Location: Rogers Park Library 6907 N. Clark St.
Time: 6-8 p.m. Refreshments at 5:30p.m.
Chicago Housing Authority's Section 8 Choice Voucher Holders will have an excellent opportunity to voice concerns when Denise Johnson, CHA/Section 8 administrator, comes to Rogers Park to speak with them. Q & A Session planned. Also, a Barack O'Bama Campaign representative will present some possible recession effects on subsidized housing. A local activist will also speak and opening the meeting will be Pastor Chan offering a prayer. All local Voucher holders and low income renters are encouraged to come in AND get involved! There is still time to prepare for government subsidized housing changes.
Email: newdirection1@yahoo.com
25 comments:
Would it be putting it midly that you guys have had problems with Section 8 people in your part of town?
I just want to come out and say that I really do love RP.
I'm a great guy and never mean any of the disrespectful things I say. Which is almost all of the time. Also, I'm really smart, too...just been trying to play the tough card, you know...street-style.
I hope to move back to RP one day, if I could only afford it.
I would not use the term "mildy"
billyjoe said...
I just want to come out and say that I really do love RP.
I'm a great guy and never mean any of the disrespectful things I say. Which is almost all of the time. Also, I'm really smart, too...just been trying to play the tough card, you know...street-style.
I hope to move back to RP one day, if I could only afford it.
11:06 AM
(If you click on billyjoe for that entry, you will discover it's actually MS21, who apparently is more psychotic than he/she could ever accuse me of being. Yeesh.)
crime is up in chicago because of the projects that got torn down they relocated the project people all over the city. thats when section 8 comes dont get me wrong theres nice people that came out of the projects but most of them are hard core gang bangers that dont give a damn. if they bring in more sec 8 people in rp then its going to make it worse. by the way what made you guys move to rogers park?? . ..was it the lies yall heard coming out of joe moore mouth?? was the place cheap???... because of the lakefront.....
1. A lot of college students live in RP for the cheaper rents and access to transportation (el).
2. A lot of lower-income gays choose to live there too. Gay men like the apts and condos they can extensively redecorate, and the lesbians like the "tough hood" atmosphere.
3. Taxi drivers like it for its cheaper rents and proximity to fares.
4. People formerly from the projects can get a decent sized place for their Section 8 vouchers.
5. Out-of-towners who come here for jobs like the rents compared to other hoods and the proximity to the lake.
6. Community activist types like it . . . . they can practice their trade in RP to their hearts' content.
Just trying to have some fun, billyjoe. Lighten up.
We're all about good spirits in the RP...in between the gang rumbles.
Lighten up?
Don't post comments using my name, idiot. It's not cute, and it's more wrong and sleazy than any issue in which your opinion might disagree with mine.
Don't cry billyjoe, don't cry.
I live on Pratt to have a beautiful, large apartment for rent that would get me a studio in Lakeview or Lincoln Park.
I also live here for the architecture, the trees, the beach, and MOST of the people, as well as convenience to transit and retail a few blocks away in Edgewater.
It's too bad we have to be a designated dumping ground for all the unplaceables out of the condemned projects, and it wouldn't be this way if we had a more protective alderman.
However, it's going to be more difficult than ever for the federal government to turn its back on low-income Section 8 renters now that the feds are helping people in lower-middle, middle, and even upper income brackets to stay in houses that they never could afford to begin with. How can you say to some extremely poor woman that you will let her live on the streets when you are helping John and Susie Bigspender stay in the $600K condo they bought when they make only $75K a year?
Now that we've completely socialized housing, the only people you'll be able to lose are non-subsidized middle income and working poor renters who don't qualify for Section 8 or mortgage subsidies and who are too damn proud to ask for this stuff, anyway.
Well, put, north coast. But I think the gripes are not with Section 8 per se, but with the alleged human problems they bring. If everyone who lived in Section 8 housing did all the things society say they should do (raise their children to be polite, law abiding citizens, etc.) there would be no fight. But not all of them do and that's the barely unspoken sentiment here; that Section 8 families don't hold the same values as the rest of the people on their block.
If you want a point of discussion to start on, I think that would be it. I don't think anybody here WANTS someone to live on the streets.
But me, I gots no answers...
I have no arguments with Sec 8 for the disabled and/or elderly, or on a temporary basis for the unemployed. That would limit the numbers of people getting it enough that it would not skew rents and building prices northward.
My dislike comes from , yes, the social problems that seem always to come with it, but most of all for the way it has skewed rents much higher, making life impossible for the working poor who aren't poor enough to qualify, because it is so much more profitable for a landlord to go Section 8- he can charge outrageous rents for substandard apts because the taxpayers are forking over the diff between the tenant's cost and the face amount of rent. The corruption of the housing market and resulting evil consequences for the working poor and middle classes is probably the worst consequence.
