Hot News!
• Your humble Dean, published at The Enquirer!
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Some guys with a cornhole song (2007)•Still Chasing The Enquirer’s “Facts” (2007)
•Racial Descriptors at The Enquirer (2007)
•Building Power Statewide: How It Happens Now and How It Could Happen (2006)
Events
 Saturday, December 6 6th annual St. Nick Day Sale
IJPC is located in Peaslee Neighborhood Center at 215 E. 14th Street, Cincinnati OH 45202. We will be selling fair-trade items from all over the world. Your purchase helps benefit artisans from around the world as well as IJPC! |
Tuesday, December 16 CeaseFire Cincinnati, 3rd Tuesday, 5:30 pm Want to learn more about CeaseFire? Attend our monthly Community Coalition Meetings Held at the Avondale Pride Center, 3520 Burnet, CeaseFire Cincinnati: The Campaign to STOP the Shooting (513) 675 - 4102 http://www.ceasefirecincinnati.org |
Wednesday, December 17 Monthly meeting - IJPC General Peace Committee, 7 pm - 3rd Wednesday of every month - Peaslee Neighborhood Center, 513-579-8547, All are Welcome! |
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Section 8 Density by Neighborhood
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Photo courtesy of here.
So what is the truth about Section 8 density in Cincinnati neighborhoods? Is it true that areas like Westwood have been inundated with Section 8 at a rate that is dramatically different from other neighborhoods? We asked CMHA for those very details, and the population density accurate as of this past February may have details you don’t expect!
This spreadsheet shows a breakdown of assisted rental and housing units by each Cincinnati neighborhood, as well as including information about the percentage of total available rental and housing units.
Notice that columns D and F (you’ll need to count yourself from the left) indicate numbers claiming to be a percentage of available units. To make sure I was completely clear, I asked Kelly Kramer from CMHA the following question: “Am I correct in thinking that columns D and F indicate the percentage of rentals and houses that are section 8 as compared to the neighborhood’s total stock of rental and housing units?”
Her response: “Yes your thinking on columns D and F is correct.” She also said: “We only update our list of assisted housing divided by neighborhood twice a year. The last one was completed in February.”
So look at the data for Westwood. Assisted Units as % of Total Rentals: 11.10% | Assisted Units as % of Total Units: 6.27%
How does that compare with other areas? Take Mt. Airy, for example. Assisted Units as % of Total Rentals: 24.45% | Assisted Units as % of Total Units: 14.36%
Kennedy Heights— Assisted Units as % of Total Rentals: 18.13% | Assisted Units as % of Total Units: 6.59%
Northside—Assisted Units as % of Total Rentals: 14.77% | Assisted Units as % of Total Units: 6.60%
College Hill—Assisted Units as % of Total Rentals: 22.78% | Assisted Units as % of total Units: 9.08%
So when we hear Westwood activists talking about how their single neighborhood is awash in Section 8, what are they talking about? They certainly do not have more Section 8 than other neighborhoods that are not complaining, like Mt. Airy, Northside, College Hill, and Kennedy Heights. And even a neighborhood like Oakley is pretty comparable to Westwood—Assisted Units as % of Total Rentals: 9.84% | Assisted Units as % of total Units: 5.19%
Westwood is also well below the City average—Assisted Units as % of Total Rentals: 21.60% | Assisted Units as % of total Units: 11.76%
If anything, the fact that Melva Gweyn and her demolition derby are using City funds to tear down buildings is sending Section 8 to neighborhoods that already have more than them!
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
03 Jun 2008 at 04:29 pm | #
Nice research!
03 Jun 2008 at 04:48 pm | #
Just like adding poison to a well, all it takes is one Section 8 family to begin the process of blockbusting a neighborhood. Almost immediately the blaring rap music will begin to be heard coming from open windows and wide open doors. Next, the hoopties will be loudly rolling in at all hours of the night with baby daddys coming over to get a little sugar. Finally, the litter will start accumulating around the parked cars and in the yard.
03 Jun 2008 at 06:06 pm | #
This is interesting ... but how did they get the number of total rental units? Hamilton county just recently (Feb 2008) started demanding (under penalty of fines) that property owners register their rental property. http://www.hcauditor.org/pdf/news_release_022008.pdf
03 Jun 2008 at 06:24 pm | #
Oh, I have complaints. Don’t count us out just because we don’t have a Melva of our own.
What Fred said is completely true.
NO SECTION 8!!
03 Jun 2008 at 06:25 pm | #
Some math is below. Please help!
Mt. Airy, for example, has 634 assisted rental units out of 2,593 available units, or 24.45% of what’s available.
In 2000, Mt. Airy’s population was 9,710.
Westwood, on the other hand, has 1,135 assisted rental units out of 10,228 available units, or 11.10% of what’s available.
In 2000, Westwood had a population of 35,730.
So, if we divide Section 8 rental units into population, to get some sense of proportion, we get 6.5% for Mt. Airy. Similarly, we get 3.5% for Westwood. So even when adjusted for population Westwood is still exaggerating.
Here is how I did my math:
Mt. Airy—634/9,710=6.5%
Westwood—1,135/35,730=3.2%
I know rental units and population don’t match up—since we don’t know how many people live in each unit, but I don’t know any better way to get a sense of proportion given the different sizes of neighborhoods and number of people. Math suggestions appreciated. Show your work.
