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:lP_Li0m8PgUJww.nationalhomeless.o rg/publications/facts/Why.pdf+NUMBER+OF+HOMELESS+PEOPLE+IN+uNITED+sTATES &hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=11

I'm sure I could find more.

Do you even read the posts MITB? *She wanted a reference to Crime and its relation to Poverty.*
I have read the book because I am just into that kind of thing.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
Okay....so, are you saying it's ok to rent to a drug abusing maybe pedophile as long as it is NOT Section 8? I guess I don't understand your point.

the POINT is, if this guy had section 8 vouchers, she suspected hes a pedophile and using drugs, but unless she had PROOF, then he could not be evicted. You dont seem to get that many of us do not want the government involved in our homes, our property, and the determination of who gets to live on our property.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Maggi315* 
No, the point was without section 8, I was able to evict him with my lawyers help, which we did. But my attorney told us that if we accepted section 8, we would have to go through the government and have that third party that would intervene and eviction wouldn't be so easy.

The fact that he qualified for section 8 is also scary. He is a single man, no dependents, and yet after 3 months on a waiting list, he gets approved? Huh? That doesn't seem right, but he told us that he was ex-military so he got special treatment, not sure if that is correct. When we rented to him, we were trying to help him out, he seemed to be trying to get his life together, his record was clean, and he just started a job (which he quit 2 days after moving in







)

So, long answer, huh? Basically, I just wanted to put in a landlords perspective. I have 5 kids, I have to be selective and pick what options will be best for our family. Getting rid of him immediately was definitely in my best interest and section 8 would have been a problem.

He probably had some sort of mental illness. I was reading today from some of the links that MITB actually posted, that if someone who is on SSI for mental illness applies for Section 8, they cannot be prhibited from getting approval even if they have a criminal history. This had something to do with the Disability Act, and it even mentioned in one paragraph that the reason they may have been convicted of crimes, could be in direct relation to their mental illness.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

I wouldn't, but then we homeschool anyway.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

strange thread!







:

first, MITB,







. I hope that things start looking up for you. I've no idea what I would do in the same situation, but I'm sure that you are making the best choices you can based on your options and a desire to do what is best for your kids.









second, I found some of the comments about sec. 8 housing to be rude. My knowledge of sec. 8 is limited to what I know from my parents, who own a house that they rent out section 8. They've said that the inspection is very, very strict. They've always kept the house up well (it's the house I grew up in) but the inspection is VERY picky. The renters they've had since going section 8 have been over all been good. Currently, they rent to a single mom with 3 teenage sons.

third, some of the stats on comments on homelessness over the last 20 years show I lack of understanding of what happened when Reagan was president. (I'm so old I actually could vote back in the 80s). Anyway, homelessness with a HUGE issue in the 80s. Reagan said it was a "lifestyle decision", and rates shot up through the 80s -- single mothers and their children were the fastest raising group of homeless, and the mentally ill weren't far behind. To point to anything Bush Sr did in office without understanding just how screwed up things were when he got elected shows a lack of understanding of the issues when he was elected.


----------



## Cutie Patootie (Feb 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
We have been poor, so your assumptions about what I base my moral compass on are incorrect.

I have been poor as well...and if you had read my post more closely you would see that I said, "*we* do not base a persons moral value and compass on their lack of moolah" I didn't say a thing about you or your moral compass.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Well I didn't run away from this thread- although maybe some might wish that I would.







But obsessively reading threads until 2am makes for a tired mama the next day, so I had to leave it. Been mulling over the whole idea of 'privledge' most of today...

First off, OnTheFence, I shouldn't have made sweeping generalisations about your neighbourhood, so I'm sorry to have offended you. At least I provided you with a laugh or two.

...........

It just that, to me anyway, from your descriptions seems to be an pretty tightly controlled & regulated place- which led me to think 'wow, I sure wouldn't want to live there!'- which has led me down the track of thinking about how privledged I truly am to be able to choose whether or not I want to mow the grass on the 'nature strip' for a month or three, paint my house, plant trees, etc. etc. I can choose whether or not I want to clean my kitchen this afternoon, & it doesn't matter, nobody is going to come knock on the door & check up on my housekeeping & gardening skills & potentially threaten me with eviction. I can choose what schools my kids go to, because I don't have to take them to the one down the street necessarily. And I reckon that makes me pretty darn privledeged, regardless of how I acquired it.

.......

You know, I do understand what you are saying about areas where most of the homes are public housing. We have that in Aus too, although the city where I live is too small (or maybe too affluent) to have much in the way of concentrated crime spots. That said, we do have a sprinkling of public housing in many neighbourhoods, mine included. I've got a block of ph flats across the street (they've very nice, altho they are too small for big families), some fairly low-rent private apts ($130 week for 2 bedrooms), some incredibly high rent flats ($350 week 3 bedders), & the rest is pretty much old houses in a varying states of renovation. There is also a homeless drop-in center down the street, & two drug & alcohol rehab shelters in the 'hood, as well as a shelter for homeless teens. Plus some nights quite a few people sleep rough in the park. I guess what I am trying to say is that I can't quite imagine my neighbourhood without all of it's components.... I feel like our social diversity is what keeps us from ghetto-izing certain places... something like that. And I think you & I, OnTheFence, just look at this from totally different pointsov.

Anyway. The kids are clamouring for attention, & this thread has probably been locked by now, so I'll leave it there.


----------



## Viewfinder (Sep 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
I am statistically correct. Can you prove me wrong? No.
The majority of families who apply for Section 8 housing, get vouchers for RENT, are unmarried single females.