Worse, it paved the way for more extensive socialization of the housing market, from FHA loans clear up to the GSEs and GNMA, created only to buy loans no one wnanted to carry, and that always had the implied backing of taxpayers, until finally we have the situation we see now, where the government-sponsored debt creation has led to a complete disaster, and now WE have to pick up the tab for the whole mess and help people stay in houses they never had any damn business in to begin with, at prices the places would never have been near worth in a market unmediated by government programs for homebuyers and other assists for home builders and lenders.
I'd like to roll every last bit back. FHA, HUD, CPAN programs, GNMA, FNMA, all of it. No more govn't homebuyer programs. No more city subsidies for new condos and houses, like CPAN. I'd unwind Section 8 last, but unwind it I would, for I have a feeling there would be at least as much housing available to the true poor as there is now, at far less cost, and we'd all be better housed for a much lower % of our incomes.
The problem with Sec. 8 housing is when it is CONCENTRATED in one building and/or neighborhood. If a 20 unit rental building was limited to, say, 4 Sec.8 units, then social order and respect would be maintained. If on the other hand all 20 units are Sec.8 rentals, I guarantee that all it takes is one or two 'bad apples' to take over and the bad guys will rule. It's not rocket science.
25% might be too many, unless they are elderly/disabled.
Trouble is, you aren't allowed to make those types of distinctions.
All a landlord can do is screen, screen, screen.Many are now requiring drug testing pre-approval. I don't blame them, even though it seems invasive. Criminal background checks should be routine, and the terms of the lease, like the no. of people allowed to live in the unit, should be rigorously enforced.
One problem is that many landlords don't have a good handle on the screening, and leave too many loopholes in their applications and leases. Some apps I've seen don't ask for nearly enough info, and many applications and leases are so loosely written you could roll a train through the holes.
just what would you have the alderman do, nc?
Sorry - but I wouldn't live in a building that allowed Section 8 housing. I have seen what it can do to really great places. Many (not all) just do not have the same respect for people and property that others do. I am all for giving able-bodied people a bridge to help them through a tough time but not a way of life that includes Section 8 housing. The alderman can stand up for his area and make changes (that don't always just benefit him)
people, section 8 is a federal program. the alderman has pretty much no control over it. the city has the authority to address issues of the condition of the building, and there is an avenue for the removal of tenants the are in violation of drugs laws, (one more way the war on drugs distorts the constitution, but i digress) it is a limited approach, but it has been done.
joe moore HAS forced the sale of buildings that were poorly run that had a high percentage of section 8 tenants. but that was for violations of the city building code, and criminal codes, and had nothing to do with section 8.
and for those of you who think that there is a high percentage of section 8 tenants who are "bad people" i would say that you are filtering what you know through your own personalities and coming to conclusion not based on fact. you have no idea what the actual "percentage" is because you have no idea how many of the tenants in any building, or all of rogers park, for that matter, are receiving section 8. you make no note of many who are just like you. you have no way to measure the size of your whole, so you can come to no conclusion as to percent. but you just fill in the blanks with your bias and come to a dumb ass conclusion.
The Housing Authority may deny assistance to any household containing a member that has a history of criminal activity involving crimes of physical violence to persons or property and other criminal acts which would adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of other tenants. {CFR 960.202a(2)iii & 203c}.
The criminal activity does not have to be violation of drug laws per se. But, I would say dealing drugs would tend to effect the safety and welfare of others. You know, since violence seems to go hand in hand with drug dealing in the form of turf protection.
How in your view, does the "war on drugs" distort the Constitution? I don't necessarily agree with the method of execution regarding the war on drugs, I'm just trying to understand what you mean. Do you mean the prohibition of drugs violates a Constitutional right? Or the Constitution is being misused, and if so, exactly how?
I don't think everyone colors section 8 voucher holders with the same brush. However, sadly, and I know of one such person, people do work the system and make welfare a way of life. That is wrong and should be stopped.
I would have the alderman do what Mary Ann Smith in the 49th does diligently, which is apply heavy pressure to the ownership of known problem properties.
Smith maintains a "bad building" list, which you can view online. The owners of such properties are, once their buildings start looking shabby and/or generating crime and problems, notified that failure to rectify these problems within a short time frame will result in court action, with fines and a possible court-ordered vacate or sale.