03 Jun 2008 at 06:28 pm | #
anon, the data is from February.
03 Jun 2008 at 07:11 pm | #
Dean,
I’m interested to know the source of total units number not when they got the data ... sorry I wasn’t more clear.
03 Jun 2008 at 09:10 pm | #
I mentioned the date because it would seem that much of the data, perhaps, could have been gathered by the CMHA count. Needless to say, I doubt that the totals would be that greatly different to change the overall point of this post.
03 Jun 2008 at 10:06 pm | #
It is not the Section 8; it is the black faces that they don’t want visible.
Government statistics hold that, across the board, white people have ten times the wealth of black people. So you can interchange the adjectives poor and black and you are saying the same most of the time.
Black is a protected class and discrimination against black can have severe consequences, while discrimination against poor is fair game.
Cincinnati is racist. It is not difficult to see what happens to neighborhoods in which black faces are present. Bond Hill, Roselawn and now Westwood. Also Avondale, Evanston, Mount Auburn, Walnut Hills. Property values go down as the whites flee and drive down demand by the wealthier.
03 Jun 2008 at 11:01 pm | #
I think this is excellent research. There should be a COUNTY WIDE parity program where every community bears a proportionate burden of supporting impoverished families in non-concentrated areas. Landlords should have to register if they want their properties eligible for Section 8 and consumers should be limited to their choice to those within the areas that aren’t at their saturation points. This is the only way to fairly integrate the poor into our communities without experiencing the decline of neighborhoods and the values of the overall community. There is so much to learn from diversification and it’s not through concentration, alienation, and isolation.
I have proposed this program many times to elected officials - all ignore my requests for consideration
04 Jun 2008 at 06:11 am | #
Fed Up Fred says:
03 Jun 2008 at 04:48 pm | # Just like adding poison to a well, all it takes is one Section 8 family to begin the process of blockbusting a neighborhood. Almost immediately the blaring rap music will begin to be heard coming from rap music will begin to be heard coming from open windows and wide open doors. Next, the hoopties will be loudly rolling in at all hours of the night with baby daddys coming over to get a little sugar. Finally, the litter will start accumulating around the parked cars and in the yard.
Uh-Oh -Boy, is Fred going to get it from from the Dean of Cincinnati and Justin Jeffre!
Fed up Fred - according to the Dean of Cincinnati the reason the section 8 people can’t and won’t behave is the fault of St. Cathrine Parish and it’s parisohners.
READ ON:
The Dean of Cincinnati says:
01 Jun 2008 at 11:46 am | #
You need a comment? How’s this: sounds like this white church totally failed in terms of reaching out to help new neighbors in need. This church did not fulfill Christ’s example. The last shall be first and the first shall be last. Christ hung out with lepers. If he came to Westwood, he’d be living in Section 8.
-------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION FOR DEAN: ok, Christ comes to section 8 in Westwood.
What is he going to say to the 25 year old single mother with four children?
Should he remind her that intercourse is for married people, according to HIS law?
Should he sit down with her and discuss her finances? For example, explain that with her food stamps she CAN feed her family, but she has to shop wisely. In other words, no junk food, pizza, McDonalds, etc. NO cigarettes - beer - and NO loans to boyfriends.
04 Jun 2008 at 06:34 am | #
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=21&verse=32&version=31&context=verse
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.
04 Jun 2008 at 06:57 am | #
Anyway, back to some math comparisons, using the same approach above for different neighborhoods:
College Hill has 640 assisted rental units out of 2,809 total rental units. College Hill had 15,269 people in the 2000 census.
So, 640/15,269=4.2%
According to this formula, College Hill, like Mt. Airy, is more dense with Section 8 than Westwood in terms of Section 8 rental units per population totals.
Others:
Kennedy Heights: 173 rental units out of 954 total rental units. In 2000, KH had 5,296 people.
So, 173/5,296=3.3%
That, too, is higher than Westwood.
04 Jun 2008 at 07:19 am | #
dieterschmied says:
03 Jun 2008 at 10:06 pm | #
Cincinnati is racist. It is not difficult to see what happens to neighborhoods in which black faces are present. Bond Hill, Roselawn and now Westwood. Also Avondale, Evanston, Mount Auburn, Walnut Hills. Property values go down as the whites flee and drive down demand by the wealthier
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FOLLOWING IS A FACT.
IT IS TRUE.
SOMEHOW CINCYSUZ, DEAN, OR JJ WILL TURN THE TABLE.
Our Mother of Sorrows Church, Eastlawn & Losantville sits on several acres of land. The school closed 2-3 yr. ago. Back in the 50,60s,and 70s people would use the playground as an unofficial park (it is private property).
There are 4 basketball poles and a sotfball field.
THIS IS WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS WHITE.
1980S: During an evening church serive, 8th grade graduation, several black males were playing basketball and had loud raidos playing boom-box music. Someone went out and ASKED THEM TO TURN DOWN THE RAIDOS. They Said F you.
From the point, at the end of the school day the JANITOR TOOK DOWN THE BASKETBALL RIGNS & NETS AND INSTALLED THEM THE NEXT AM.
Get the point - white people know the unofficial rules to respect the fact that they were GUESTS on this private property that served as an unofficial park.
Black people did not understand or respect this.
THIS IS A FACT.