Okay, this is me. I'm an unmarried--twice divorced, actually--educated, white, intelligent, but unemployed, female single parent. I don't have a gangsta boyfriend here using my back room as his grow room or anything, nor do I have any hangers-on whatsoever, unfortunately. You, On the Fence, don't know squat about section 8 except for maybe your statistics, which are, by definition, numbers that attempt to label PEOPLE as if they are all cookie cutter copies of each other. And we aren't. And I think the analyses were set up to find some labels, not discover any.

I have a Section 8 voucher that pays 199% of my rent. I was made to apply for it by my welfare worker... I was getting tanf (289/mo cash), food stamps and Medicaid. She forced my hand; I didn't want to be MORE dependant. But crazy boyfriend's financial assistance was getting more sporadic. I applied. Then I got a job... two months later, got laid off. I'd just moved to a bigger better place. Section 8 letter came that week: YOUR TURN! Saved my [email protected]@. Section 8 simply took over paying rent where I was already living. Tanf paid power and phone bills

I was going to port my voucher out of state to Santa Monica Beach in Los Angeles, my hometown. Going rate there for a 2 bedroom: $2400/mo. Approved to be paid by Housing. Section 8 pays the going rate. The landlord ALWAYS has the right of refusal all the way through the inspection and "rent reasonableness" analysis (they don't wnat to get gouged), and on up to the final signing. It's their choice. If/When I move, my apartment space is not a "designated sec 8" apt.

Inspection is for safety and function. If the place is not safe, or the D/W or fridge doesn't work, landlord has to fix it. It's a FREE INSPECTION. Good for everybody.

There is another type of housing, that is to move into one of the places that they own. That's not a voucher.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

AH, I think I understand (sorry, I haven't lived in the US for years & have never lived in pub housing- & I haven't had a whole lot of time to read all the links. So it's good to get the distilled version).

So there are vouchers, where public housing pays (or partially pays) for privately owned housing-like OTF is describing, & there are also homes/apartments that are owned by the government (like the apartments across the street from me)?

I believe we too have something like that here- Rent Assistance,maybe? I think the gov't (somehow) discounts rent for people on a low-income, but I am not sure how it works exactly. I'm sure there are a number of people living nearby who are on rent assistance, but you just don't know who they are based on the house, yk?

And regardless, I think that our assistance program is a good thing. I think that even one person homeless is one too many (whist acknowledging that some people prefer not to sleep in a 'house', as I see it)- if you want a bed & four walls then that should be a given. A safe, secure place where you can get your 8 hours of square sleep (assuming you are not the parent of a young baby...







in which case the four walls should be guaranteed the sleep is not) is a basic human right. imo.

Dinner's up for me.

Will contemplate as I eat.


----------



## simonee (Nov 21, 2001)

LIke some other members, I'm so friggin superior to everybody else in this world that there is no better place for my children then my ivory tower, where we ride every day after school on our high horse. Also, I don't think it's my job to think about how other people get into hardship. It must be their own fault, if they were as great and superior as me, it wouldn't happen.

This thread stinks. And like the lead in MitB's house, some people don't realize they're poisoned till they're sick.


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
One of the reason is that we do not want our property value to go down. This tends to happen in areas where section 8 housing is. The property is normally not taken care of or kept up like it should be. Another reason is that there are people on section 8 that live lives that involve crime and drugs.

Oh my. What a horrible and WRONG judgement that is.
I know PLENTY of people on Section 8 (myself included) that have just run into hard times because of a disability (with adult or child) or loss of a job(s). We are upstanding citizens. Educated, quiet, AP, and have never done drugs or been involved with crimes. I can't stand that way of thinking. How completely disrespectful.
I used to make a good salary, had gorgeous apartments/townhomes, newer car, career, etc etc. Things happen in life and you can lose pretty much everything. It certainly doesn't suddenly make you a shady character simply because you don't have money.
Of the hundreds of people I know and have worked with, only ONE family on Section 8 was questionable. It wasn't because of their financial status, It was just the way they were (their chosen lifestyle).

Good grief.

You never know what life will throw your way. Until you are in the exact position as someone else, you will never know how you will react or what choices you will make for the greater good of your children.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OdeToJoy* 
Oh my. What a horrible and WRONG judgement that is.
I know PLENTY of people on Section 8 (myself included) that have just run into hard times because of a disability (with adult or child) or loss of a job(s). We are upstanding citizens. Educated, quiet, AP, and have never done drugs or been involved with crimes. I can't stand that way of thinking. How completely disrespectful.
I used to make a good salary, had gorgeous apartments/townhomes, newer car, career, etc etc. Things happen in life and you can lose pretty much everything. It certainly doesn't suddenly make you a shady character simply because you don't have money.
Of the hundreds of people I know and have worked with, only ONE family on Section 8 was questionable. It wasn't because of their financial status, It was just the way they were (their chosen lifestyle).

Good grief.

You never know what life will throw your way. Until you are in the exact position as someone else, you will never know how you will react or what choices you will make for the greater good of your children.

I didnt say ALL people on sec8 vouchers did I? I am still standing by my statements. They are based on historical, social and statistical evidence. I can just drive around town IRL and see it personally also. I never said anything against people JUST because they were poor either. In fact I think character and moral values are not based on how much $$$ you have in the bank. As I said, I've been in poverty. My husband grew up in extreme poverty so its not like either one of us are blind, but we are also not naive in thinking that all the people on sec 8 vouchers are living these upstanding lives, when we can turn on the news or drive through neighborhoods and see for ourselves that isn't the case.


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

Sad, very sad.