You have to be willing, as alderman, to hound the ownership to death with fines and court actions. Moore definitely does not do that, but instead takes major contributions from well-known slumlords like Jay Johnson, and gives encouragement to him and other people and agencies who introduce problem people to our neighborhood. Bud Ogle and his Good News Mission own properties stuffed with the type of people you don't want in your neighborhood, and Moore encourages the proliferation of not-for-profit facilities that serve the types of populations that cause nothing but problems- Rogers Park has a concentration of these agencies equaled only by that of Uptown, where Queen Helen is similarly accommodating.
I agree with NC's opinion about Section 8 programs and their effect on the market.
We've created a moral hazard and no one has the guts to put an end to it.
On another topic, the big elephant in the room is property taxes. A lot of people are going to appeal their assessed taxes since values have gone down. I know I would. That's going to pull a lot of money out of the government's coffers here in Cook County. There will definitely be cuts in services and pay. That'll ought to be fun here in Chicago. I predict a strike by the Streets and Sanitation Dept.
I think we're just seeing the beginning. But, a silver lining is this: it's the perfect opportunity to completely restructure muni-governments and get their pay and benefits in line with the private sector, which, in turn, should save some money.
Of course, this IS Chicago, where it's always "opposite day!"
nc you missed my point. you do not see the people who are not a problem. "stuffed with people we do not want" ? you do not want battered women to have a place to go? you do not want displaced poor people to have a place to go? everyone who needs help is not welcome in rogers park? gee, why aren't i shocked.
nothing in your little screed has anything to do with section 8. it has to do with maintaining the housing stock. which you say you want, and then when someone turns a building condo, or tears down an old building, you and the rest hear all tear your hair out.
the broken heart- always on the side that is whining, even when it means being on both sides of an issue.
Not in our lifetimes has there ever been a more appropriate hour in which to ask for rollbacks in the salaries and perks of our aldercreatures.
We should seize the moment to press for drastic cuts of UNNECESSARY city and county expenditures, so that the taxes can be reduced AND so some of the funds can be directed to our woefully underfunded and undermanned city services. The police department is steeply undermanned and demoralized, and our water, sewer, and road infrastructure is getting dangerously decrepit.
So, let's press for the following cuts and rollbacks:
1. All salaries for aldermen, the mayor, and all Crook County pols, along with those of their staffs and cadres of administrative people, should be rolled back 10%. How bloody DARE they take 6% raise while we're losing over 165,000 jobs across the country per month, and employed people are getting salaries reduced or frozen, or their hours cut to part time?
2. Every single Vanity project should be cxl'd, starting with the idiotic Olympics, and moving on to other non-essential projects, such as the ludicrous el "superstation" ( the cost of which could build another whole rail line)
3. An emergency ordinance should be passed, if possible, to sunset every single TIF district by mid-2009. This would free up the "increments" of taxes, hundreds of millions of $$$, to be returned to city coffers.
4. Staff at the Cook County center and City Hall should be reduced by 30%, and their salaries rolled back by 10%.
5. Cxl all big new infrastructure projects. We don't need the outer drive expansion or infill, we don't need the airport expansion, we don't need any more highways. The savings here should be re-allocated to repairing essential road, water, and sewer infrastructure.
6. We need to get together and get a movement going with the aim of restructuring city government for 10 alderman. These people are being paid full-time salaries-let them work full time. If L.A. can get by with 7, or 10 (I forget the exact number), then Chicago can, too.
6. Half the money saved by implementing 1-5 should be diverted to the police and fire depts, and to infrastructure repair. The other half can be applied to holes in the city budget and county budget, so that we can roll back property taxes and sales taxes, to help people who OWN their homes stay in them and to help keeper shoppers and commerce from departing the city in search of lower sales taxes.
been there, no one has ever heard me complain about the mere fact of a building being converted.
I was always all for it, provided that the tenants were given due consideration as required by law, which means 4 months notice and the freedom to enjoy their apts free of hazards while still occupying them.
I was always all for it for I knew that the conversion rampage would end just as it has... with countless developer's foreclosures and freshly renovated units being returned to rental. Great comuppance for the Herlo Brothers and other scum just like them, who have buildings with empty, unsold units allover the nabe- the Herlo Bros development on Estes has about a half dozen units in foreclosure.
Also, I have nothing against a battered women's shelter or a home for autistic children, or the non-violent mentally ill.
I certainly have nothing against a well-run homeless shelter.
But I have real problems with drug-rehab centers, parole offices, and halfway houses for ex-convicts,and homes for sex offenders. WE have way too much of this stuff, that targets the very people we don't want around here and who endanger us.
We can be kind and we should be. But we don't have to accommodate every criminal loser out of misplaced compassion and we shouldn't have to.
Post a Comment