04 Jun 2008 at 08:41 am | #
Okay, I’m not a huge fan of stats as a the sole basis for an argument…
The Fay is close enough to Westwood to impact Westwood in a huge way. There are 793 units there. You could add that to the total I suppose, but then again the same argument could be made for other areas.
Let us just look at the facts. Westwood is more dangerous than it used to be, has much more litter, and property values have declined. What do you think caused all of this? I grew up there in the 1970’s and 1980’s and things are very different today. It has nothing to do with income or color, but everything to do with behavior. Why do people continue to bash Melva and others in Westwood when all they want is a clean, safe community? I just don’t get it…
04 Jun 2008 at 09:30 am | #
In #11 above:
Dean!
What is the meaning of this? Are you anti-St. Catherine? How is it their fault?
04 Jun 2008 at 09:33 am | #
What is the concentration of Section 8 within Westwood and these other communities? Is it spread out across the entire 6 square miles or concentrated in a small area. Kennedy Heights is 1 square mile. Is the Section 8 housing in Westwood concentrated in 1-2 square miles or spread across the entire neighborhood.
That could make a difference in whatever dispute they have. The bigger question is why the county has 2x the population as the city yet about 1/3 of the Section 8 Housing.
04 Jun 2008 at 11:01 am | #
We are trying to make Westwood better. We are succeeding. It will be better with fewer subsidized units- period. We are way past that argument. Now it is just a matter of how to get it done.
Westwood is taking the lead in turning back the blight. Section 8 is only one facet of the overal picture, but it is just as important as crime, schools, new businesses, etc.
Do you have a problem with a progressive neighborhood wanting to be a better place to live?
And what about the people on section 8? Don’t you think that they should be entitled to a better lifestyle than they get with a voucher? I will never understand why so many people who call themselves “progressive” work so hard to keep so many people in poverty.
04 Jun 2008 at 02:52 pm | #
Why don’t you ask the person who wrote it. I said no such thing.
Of course not. But Melva Gweyn and her demolition derby have, for years, been complaining about how Westwood is “awash in Section 8.”
So I finally decided to find out if the statement is true. Why does everyone believe her?
Look, the whole City is a different place than in the 1950s. So get with the program. The more I look, and gather data, the more it looks like Melva is making stuff up. Westwood is not awash in Section 8 compared with plenty of other neighborhoods. Why her area gets a million dollars to shut down “problem properties” while areas with higher concentrations of Section 8 do not is mysterious.
white male: I will no longer approve comments from you that 1) Go off topic to make statements about how you think black people don’t act right. This strand is not about people playing basketball. Get a grip. 2) I will no longer accept comments that put a long line of hyphens across the comment, as I am tired of cleaning up behind you. Five hyphens is your limit, or thereabouts.
04 Jun 2008 at 04:06 pm | #
white male: I will no longer approve comments from you that 1) Go off topic to make statements about how you think black people don’t act right. This strand is not about people playing basketball. Get a grip. 2) I will no longer accept comments that put a long line of hyphens across the comment, as I am tired of cleaning up behind you. Five hyphens is your limit, or thereabouts.
Ok, no hyphens. I do it to separate the original poster’s comments from mine. It must get on your nerves, so I will stop.
But, Dean, you have to understand that my points about the behavior about certain people are meant to drive home the message that some people such as the ones using the basketball nets on private property just don’t get it. Our Mother of Sorrows Church allowed the kids to play on their grounds during evening hours for quite a long time before putting an end to it. This is an example of how an institution, such as the church, reached out to help someone and got smacked in the face. It would have been quite nice had the basketball players just turned off the boom-box and continued to play quietly in respect for those inside the church attending the 8th grade graduation. I was there attending the Mass and graduation for my niece-Goddaughter and was informed by her father (my brother) that this has become a problem at that church. I was attempting to point out that for 30 or so years prior to this, the grounds served as an unofficial park with no problems such as I outlined.
What would Jesus have done that night. He may have gone out, shot a few baskets, talked with the kids and told them that there was a religious service being conducted inside (windows were open) and could they PLEASE be quiet. Suppose ThatDedorahGirl was inside the church attending her daughter’s graduation, maybe she could have come out and dealt with the kids. Everyone inside the church was disturbed by the noice and Our of Sorrows was an intergrated parish and school.
I enjoy this board and, seriously, am greatful to you for your time and efforts in overseeing it. I pick up a copy of the Beacon from time to time, and must make an effort to get it more often.
I continue to be amazed at how you and Justin can overturn every point I make.
See the posts by myself and Justin on the Crowley issue with Western & Southern for an example.
04 Jun 2008 at 07:09 pm | #
Too many hyphens makes the line too wide for the available space. Highlight what you quote, then click the “quote” formatting button above.
Sadly, our print edition is no more…
What you describe sounds like natural growing pains as the socio-economic make-up of the communities shift over time. The shifts are happening. They may not be the terrible thing, in the long run, that some fear on the short term. The question is whether there is a better way to address the issues.
Here’s an example. I think it’s lasallemom who always writes about the “destruction of the black family.” Okay. Maybe it’s true that black youth—especially males—have no male role models in their life. But is that only a concern for black people? Cannot white men also serve as role models?
So, white male, what have you done to serve as a role model directly with young African American males?