----------



## Imogen (Jul 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OdeToJoy* 
Oh my. What a horrible and WRONG judgement that is.
I know PLENTY of people on Section 8 (myself included) that have just run into hard times because of a disability (with adult or child) or loss of a job(s). We are upstanding citizens. Educated, quiet, AP, and have never done drugs or been involved with crimes. I can't stand that way of thinking. How completely disrespectful.
I used to make a good salary, had gorgeous apartments/townhomes, newer car, career, etc etc. Things happen in life and you can lose pretty much everything. It certainly doesn't suddenly make you a shady character simply because you don't have money.
Of the hundreds of people I know and have worked with, only ONE family on Section 8 was questionable. It wasn't because of their financial status, It was just the way they were (their chosen lifestyle).

Good grief.

You never know what life will throw your way. Until you are in the exact position as someone else, you will never know how you will react or what choices you will make for the greater good of your children.









You're a wonderful, intelligent woman who is a fantastic Mother to her son. I've laughed with you. I've cried with you. And I've moaned about men with you









Life WILL get better


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
I didnt say ALL people on sec8 vouchers did I? I am still standing by my statements. They are based on historical, social and statistical evidence. I can just drive around town IRL and see it personally also. I never said anything against people JUST because they were poor either. In fact I think character and moral values are not based on how much $$$ you have in the bank. As I said, I've been in poverty. My husband grew up in extreme poverty so its not like either one of us are blind, but we are also not naive in thinking that all the people on sec 8 vouchers are living these upstanding lives, when we can turn on the news or drive through neighborhoods and see for ourselves that isn't the case.

You can drive through any other neighborhood in town and see the same thing. (I'm sorry, not in *your* neighborhood...







) There are alcoholics, pedophiles, drug users, and criminals in *every* city, town, or neighborhood. Just because you choose to believe its mostly the poor does not make it so.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:

Another reason is that there are people on section 8 that live lives that involve crime and drugs.

Quote:

but we are also not naive in thinking that all the people on sec 8 vouchers are living these upstanding lives, when we can turn on the news or drive through neighborhoods and see for ourselves that isn't the case.
I apparently am unaware of the _Scarlet Letter A_ that *Section 8 People* must wear on their foreheads in your area, IRL, because I have never been able to "turn on the news or drive through neighborhoods and see for myself that this is the case" about *Section 8 People*'s lives that invlove crime and drugs. What are you doing driving around looking for people involved in crime and drugs?









Additionally, how does one identify a house or neighborhood as a passenger, driver in a car, or a TV viewer as *Section 8 Housing*? I just wasn't informed of the memo on this Obvious Public Label on "Those Kind of People's House".

Would you be so kind as to share your special way of Knowing who are *Section 8 People* and what makes a neighborhood _look like_ *Section 8 Housing*?

Thanks for the Public Service Announcement.

No sarcasm intended, I honestly am clueless to the visible cues of *Section 8 People*. Is the judgment based on color perhaps?

Oh, btw, everytime I turn on the news, I see a bunch of high-profile rich celebrities being arrested for crimes and drug use. Maybe the news is different on my TV? But, I don't think it is because of their money or celebrity status that makes them criminal or drug users. I don't know how to label people's lifestyles by looking at them. We all want to know. Thanks for your sharing your intuitive means of discerning this so that we all have this elevated level of judgment by "looking at them".

Sincerely,

Pat


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WitchyMama2* 
You can drive through any other neighborhood in town and see the same thing. (I'm sorry, not in *your* neighborhood...







) There are alcoholics, pedophiles, drug users, and criminals in *every* city, town, or neighborhood. Just because you choose to believe its mostly the poor does not make it so.

That is not the case. Maybe its where I live, but there are many places to live that is not riddled with crime and drugs. I didnt say mostly the poor did I? NO. I said neighborhoods with mostly sec 8 housing. I love how yall seem to change my words and put your own spin on what I am saying.
Sure bad things and crime can happen anywhere, I am not denying that. However, there are places where there is little crime, and safe places to live.


----------



## Imogen (Jul 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
My husband grew up in extreme poverty so its not like either one of us are blind, but we are also not naive in thinking that all the people on sec 8 vouchers are living these upstanding lives, when we can turn on the news or drive through neighborhoods and see for ourselves that isn't the case.

And neither are all people living in bought home areas either. My friend recently moved from her village where there is no Government housing. She moved because of the drugs being bought and sold in her area by home owners with high income, not those with a low income. Violence is common, pubs fights are the norm.

Money does not automatically mean morals and high standards.

For the record, I was born and raised on a Council estate (which is what Americans would know as Government housing). The VAST majority of individuals are law abiding citizens trying to do the best that they can for their families. The few bad apples should not be viewed as representative of the whole.


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
I didnt say mostly the poor did I? NO. I said neighborhoods with mostly sec 8 housing.

To be on section 8 or section 8 housing, one must be low-income which is _being poor._ I didn't change anything that you said, you said it yourself.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
I didnt say ALL people on sec8 vouchers did I? I am still standing by my statements. They are based on historical, social and statistical evidence. I can just drive around town IRL and see it personally also. I never said anything against people JUST because they were poor either. In fact I think character and moral values are not based on how much $$$ you have in the bank. As I said, I've been in poverty. My husband grew up in extreme poverty so its not like either one of us are blind, but we are also not naive in thinking that all the people on sec 8 vouchers are living these upstanding lives, when we can turn on the news or drive through neighborhoods and see for ourselves that isn't the case.

You won't allow people with Section 8 vouchers to live in your neighborhood. That means you will not allow MITB and several other people here to live in your neighborhood. Do you really think that's okay?

Your reasons for not allowing Section 8 people to live in your neighborhood are that the property values might decrease, and crime and drugs might increase. Your evidence is questionable, but let's assume there is some validity to what you are saying. People of African American descent are also associated with higher crime and higher drug use areas. So by your own standards, you also need to keep blacks out. Asians are reportedly associated with organized crime. Russians tend to modify their houses to accomodate their family's needs, and don't have good knowledge of housing codes, so end up violating housing codes. Hispanics sometimes like to live together in large families, so they might want to convert the garage to an extra bedroom. What blasphemy to your covenants. People with lower IQ tend to work in lower-paying jobs, and thus tend to be part of a lower-socioeconomic class. Maybe you need to give people IQ tests before they move in.