04 Jun 2008 at 08:34 pm | #
I get quite a lot of flack from council and some others about having a couple Section 8 tenants in my small apartment building. Tenants such as the blind woman with cancer. Kick them out of the city—it’s an outrage to help such people—if she didn’t have a subsidy she’d earn the money and be self-sufficient —those people don’t deserve to live in our neighborhood—such landlords are responsible for the crime in our city—those landlords need to face jail for renting to such people. Yeah, I’ve heard it all. She was condemned merely because she got a subsidy without knowing any other details of her life. Don’t worry, the cancer finally got her so you don’t have to fear her any more.
In the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16: 19-31), the rich man is condemned not because he kicked the poor and ill Lazarus, not because he stole Lazarus’s food, but apparently because he simply ignored the plight of Lazarus. We are told Lazarus had some kind of medical problem; he was covered in sores and “Even the dogs came and licked his sores.” And the rich man (we are not given his name) always ignored him.
Christianity does NOT teach that we should leave such people alone and refuse to help them.
04 Jun 2008 at 11:40 pm | #
Westwood could be so much more. The neighborhood must learn to embrace the diversity. WCA & WC is looking to turn back the clock. Despite the challenges, we are better off today. This is a beautiful neighborhood. From where I sit, it is not perfect, but if perfect, there would be less beauty to look at.
The nature of the beast attracts whores looking for money.
Envision a beast that does not.
We all have our roles.
05 Jun 2008 at 05:31 am | #
I appreciate the kinder, gentler Dean. Patient with White Male. I just can’t get there because time and again he quotes these isolated incidents as evidence of racist notions he wants to prove. No matter how many times others, especially myself, point out that their negative experiences happen to be with a group other than the one he’s targeted, he claims that it’s irrelevant. And he, himself, says above that he’s amazed that you and Justin overturn every point he makes. Get a clue dude. You’re prejudiced. If you have bad experiences with someone, or a group of someones, that’s on them. And there certainly are bad, misguided, misdirected people in large numbers, in every race, ethnicity, religion, sex, socio-economic status and geographic location. As I watch the news and Chinese citizens walking by the thousands to save their fellow citizens devastated by the earthquake, the same in Turkey last year, I think about how Americans reacted to a similar disaster when our citizens tried to flee and save their own lives in New Orleans and were met with guns and turned away from safety, in their own land, other Americans. To me, that says something about Americans. Maybe the problem isn’t race, maybe it’s national origin. Something to think about White Male? What kind of a nation has created masses of citizens willing to let people die in a water grave without lending a hand and actually obstructing their safe passage? Far worse than cursing basketball playing youth.
I said very clearly that my neighborhood has been held hostage by white families in a revolving door slum rental property. You seem to agree that my isolated experience says nothing about the entire race. Why don’t you get it that it’s the same with your experiences.
05 Jun 2008 at 07:05 am | #
At the far end of my block is an apt. building where the residents are vouchered.
Years ago, about 10, the police were frequently called to the building, there were loud parties, drugs, neighbors close by were constantly having to clear garbage thrown in their yards, the children played unsupervised, etc. I caught several of the children in the act of vandalizing my property and called the police. I decided not to prosecute them and instead settled on an apology from each. Here they came individually knocking on my door with their mothers. One of the mothers blessed me out for shaking my finger at her child when I caught her in the vandalism. The mother, of course, was nowhere to be found that day. Why are white people so trashy
irresponsible, and rude?
Thankfully, over the years, the white renters are gone, replaced by Latino families that supervise their children and live in harmony with their neighbors.
05 Jun 2008 at 07:18 am | #
Bravo, cincysue, You are right on. White male and F-up fred both need to read their Bibles, beginning with Matthew 7, verse 1. If Jesus were alive today, living in section 8 housing, I’m sure he would say to the young, single mother of four,
“Neither do I condemn thee,” . But, if Jesus were alive today living in section 8 housing I suspect he would be on the FBI’s Terrorist suspect list. His phone would be tapped, his computer compromise, and his mail would be held up to be read first by “Big Brother” before he ever had an opportunity to read it.
05 Jun 2008 at 07:21 am | #
let’s see human cattle, faith based touching of little boys. Documented research of the race with highest rate of preditory behavior hahaha baby daddy, hoopty blaring rap, still sound bad!
05 Jun 2008 at 08:25 am | #
cincysuz and others, please help me out here....
See my post #15. Most of us would agree that we want a clean, safe neighborhood. Is that correct? Yes or no? What has happened to Westwood over the last 25 years? Is it not a fact that the quality of life has been diminished, that crime and litter are up? Is there really and objective person that does not understand what has happened?
As far as invoking God, I would never pretend that I could acertain the will of God. That, my friend, is dangerous.
05 Jun 2008 at 09:20 am | #
05 Jun 2008 at 09:47 am | #
Tenants such as the blind woman with cancer
M E PATTON:
According to Troendle- 40% of voucher holders are elderly or disabled. That means 60% are young and healthy. That is the target group who should get off of their ample rear ends, and get a job or two or three,like everyone else.
Subsidized housing should be reduced county-wide.
05 Jun 2008 at 10:36 am | #
.
Section 8 should be a transparent program. Anyone that qualifies should have a direct payment to any landlord. The recipient should be able to live anywhere they can find housing. The housing should not be labeled or approved. The landlord shouldn’t know that the applicant is section 8.
What purpose does it serve to label anyone section 8 ?
.
05 Jun 2008 at 12:52 pm | #
Doesn’t a landlord have the right not to accept Secton 8?
Are you thinking 1 Lytle Place?
05 Jun 2008 at 01:26 pm | #
White male: That is a excellent story.
More on the topic:
Westwood has esentially been destroyed by the influx of a criminal element. Fair enough? I didn’t say black, old, poor, sction 8 or anything else....
It just so happenes that the timing is the same as the influx of subsidized housing. You figure it out…
05 Jun 2008 at 02:49 pm | #
Freedom Fighter,
Since it is publicly funded (tax dollars) it is subject to public review/disclosure (your tax dollars at work) CMHA routinely publishes/makes available on request every HCV unit in the county ... the landlord has to sign a contract with CMHA ... this is to protect the rights of the tenant (i.e. we don’t want any slumlords) ... CMHA has requirements of the landlord in addition to the tenant ... CMHA pays it’s share directly to the Landlord and informs the landlord of the amount the tenant is to pay. CMHA also inspects the unit on an annual basis although I get the feeling this is something done with more rigor on the landlord’s with small number of units (can’t prove it just a feeling) vs the ones who own large complexes…
05 Jun 2008 at 04:41 pm | #
White Male - what does the corrupt government of New Orleans have to do with armed white people threatening to murder hurricane victims attempting to save themselves and their loved ones from drowning and starving? Do you think the governments of China and Turkey aren’t corrupt? Did that keep those citizens from saving their neighbors? If you want to talk about corruption say a word about the contractors that got billions to construct trailers that are slowing killing the hurricane victims forced to live in them.
Your response White Male implies that you would not have been among the brave that tried to help those victims but would stand with those armed thugs on the bridge so cowardly and devoid of morals that they would threaten harm to a devastated people, including the children, the sick and the elderly. It was and still is statement about the character of Americans. And it ain’t good.
05 Jun 2008 at 05:49 pm | #
Michael Earl Patton!
Are you just exaggerating when you wrote: “I get quite a lot of flack from council and some others about having a couple Section 8 tenants in my small apartment building.”?
Specifically, what council members gave you flack.
In any case, I find those that categorically condemn the Section 8 program to be unenlightened and cowards. They generally hide behind anonymity with their comments.
05 Jun 2008 at 06:56 pm | #
While the CMHA figures are good, they are only part of the picture. I’m surprised that people have missed another side on how properties are rented. There are property owners who have multiple rental units & in instances, not all of them will qualify to CMHA-HUD standards. The property owner has to get the bucks off the tumbledowns bought at auction, sheriff’s sales, what have you.
Property owner rents the wreck to Mommy & Daddy meets the owner on agreed dates to pay up in cash. That’s all the owner will accept, US currency. These properties are very popular in this City. In many cases, Mommy didn’t qualify for vouchers (for a variety of reasons) or was kicked out of the program.
For those doubting the plight of Westwood, you might want to drive on Harrison Ave. & see the concentration of problems. There are other pockets as well. This business of comparing Westwood to Mt. Airy & other smaller communities is a perfect example of comparing watermelons to raisins. What’s up with all this Mt. Airy hype, anyway? I’m supposing this Dean lives in Mt. Airy.
Fay Apartments borders Westwood & the problems ensconced in this complex are a huge burder not only to Westwood, but they also negatively affect Northside, Cumminsville, Camp Washington, West End, to name a few other neighborhoods.
I have no objection whatsoever with the handicapped & the elderly living in clean, safe, & secure rent-assisted housing. There are families who have fallen on hard times who could use a break to get their finances in order that would benefit greatly from housing vouchers. But when the taxpayers are footing the bill for 3rd & 4th generations who have slouched about, regardless of their ethnic backgrounds, I see a significant problem that no one seems to want to address.
05 Jun 2008 at 08:48 pm | #
Interesting timing Dean. I just saw the newest edition of one of the most prestigious journals that discusses social issues, the Atlantic. And though I only had time to quickly glance at it, there is an article that appears to argue that the dispersion of Section 8 to more affluent parts of town has led to a significant spike in crime. The new poorer residents in the more affluent neighborhoods are not, as had been hoped, trying to model their behavior after their more financially secure neighbors but are more likely saying to themselves: “whats so great about that so-and-so and why does he have more stuff than me” and proceeding to try to equalize things by methods that are frowned upon by law enforcement. Go check it out.
05 Jun 2008 at 09:24 pm | #
There may be a misconception as to how Section 8 works.
First, in almost all cases the landlord has the right to refuse to accept Section 8 vouchers. The only cases of which I know where there is no right to refuse is in the relatively rare “project-based” housing units. In those cases the owner—or previous owner—received some kind of subsidy in return for keeping a certain number of units available for Section 8 for a set number of years.
Second, if the landlord accepts the voucher that means that they agree to a cap on the rent. Unless 1 Lytle Place is willing to vastly reduce the rent, a Section 8 voucher just wouldn’t be any good there. The cap on the rent is deliberately set to the low end. The thinking is that those who are subsidized should not be able to afford above-average apartments, let alone high-end apartments.
Third, the tenant pays according to their income. The voucher is NOT for the entire rent except in extreme cases. In the case of the blind woman with cancer that I mentioned earlier, she paid about half of the rent, probably because she received some disability income. The amount the tenant pays is calculated by the Metropolitan Housing Authority. They do demand paperwork to verify income.