Do you really still think your beliefs are acceptable and healthy?

If you get a moment, please explain how there is any difference between discriminating based on poverty vs. discrimination based on race, since there is "historical, social, and statistical" evidence to include these for the same reasons.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I apparently am unaware of the _Scarlet Letter A_ that *Section 8 People* must wear on their foreheads in your area, IRL, because I have never been able to "turn on the news or drive through neighborhoods and see for myself that this is the case" about *Section 8 People*'s lives that invlove crime and drugs. What are you doing driving around looking for people involved in crime and drugs?









Additionally, how does one identify a house or neighborhood as a passenger, driver in a car, or a TV viewer as *Section 8 Housing*? I just wasn't informed of the memo on this Obvious Public Label on "Those Kind of People's House".

Would you be so kind as to share your special way of Knowing who are *Section 8 People* and what makes a neighborhood _look like_ *Section 8 Housing*?

Thanks for the Public Service Announcement.

No sarcasm intended, I honestly am clueless to the visible cues of *Section 8 People*. Is the judgment based on color perhaps?

Oh, btw, everytime I turn on the news, I see a bunch of high-profile rich celebrities being arrested for crimes and drug use. Maybe the news is different on my TV? But, I don't think it is because of their money or celebrity status that makes them criminal or drug users. I don't know how to label people's lifestyles by looking at them. We all want to know. Thanks for your sharing your intuitive means of discerning this so that we all have this elevated level of judgment by "looking at them".

Sincerely,

Pat

Let's see Pat, my husband used to be a teacher in inner city schools, mostly surrounded by Section 8 housing or govt housing. He did this for 7 years. Every day there was drug deals, drive by shootings, rape, murder, and robbery. This was openly visible in the streets. When your students come to class and one of the reasons there homework isnt done is because they were under the bed while a drive by was going by -- well you tend to be a little jaded.
Also, in neighborhoods where investors bought a good deal of property and decided to use this for section 8 vouchers, those neighborhoods considerably went down, property rates were lower, crime was higher, etc. Having family friends that live in govt housing in our area and visiting them, you would have to be blind not to see that most the properties are in poor condition. Its often not unusual to visually see fighting, domestic violence, hear gun shots, or see people doing, selling drugs. Even with all these "guidelines" the homes are trashed - and I am kinda curious at when and how many inspections are done each year. Maybe its because I live in a port city, but most the crime here takes place in the inner city in neighborhoods that are predominately govt subsidized in some way. In fact many of these neighborhoods have "nicknames" that are widely used, one would be "birdville". This ENTIRE community is govt subsidized housing, and nearly two dozen people are murdered there each year.
The year my brother was murdered (he was kidnapped and shot at a crack house and then dumped elsewhere) 58 people were murdered here. 2/3 of those murder victims happened in inner city locations where most the homes have some sort of govt subsidies.
I could care less what color you are. As I said I live in a pretty diverse neighborhood where whites are a minority. I gave you a reference to entire book that discusses this very issue on relation to poverty and crime. Call it stereotypical, prejudice, whatever -- however I think neighborhoods have the right, owners have the right to deny the govt access into our homes, and deny the use of section 8 vouchers to be used for rent. Especially when statistical and historical evidence indicates that neighborhoods with govt subsidized housing has higher crime and the property values are extremely low.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WitchyMama2* 
To be on section 8 or section 8 housing, one must be low-income which is _being poor._ I didn't change anything that you said, you said it yourself.

whatever.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Imogen* 
Money does not automatically mean morals and high standards.


I never said that. Nope. Nadda. Didn't even imply that.


----------



## Imogen (Jul 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
I never said that. Nope. Nadda. Didn't even imply that.

I think that you're quite mistaken. Your entire attitude throughout the thread has implied exactly that.

Section 8 = low income = low income areas have higher crime levels = thus having lower morals and standards = more crime


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 
You won't allow people with Section 8 vouchers to live in your neighborhood. That means you will not allow MITB and several other people here to live in your neighborhood. Do you really think that's okay?


Yes I do. Because the govt gives me no guarantees about who will live in my home. If we allowed homeowners to accept sec 8 vouchers, there would be no control on who lived here.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Imogen* 
I think that you're quite mistaken. Your entire attitude throughout the thread has implied exactly that.

Section 8 = low income = low income areas have higher crime levels = thus having lower morals and standards = more crime

Not all low income and poor families live in sec 8 housing. not all those on sec 8 commit crimes etc. However statistically and historically neighborhoods and areas with govt subsideized housing have higher crime rates? Why dont you explain how that happens?


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

About half of my neighborhood is rent-assist (our version of section 8). You would never know which houses they are. We can afford to live in a HOA neighborhood if we want. It is not a lesson of elitism I want to model for my dd. I like my neighborhood. Yes, people can paint thier houses crazy colors, no one has to have a garage, and you can make your front yard into wilderness if you want. I like that I can have a compost pile and hang my laundry outside. I like that we can have a beater car with low gas mileage parked on the street. I like that I can mingle with people from all walks of life. We have no crime. Stray cats are about our biggest "problem". You (OTF) characterize neighborhhods with high percentages of section 8 as statistically crime-ridden. That just has not been my experience. Yes, when you force ALL of the low income people into unbearable living conditions (like large projects) then desparation, depression, and lack of perspective make them into crime ridden areas. But when you mix up your neighborhoods to include all sorts of people, I just do not see this problem. Maybe my property value is lower because the house next door houses a family on rent-assist. I doubt it though, as I had no idea my neighbors were even on it until the mother mentioned it to me one day 2 years after I moved in. Ironically, the one "drug house" we have in this neighborhood is privately owned and the owners are not on any sort of assistance. And while I am annoyed that we have a drug house in this neighborhood, it could be anywhere. As a neighborhood, we all keep an eye on it and will be happy to call the cops (several of which live in our neighborhood) the minute we see something that could get them in trouble. My friend who lives in a high-end HOA is having the same problem with a drug house. IT HAPPENS EVERYWHERE.