Fourth, even able-bodied people who work at a regular job occasionally need assistance. In case someone hasn’t noticed, many millions of our factory jobs have moved to other countries, with the companies receiving tax breaks as they do so. This has had the effect of driving down wages for the working class. In Cincinnati, our city council has shown itself eager to hand out tens of millions of local tax dollars to big corporations. But they have a fit when some of the working class receive rent subsidies from a Congressional program.
Fifth, many crimes can get one thrown off the program. In my experience those with a subsidy are very law-abiding. The problem, if there is one, is with extended members of the family or a friend who do not get the subsidy but visit someone who does. This is the sort of thing that also happens to those who do not receive a subsidy, as are most of my tenants.
Sixth, working with the Metropolitan Housing Authority is somewhat of a pain. Landlords do not take properties in areas where the rents are medium-to-high and anounce they will accept a lower rent and deal with the problems of the housing authority, too. It just doesn’t happen that way.
Cut out the subsidies to the millionaire class first. Then we can talk about cutting assistance that enables the working poor to survive.
06 Jun 2008 at 07:07 am | #
from the Dean -
Here’s an example. I think it’s lasallemom who always writes about the “destruction of the black family.” Okay. Maybe it’s true that black youth—especially males—have no male role models in their life. But is that only a concern for black people? Cannot white men also serve as role models?
So, white male, what have you done to serve as a role model directly with young African American males?
When in a supervisory position in an office I set an excellent example of being first at the office an last to leave. I had perfect attendance and always praised those who were punctual. When a new employee was hired, which were mostly women, I made it a point to stress being punctual.
I explained that each of us, in our own way, can impact the Gross National Product(now it is Gross Domestic Product) by striving for ecellent productivity.
I have thought about stopping by the area of Burnet Ave in Avondale and taling with the locals hanging out on street corners. I’m talking about the area by Children’s Hospital, the Ronald McDonald House, whre there is quite a bit of drug activity ongoing daily. I will attempt to gather the namy young men in the area and ask them if they can leave the people coming to and from the McDonald House alone as many of them are from out of town. They have loved ones in the Children’s Hospital and under a lot of stress. I’m told the visistors to the Ronald McDonald House are warened about crime in the neighborhood.
I will advise these locals who hang on the corners that they should try and give the visitors to the Ronald McDonald House a good impression of our city. I’m sure they would not someone going back to Lima, Ohio and report that Cincinnati is a dump. I’ll remind the folks “Don’t trash the Nati.”
At this point, this is just a thought. I’ve a feeling that the locals on Burnet will laugh at me.
06 Jun 2008 at 07:43 am | #
Anyone interested in this topic absolutely MUST check out the article entitled “American Murder Mystery” in the newest edition of the Atlantic. As far as I can tell its not on their website yet, so you might have to find a hard copy at a library or newsstand. (It just came out yesterday.) Its a pretty long article but its very good. Its basically has two parts: the first, which I found more interesting, basically explains how the Section 8 dispersal project that began about 10 years ago in cities across the nation has unexpectantly led to a significant spike in crime. After this withering criticism of this hopeful project, the second part basically asks, what are we supposed to do with the poor if this idea seems to have significantly backfired?
Here’s some excerpts: “At this point, he still thought of the stretch of Memphis as ‘quiet as all get-out’. But by 2000, all of that changed. Once quiet apartment complexes full of young families ‘suddenly started turning hot on us.’ ‘All of a sudden it was a damn war zone.’
“A new and unexpected pattern has emerged, taking criminologists by surprise. Crime in large cities stayed flat, but homicide rated im midsize cities began increasing. The leaders of the group (trying to figure out what was causing this spike) theorized what may be spurring (it): the spread of gangs, offenders coming out of prison, etc.” ---But a criminologist found the answer: “He began mapping all violent crime, block by block. Hot spots had proliferated since the mid-90’s and little islands of crime had sprung up where none had existed before.” “Janikowski (the criminologist) might not have managed to pinpoint the cause of this pattern if not married to a housing expert. About six months ago, (these two) decided to put a hunch to the test. Janikowski merged his computer map of crime patterns with Bett’s (his housing expert wife) map of Section 8 rentals. The match was near perfect. They were amazed -and deflated (she was a passionate believer in the dispersal program) to see how perfectly the data sets fit together. Betts and Janikowski figured the same thing must be happening across the country.
“In the most literal sense, the national effort to diffuse poverty has succeeded. Since 1990, the number or Americans living in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty has declined 24 percent. However, increasing numbers now live in places of ‘moderate’ poverty. This pattern is not necessarily better, either for poor people trying to break away from bad neighborhoods of for cities. (A research) paper compares two scenarios: a city split into high-poverty and low-poverty areas, and a city dominated by median-poverty ones. The latter arrangement is likely to produce more bad neighborhoods and more crime, he concludes, based on a computer model of how social dysfunction spreads.”
06 Jun 2008 at 08:25 am | #
When I campaigned for council I heard most of the current members make disparaging comments about Section 8 tenants and landlords. I heard two of them (Cranley and Monzel) actually proclaim that such people don’t deserve to live in our neighborhoods.
Others, again including Monzel, take credit for the so-called “chronic nuisance ordinance” which makes the landlord criminally liable for reported actions in front of their apartment buildings. I have talked about this before. If a drug sale is reported to take place in front of my building, even if there is NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER that either I or any of my tenants are invovled, I run the risk of jail time. Monzel says that is the way it should be, although when the police gave their presentation to the landlords they made it clear that the law would be selectively enforced. Wonderful.
When the police gave their presentation they did state that jail would not be the first option. They said they would give the landlord a chance to institute policy changes which they would review and approve. Given the official hate against Section 8 there is no doubt what one of those policy changes would be.
An association of landlords did file a suit to try to overturn the law, and the city has held off for now from enforcing the law.
All 9 of the then-current members of council voted for this. Ms. Qualls was not then a member of council.
Lately, in order to reduce the number of complaints about bedbugs, the city voted to make both the landlord and tenant criminally liable if someone reports bedbugs. The Health Department was against this saying that that doesn’t help the problem. Bedbugs are not like, say, rats, where cleanliness is a factor. They are more like the flu in that anyone can get them. Again, council says that the law will be selectively enforced.
When I spoke at a forum in I think Westwood, the Enquirer’s political blog even noted that I was definitely not pandering to the audience when I said I had a couple Section 8 tenants after so many of the other candidates spoke about how the program needs to be eliminated. I wasn’t going to speak on that topic but I thought I had to after hearing so many lies spoken about the program.
Lately, without explanation, the funding that I would normally get from Section 8 has been cut out entirely. I cannot find anyone there who will give me an explanation. I just get the run-around. I had a long e-mail exchange with one supervisor who in the end admitted he didn’t know a single blessed thing about my case.
It took almost a month after the funding was cut before one of my tenants was notified that she was cut from the program. She got a letter saying that her case will be reviewed in July, which would be 3 months after she was cut. From what I was told by a clerk (not a supervisor) at Section 8 she was cut without cause.
My tenant went to a Legal Aid lawyer. From what she told me there is a huge increase in such cases.
And yet, as I said before, council is always eager to give tens of millions of our tax dollars to a favored few. Cut the welfare for millionaires first before we even talk about kicking the working poor out into the streets.
06 Jun 2008 at 01:34 pm | #
I don’t see what’s so unexpected. If one kicks large numbers of families out of their homes, uproot them from their schools and teachers who know them, and eliminate their social networks, why wouldn’t one expect problems?
I remember when I first went off to college. The first few days in the dorm was incredible—all of the Freshmen being free of parental supervision for the first time. No one knew who anyone else was. Partying, loud noises, running around. Outside the dorm, drinking, sex, and drugs. I think a large part of it was going to extremes simply because we could. Some went to all the extremes that they could, others had some restraint. But if this had happened in an ordinary residential neighborhood the people there would have plenty of cause to complain. In a college town, it was expected.
Besides the obvious reasons of the police having killed Timothy Thomas and Roger Owensby, I think it is significant that the 2001 riots happened shortly after Huntington Meadows, Lincoln Court, and most of Laurel Homes were torn down.
People are basically the same at the core.
06 Jun 2008 at 05:19 pm | #
So MEP, are you saying that breaking up the concentrations of poverty and trying to integrate the poor into more middle class neighborhoods where they would learn, I guess through osmosis, more middle class values and become more financially secure and independent was a seriously flawed idea and that Mary Kuhl (who I heard on the radio) and the other lady often harshly critisized on this site (who I’ve never heard) were, despite the lack of diplomatic polish they sometimes reveal, basically right and all those PC egghead social science experts were (surprise, surprise) wrong again?
06 Jun 2008 at 06:40 pm | #
No. M&M are wrong in many regards as has been pointed out on this site.
What I said was that one cannot just go in and bulldoze a neighborhood and expect everything to be hunky-dory afterwards. I don’t know if any social science experts actually proposed doing that. But that is, in fact, what happened in Cincinnati.
When Lincoln Court and Laurel Homes were first built, the government did the same thing to the neighborhood that was there—bulldoze it down. That didn’t work then either.
I suspect that things will improve once the social ties get re-established. The problem is that there are too many people who are trying to stop that from happening. And city council is the worst. Instead of trying to make things better they appear to be trying to stir things up.
Of course, if people are all riled up over this, they won’t be looking to see what has happened to all that TIF money that was promised their neighborhoods, or check closely to see where their tax dollars are going.
07 Jun 2008 at 10:34 am | #
What did happen to all that TIF money?
07 Jun 2008 at 09:07 pm | #
Breaking up concentrations of poverty may sound like a good idea, but how has it ever been done? What you are claiming is like trying to stir Hershey’s cocoa into cold milk; it ain’t going to happen. Why would you expect poor people to take on middle class values? The poor people have no wealth while the middle class have some wealth. Saying this idea might be seriously flawed is very gracious. The idea is simply stupid.
How can the poor become financially secure when the middle class aren’t financially secure?
These remarks show how ignorant the policy makers are about the causes of poverty. Part of the reason the policy makers are so ignorant is that they reflect the general society that does not really care about the poor and the middle class who fear a reduction of the lines separating the classes lest they be in the same class as the present poor.
Until the poor unite and revolt to get a piece of the pie, they will always be poor. There is no light at the end of the tunnel for them and it amazes me that they seem to accept this fate.
08 Jun 2008 at 08:32 am | #
Unite and Revolt????
Why not just stay in school and graduate?
or
Do not make babies until you are married.
That is clearly light at the end of the tunnel.
08 Jun 2008 at 09:45 am | #
Patton,why don’t you tell us how much cash you’re making off Section 8? Just how much rent does a typical tenant pay versus what the government pays you?