The judgement in this thread is sickening. It is this sort of attitude that forces all of the poor people into concentrated areas which cause the behavior that is "expected" of them.


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
I never said that. Nope. Nadda. Didn't even imply that.

You most certainly did. Over and over again.

THIS THREAD NEEDS TO BE LOCKED. NAY, it needs to be DELETED entirely so as not to spread the absolute junk you are spouting.

Oh, and by the way, Section 8 is NOT a housing complex, community, etc. With a section 8 voucher, you can live in the nicest, privately owned townhouse if the owner accepts Section 8 (and the rent amount falls in the proper range). People with Section 8 vouchers find their own (regular) apts/townhomes/houses. They are not buildings lumped together as Section 8 housing. Get the facts straight.


----------



## Imogen (Jul 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
Not all low income and poor families live in sec 8 housing. not all those on sec 8 commit crimes etc. However statistically and historically neighborhoods and areas with govt subsideized housing have higher crime rates? Why dont you explain how that happens?

The answer to that question is plain to anyone who has any interest in the root causes of poverty, crime and racism within the U.S, even more so since the reduction of manufacturing and industry within the U.S as a consequence of moving production overseas.

But then, there are also other factors to consider, the emphasis that has been placed upon individualism and materialism at the expense of the family/community.

The explaination is indepth and not simplistic in anyway at all. And cannot be given justice in a single thread.

It is NO wonder that people who are caught in the poverty cycle cannot pull themselves out of it. From what I've witnessed on this thread, it's an impossible obstacle to overcome considering people are not prepared to offer people the opportunities to better their lives, or move into better areas. But hey, we wouldn't want to upset the perfectly manicured lawns now 

And on that note, my son will be home in a few minutes, be well


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
If we allowed homeowners to accept sec 8 vouchers, there would be no control on who lived here.

A homeowner that accepts Section 8 still has complete control over who they accept as tenants. The person interested in the apt/home still has to fill out an application just like any other renter and the owner can choose the family they like best.
Again, get your facts straight.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 
Your reasons for not allowing Section 8 people to live in your neighborhood are that the property values might decrease, and crime and drugs might increase. Your evidence is questionable, but let's assume there is some validity to what you are saying. People of African American descent are also associated with higher crime and higher drug use areas. So by your own standards, you also need to keep blacks out. Asians are reportedly associated with organized crime. Russians tend to modify their houses to accomodate their family's needs, and don't have good knowledge of housing codes, so end up violating housing codes. Hispanics sometimes like to live together in large families, so they might want to convert the garage to an extra bedroom. What blasphemy to your covenants. People with lower IQ tend to work in lower-paying jobs, and thus tend to be part of a lower-socioeconomic class. Maybe you need to give people IQ tests before they move in.

Do you really still think your beliefs are acceptable and healthy?

If you get a moment, please explain how there is any difference between discriminating based on poverty vs. discrimination based on race, since there is "historical, social, and statistical" evidence to include these for the same reasons.

I live in a neighborhood that is NOT predominately white. We actually chose to live here for that reason, for racial and religious diversity. The people who chose to live here, chose to live here being aware of the covenants and restrictions. I definintely do not see the choice of not allowing homeowners to take government vouchers for rent as discrimination. There are people of low income that live here, many on SSI, however they are not on govt housing vouchers.
And you make some wide assumptions about my standards. You don't know me, or my family.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OdeToJoy* 
A homeowner that accepts Section 8 still has complete control over who they accept as tenants. The person interested in the apt/home still has to fill out an application just like any other renter and the owner can choose the family they like best.
Again, get your facts straight.

This isn't exactly true. See our extended family has rental property and when asked if they would accept section 8, we were told (those involved with the property) that we would not be able to pick and chose who got to live in the houses. Also, the owner is not given full disclosure of the tenets either, they are only given a limited amount of information so that an owner could not discriminate against someone based on race.


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
There are people of low income that live here, many on SSI, however they are not on govt housing vouchers.
And you make some wide assumptions about my standards. You don't know me, or my family.

Again, you placed your standards out there in black and white for everyone to read.

Do you go around your neighborhood asking about peoples financial life, or is SSI just one of those things you can "tell" by looking too?


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
This isn't exactly true. See our extended family has rental property and when asked if they would accept section 8, we were told (those involved with the property) that we would not be able to pick and chose who got to live in the houses. Also, the owner is not given full disclosure of the tenets either, they are only given a limited amount of information so that an owner could not discriminate against someone based on race.

This is absolutly false. When you accept Section 8, you do _just that._ Potential renters fill out applications just like anyone else. You can deny them, or choose someone else if you don't feel its a good fit. No, you cannot deny them because of race, or anything else discriminatory. Having their name, you are also allowed to run your *own* background checks on someone to learn their history. Nothing stops a landlord from doing that.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

For the question in the OP, would I send my kids to live with my parents for them to go to a better school, no, *I* would not.

Why is that? Well, because I am very fortunate, I could go live with my parents if it ever came to that (actually, when I was pregnant with my first, my dh was laid off, and we lived with my folks for one month







). I was so fortunate that it was only one month, and that my parents were willing. My dh and I are so lucky to have many family members and friends that would let our whole family live with them if need be.

I was born with lots of privilege, I mean, We qualified for free lunch and stuff, my parents both worked very hard to provide the basics, but- again, they had parents they could've (and did) turn to in times of need.

It is heartbreaking that we live in such an affluent society and some people have to make choices about which of their children can stay with them, we should all be saddened by that.

As for Section 8 housing, my only experience with that is that our first home was a 2 family house, and our last upstairs tenant was a single mom who was on Section 8. I really knew nothing about it, and we weren't listed as Section 8 housing at the time. This girl came to see the apartment with 2 printed sheets of paper, one that told about her, her job, her schooling, her child, her parents, etc. and the other told what exactly Section 8 was, how it would work for us, and for us to please not tell anyone about her being on it







: . She offered to pay the first month's rent in full on her own, because she knew we didn't have time for Section 8, she also offered to paint the apartment (old house, no doubt had lead paint) and have her dad change out the bathroom outlet. The inspection went ok, and all we had to do was pay for the paint for her, and pay for the outlet-changing supplies (and she would've paid for those 2, but we didn't think she should have to).

She was an awesome tenant and I am really glad I didn't have lots of pre-conceived notions about Section 8, b/c as it worked out, she was able to have a really nice apartment (we later found out no one near us rented to Section 8) in a good school district, and we had a really nice tenant.


----------



## **guest** (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WitchyMama2* 
This is absolutly false. When you accept Section 8, you do _just that._ Potential renters fill out applications just like anyone else. You can deny them, or choose someone else if you don't feel its a good fit. No, you cannot deny them because of race, or anything else discriminatory. Having their name, you are also allowed to run your *own* background checks on someone to learn their history. Nothing stops a landlord from doing that.









:


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

About 100 pages too late.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
Ppl in poverty don't have the money nor the means to purchase drugs/alcohol.

Wow, talk about a blanket statement. This is untrue for a fairly large portion of people.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
It is not easy to get accepted when you apply, so, this whole idea that drug abusers and alcoholics are on Section 8 is just absurd. That is all I was pointing out. Married couples are even less likely to get Section 8, so, the idea that they would not know what a husband was up to, is also ridiculous.


Your Section 8 is very different than any I have experienced or have knowledge of. Most of the people I know who are on Section 8 are married with kids. I can count on one hand the number of people who are single on Section 8 that I know.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Found the answer.


----------



## lalaland42 (Mar 12, 2006)

ster·e·o·type (stĕr'ē-ə-tīp', stîr'-) pronunciation
n.

1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.
2. One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type.

It is stereotypical to go from a few people of a certain group (the people she knows) who act in one manner to the large group of people (all people on Section 8) who may or may not act in the same manner.

ETA: Sorry that came out kinda snarky.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lalaland42* 
ster·e·o·type (stĕr'ē-ə-tīp', stîr'-) pronunciation
n.

1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.
2. One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type.

It is stereotypical to go from a few people of a certain group (the people she knows) who act in one manner to the large group of people (all people on Section 8) who may or may not act in the same manner.

See above post 196.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WitchyMama2* 
Again, you placed your standards out there in black and white for everyone to read.

Do you go around your neighborhood asking about peoples financial life, or is SSI just one of those things you can "tell" by looking too?










No, I have friends who live in my neighborhood on SSI. LMAO.
I dont ask about peoples financials lives in the neighborhood, I really don't care.


----------



## lalaland42 (Mar 12, 2006)

OnTheFence: You repeatedly say that if you rent to people with Section 8 you don't get to screen the tenants. THIS IS AN UNTRUTH. Because you said this, I downloaded the landlord handbook for Alabama and looked through it. On page 3, in bold, there is the following statement:

*Owners are encouraged to carefully screen prospective tenants.*

Here is the link: http://www.habd.org/LandlordHandbook.pdf

It took me all of 5 minutes to find this, why did you not do any research before you went shooting off your mouth about being required to rent to druggies by accepting Section 8 housing? You know that there are people on this board who are on Section 8. Don't you think it is bad form to make sweeping generalizations like that? It's not as if everyone in a group of people are all the same. Or just because some are druggies all are.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Houdini* 
Wow, talk about a blanket statement. This is untrue for a fairly large portion of people.

I highly doubt you know any truly poor ppl. If they have zero money at the end of paying bills, where is the money for alcohol or drugs coming from? Just magically appears?

I know for me, the lease I signed says that if I get any disconnect notice it is grounds for immediate eviction. I can't not afford to pay all my bills.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
I highly doubt you know any truly poor ppl. If they have zero money at the end of paying bills, where is the money for alcohol or drugs coming from? Just magically appears?

I don't know anything about section 8, as I'm in Canada. However, I have certainly known several poor people...many of them quite well. I knew one family who rarely had have food, but the dad had a fifth of tequila every couple of days, and the mom had pot. I've seen the same mom start selling pot, while claiming that she needs the money "to feed my kids". They didn't have much money to start with, but there was enough to feed the kids - just not to do that _and_ buy drugs. (I'm talking specifically about the one family, because I knew them very well for many years.)

Are all poor people like that? Of course not. But, to claim that poor people aren't abusing drugs or alcohol because they don't have the money is totally flawed logic. The ones who are abusing drugs and alcohol spend what money they have on drugs and/or alcohol _first_, and in many cases, they steal more money to feed the habit.

I used drugs in my late teens, and have spent a lot of time around a lot of drug users. Many of them were poor. Some of them weren't. Some of them weren't poor at first, but ended up poor, _because_ of the drug/alcohol abuse. The ones who ended up poor still managed to get their hands on the drugs, one way or another.