Truth is, these people pay no more that 30% of their adjusted gross income. That is, income a a mathematical equation is applied disregarding many aspects of their income. In the end, they’re paying $20 a month with CMHA subsidizing $800.
08 Jun 2008 at 10:42 am | #
Whitemale has bought into the myth of the American Dream that most USAers believe is unique and that it was developed in the USA. He believes that all that is needed is that one graduates and the world will open up to him or her. He is blind to the reality and to the rest of the world.
His naivety is demonstrated when he obviously believes that the cost of having a baby changes with a marriage certificate. His answer just shows how marginal the financial security is among the masses, who literally live from paycheck to paycheck and have to rely on credit card to exist.
He also is in denial of the reality of racism; it is a denial praciticed by most white males in the USA.
I wonder what light he sees in his myopic tunnel? Hallucination?
08 Jun 2008 at 11:01 am | #
Ralph!
What is a typical tenant? Mr. Patton has said that he has a small apartment building with a few Section 8 tenants; why would you assume that he would have the specific information for which you ask? This just demonstrates that you are looking to find anything that might possibly justify your prejudices.
Ralph, you don’t know the meaning of truth! Where is the “mathematical equation”; do you actually know what equation means?
A lot of study went into the 30% ratio and while it is not perfect for all situations, it is reasonable. I doubt that Ralph could defend any formula that he could devise if he even had a minute understanding of the lives of others. Ralph has no clue as to how few of these people know what is meant by adjusted gross income and why should they? I doubt that Ralph even understands it.
08 Jun 2008 at 09:51 pm | #
I already explained in my comment #42 that all the funding for my two (count them, two!) Section 8 tenants has been cut off entirely without explanation. I am getting the royal run-around from the city housing authority. So, for the record, I am losing lots of money.
Whether or not it is intentional, the effect is what our council wants. People so mad at Section 8 in general, and a program that is extremely hostile to landlords in the city, resulting in no one daring to rent to a Section 8 tenant in Cincinnati.
Even if they are elderly or handicapped, or both. There is no way financially I would dare rent to another Section 8 tenant if the city housing authority would pull funding at any time for no reason. I mean NO REASON! I have not gotten one damn piece of paper from them about the reason. All I get are checks written for zero dollars and zero cents. And when I go down there I just get the run-around.
And thank you, dieterschmied (#51), for your support.
09 Jun 2008 at 06:45 am | #
Mr. Patton!
Many years ago, I rented with Section 8 subsidies and I started getting crap from CMHA. I sent to Washington for the rule book on Section 8 (it was free at the time and may still be free) and I knew as much as CMHA. It eliminated a lot of the crap but I eventually cut off Section 8 because it wasn’t worth it anymore.
I believe in Section 8 and think it is essentially a needed program. Before I cut them off I spent a couple of years getting my federal representatives involved. I think you should do the same. The program belongs to all of us and not some bureaucrats at CMHA. The people that are on the program also suffer and most times they don’t have the wherewithall to challenge CMHA or HUD. They feel intimidated as do most recipients who depend on government aid; they have too much at stake to be looking a gift-horse in the mouth.
Like with so many of well meaning programs, the bureaucrats manage to fuck up a wet dream. CMHA has more than their share of non-responsive employees and we should demand more accountability from them. After all they are supposed to be providing a needed service for all of Cincinnati.
09 Jun 2008 at 07:38 am | #
Patton, you know damn well city council has absolutely no, ZERO, authority over CMHA. Please tell us that you were just playing games and not really that ignorant. After all, you ran for council you should know how the system works. Or maybe that’s why you lost because voters saw your lack of understanding.
09 Jun 2008 at 02:32 pm | #
Boy, is that not true. Or is Two Buck Chuck playing games with the meaning of the word “authority?” Check out, for example, this letter from employees of CMHA to council who are complaining about open racism. They obviously think council can do something.
Unfortunately, as I have observed, I saw a lot of the same from members of council when I ran for office.
Go to the city’s website, http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov. Click on the link to the council’s home page. Then scroll down a bit and click on “Council On-Line” (it’s in the lower right). Then search council items. Enter “Cincinnati Metropolitan Authority.” I got 111 hits when I tried it.
Council has a LOT to do with CMHA.
09 Jun 2008 at 05:08 pm | #
Patton, having “a lot to do” with CMHA means about as much you having “a lot to do” with the Dean. You know that CMHA is a separate political jurisdiction set up under the ORC. Why do you want to mislead people into thinking city council has any control whatsoever over the CMHA? They don’t. ZERO.
Tell us Michael, what can council do? Tell us? Please. Only this time save the fantasy kook conspiracy stuff that the aliens told you about when they abducted you.
09 Jun 2008 at 10:08 pm | #
The city’s document server is down, so I have to do this by memory, but if 2 Buck Chuck had indeed searched as I had suggested he would have found such items as appointments to the CMHA board and contracts with CMHA about properties in the city.
The letter linked in my previous comment blames a city appointee for much of the problem.
Further, Cranley, when he was running for Congress, was bragging about how he used his influence to have CMHA’s budget cut so that there would not be as many Section 8 vouchers available.
The members of the CMHA board are not an entity unto themselves. If 2 Buck Chuck insists that it is a self-perpetuating board that is totally independent of other political jurisdictions and can do whatever it wants regardless, then it is up to him to provide evidence for that.