----------



## Ms. Mom (Nov 18, 2001)

I just wanted to pop in here with a friendly reminder to think before we post







this is a good topic for discussion, but right now some emotions running high (with good reason). The OP had a good question and I think we should focus on that. If members want to continue talking about Section 8 houseing and such, they may open another thread in the appropriate forum.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
The ones who ended up poor still managed to get their hands on the drugs, one way or another.

I guess our definition of poor is different. Some ppl are so poor they cannot afford alcohol or drugs, not even a decent hairbrush.
Yes, if you are an addict, you will find a way, but not all poor ppl are addicts.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
However statistically and historically neighborhoods and areas with govt subsideized housing have higher crime rates? Why dont you explain how that happens?

I already did. Many neighborhoods, like yours, won't allow Section 8 in. Often the only landlords who will do Section 8 are the ones that are having trouble renting their property BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO LIVE THERE because of drugs, living conditions, crime, etc. If a landlord is willing to do Section 8, he is virtually guaranteed his units will stay full because there is no end of poor people in this country.

Section 8 housing didn't CAUSE these problems. Section 8 came in to already-troubled areas because no one else consistently wanted to live there.


----------



## shayinme (Jan 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
I highly doubt you know any truly poor ppl. If they have zero money at the end of paying bills, where is the money for alcohol or drugs coming from? Just magically appears?

I know for me, the lease I signed says that if I get any disconnect notice it is grounds for immediate eviction. I can't not afford to pay all my bills.

I hear what you aere saying but having worked with the homeless and fomerly homeless in Chicago, I know that in my experience people with addictions will find a way to get the money to fuel their addiction. In many cases it means taking the bill money and using it to buy drugs. I also worked with women who had been involved in prostitution and many of them bratered sexual favors for drugs. So IMO to say that poor people cannot get drugs is not accurate. Sadly drugs will be gotten to the exclusion of anything else.

Shay


----------



## jamsmama (Jul 16, 2005)

I do agree that this thread needs to be closed. I think its hurting more than helping.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
I guess our definition of poor is different. Some ppl are so poor they cannot afford alcohol or drugs, not even a decent hairbrush.
Yes, if you are an addict, you will find a way, but not all poor ppl are addicts.

I'm not sure why you think our definition of poor is different. These kids had one pair of pants each, a handful of shirts, one jacket apiece (given to them by friends). I never saw them buy a new hairbrush in five years. The mom went years without eyeglasses. They often didn't have food on the table. They were poor. That's why she sold drugs. She'd get a certain amount "fronted", and then sell enough to cover it, and smoke the rest.

I never said all poor people are addicts. I never implied it, either. I simply stated that being poor does not preclude the abuse of drugs/alcohol.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Whoops - sorry Ms. Mom.

With respect to the OP - no, I wouldn't send my kids to live with their grandparents for a better school. If it was a matter of getting them out of a _dangerous_ school, then yes, I would. I certainly would if it would keep us from homelessness, as in MITB's situation! That's a drastic scenario, and I'd want my kids to be kept safe and sheltered and fed.

However, in just day to day terms, with no crisis situation - my mom raised her kids. She's 63, and finds it very tiring to deal with kids day in, day out. She'd do it if it were necessary, but I think she's entitled to some rest. I'd miss my kids an awful lot, too. Childhood is too short as it is...


----------



## Viewfinder (Sep 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
Yes I do. Because the govt gives me no guarantees about who will live in my home. If we allowed homeowners to accept sec 8 vouchers, there would be no control on who lived here.

I do understand your desire to protect your property, and your property values. But the government would not be choosing a tenant for your house, should you be open to that... only YOU can do that. Only YOU can decide WHO will reside in your house.

EVEN if you walk into the Housing Office in your town and announce you'd like to offer up your home for section 8 occupancy, YOU still are the one who takes applications and decides who you might want to accept based on your own research of their references, credit (yeah, some of us actually have good credit!), etc., and you can change your mind at the last second, and you can evict them for cause at any time. That's the fact. The tenant candidate still has to put up the security and last month's rent monies, somehow. They sign for responsibility. Not Housing. The RENT contract is signed between landlord and housing, because housing PAYS the landlord. If the tenant has a "co-pay," and they don't pay, the landlord can evict. Right now. Landlords do not give up any control or rights to their prop in dealing with Section 8.

I was formerly a Realtor. Many so-called "Investors" SEEK the Section 8 Free Ride because it is guaranteed on-time rent, and they actually have to do very little to pass an inspection. The most basic home can pass; it just can't be UNSAFE, tumble-down, fire-hazard, or non-working utils or appliances. These "investors" would be called "Slumlords," and this country is full of them.

Your husband worked in such a neighborhood, and so I understand your mistaken blanket remarks about Sec 8. And, I am so very sorry about your brother... what a terrible, terrible loss you have suffered.

Tenants get stuck there not because they love the crime-ridden neighborhood, but because their Sec 8 vouchers have no currency in most neighborhoods, for the reasons that you yourself describe. It is due to landlords being uninformed of the facts. And in your case, quite understandably very angry and terribly hurt by what you have come off as sounding like you believe applies to most, if not all, Section 8 voucher users.

BTW, I said in a previous post that my rent is paid 199% by housing. I meant 100%, for the time present, as I am unemployed and have a young child. When I had an income, I did pay about a third of the total rent.

Again, let me offer my sincere condolences, On The Fence, for your tragic loss. I have several brothers, and if I lost any to such a crime, I would probably be on a lifelong rampage.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies
Ppl in poverty don't have the money nor the means to purchase drugs/alcohol.

Wow, talk about a blanket statement. This is untrue for a fairly large portion of people.
My next door squatters (who are not on Section 8, as they are squatting) are in poverty and seem to have come up with money for drugs and alcohol every time I see them.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
I highly doubt you know any truly poor ppl. If they have zero money at the end of paying bills, where is the money for alcohol or drugs coming from? Just magically appears?

I know for me, the lease I signed says that if I get any disconnect notice it is grounds for immediate eviction. I can't not afford to pay all my bills.

Do you really need an explanation for how low income people get drugs and alcohol?

Contrary to what you seem to think I know far too many people who have little to no money at the end of paying bills.


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
I guess our definition of poor is different. Some ppl are so poor they cannot afford alcohol or drugs, not even a decent hairbrush.
Yes, if you are an addict, you will find a way, but not all poor ppl are addicts.


You are absolutely correct MITB and noone on this thread said all poor people were addicts.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lalaland42* 
OnTheFence: You repeatedly say that if you rent to people with Section 8 you don't get to screen the tenants. THIS IS AN UNTRUTH. Because you said this, I downloaded the landlord handbook for Alabama and looked through it. On page 3, in bold, there is the following statement:

*Owners are encouraged to carefully screen prospective tenants.*

Here is the link: http://www.habd.org/LandlordHandbook.pdf

It took me all of 5 minutes to find this, why did you not do any research before you went shooting off your mouth about being required to rent to druggies by accepting Section 8 housing? You know that there are people on this board who are on Section 8. Don't you think it is bad form to make sweeping generalizations like that? It's not as if everyone in a group of people are all the same. Or just because some are druggies all are.

Okay, I see where it say that I get to screen the tenets -- so clearly I am wrong on this point, still I live in a place where it restricts me from renting to anyone who has section 8 vouchers. I chose, yes I said that, CHOSE to live in a place with this restriction. I have clearly put WHY the restriction is there, and I AGREE WITH IT because historical and statistical evidence is there to support it.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
I highly doubt you know any truly poor ppl. If they have zero money at the end of paying bills, where is the money for alcohol or drugs coming from? Just magically appears?

I know for me, the lease I signed says that if I get any disconnect notice it is grounds for immediate eviction. I can't not afford to pay all my bills.

When we were growing up we were friends with people who lived in their truck. Six people lived in a truck with a covered bed. None of the parents worked, but the father always had alcohol. My DH comes from extreme poverty -- yet his father always had alcohol too. The list goes on and on -- even in extreme poverty people can get drugs and alcohol.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
I guess our definition of poor is different. Some ppl are so poor they cannot afford alcohol or drugs, not even a decent hairbrush.
Yes, if you are an addict, you will find a way, but not all poor ppl are addicts.

That is what we have been saying.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 

Section 8 housing didn't CAUSE these problems. Section 8 came in to already-troubled areas because no one else consistently wanted to live there.

This isnt true for where I live. I can actually pin point areas in our city that were perfectly safe until people began buying up properties in those area as "investments" during the early 80s when interest rates were higher and a lot of people lost their jobs and decided to take section 8 vouchers to have "guaranteed" occupants in the homes. My city isn't the lone one in America this happened in.


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Viewfinder* 
I do understand your desire to protect your property, and your property values. But the government would not be choosing a tenant for your house, should you be open to that... only YOU can do that. Only YOU can decide WHO will reside in your house.


Just so you know, its not just about the personal control over my particular property, but the entire neighborhood. That is one of the reasons for the rule too. Just call us all snobs and what not, but here is one thing we know -- if our neighbor sales their home, we know that the person purchasing it 1)must qualify for the loan or 2)can pay full price for the home and 3) will abide by all the covenants and restrictions. If my neighbors lease (and yes several do lease their home) we all know that 1) they can afford the rent and 2) they check your credit, employment, etc. and 3) they will abide by all the covenants and the restrictions AND IF they don't they can easily be evicted for breaking their contract. (and yes, renters here have been evicted for not abiding by the covenants and restrictions)


----------



## OnTheFence (Feb 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Viewfinder* 
Again, let me offer my sincere condolences, On The Fence, for your tragic loss. I have several brothers, and if I lost any to such a crime, I would probably be on a lifelong rampage.

Actually the guy lives not far from me in a half-way house. We do have halfway houses out here believe it or not. (not in our neighborhood, but we actually have one outside our neighborhood on a main road) I've seen him several times and even spoke to him. I forgave him a long time ago, even though he got away with murder.


----------



## Viewfinder (Sep 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OnTheFence* 
Just so you know, its not just about the personal control over my particular property, but the entire neighborhood. That is one of the reasons for the rule too. Just call us all snobs and what not, but here is one thing we know -- if our neighbor sales their home, we know that the person purchasing it 1)must qualify for the loan or 2)can pay full price for the home and 3) will abide by all the covenants and restrictions. If my neighbors lease (and yes several do lease their home) we all know that 1) they can afford the rent and 2) they check your credit, employment, etc. and 3) they will abide by all the covenants and the restrictions AND IF they don't they can easily be evicted for breaking their contract. (and yes, renters here have been evicted for not abiding by the covenants and restrictions)

So could a Section 8 vouchered-renter proudly abide by the CC & Rs in your snobby neighborhood, and they might even be snobbier, and turn other people in for violations. They may be smarter, own a better car, and finer silver and china than you have ever seen or known could exist, handed down through four hundred years of family, and their forebears may have signed the Declaration of Independence, and they may get invited to the White House, and your son may fall in love with and marry their daughter, someday, and your son could be seen as having "married up."

I know you are being attacked, but you represent so many people who's ill-informed attitudes are just horrible, so I am using you as a whipping boy for all the bs that is 'out there.' You just can't imagine the heartbreak of the seeing the stigma of relying on a degree of public assistance trickle down to your children. Because I am in this position, people LIKE YOU are making my life and my child's life less pleasant, because your attitudes are pervasive.


----------



## Ms. Mom (Nov 18, 2001)

I did ask that this thread remain on topic. I'm going to close it now because it is no longer answering the OP's question.

Thank you.


----------

