It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Free "Pent House" housing in Chicago...screw the middle man!

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I'm sitting here shaking my damn head, laughing out loud & possibly on the verge of an epic profanity laced rant. All in front of my fellow co-workers lol. Ok...I'm not there yet but I think after reading this post many of you will feel the same way!

Apparently Chicago has a "housing choice voucher" program from the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA).



As one of the main elements of that effort, the CHA is providing housing vouchers to more than 107,000 people in nearly 45,000 households in Chicago, most of them African-American. The vouchers give them a financial hand to lease apartments and homes from private landlords in any neighborhood they choose.

It’s an expensive effort, costing more than $47 million a month, with the federal government picking up $35.9 million of that and CHA tenants paying the rest.


In this case a couple could not find anyone to buy their $935,000 townhouse. The owners got a call from a female who said she was a part of this program. The CHA foots the full $3911 per month while she pays $0 because she has zero reported income. No only does she not have to pay the schmucks receiving the payment are just as much to blame as they have collected more than $100,000 from this program.




As one of the main elements of that effort, the CHA is providing housing vouchers to more than 107,000 people in nearly 45,000 households in Chicago, most of them African-American. The vouchers give them a financial hand to lease apartments and homes from private landlords in any neighborhood they choose.

It’s an expensive effort, costing more than $47 million a month, with the federal government picking up $35.9 million of that and CHA tenants paying the rest.

Laughable....$36 million per month....PER MONTH!!

Here are some more irritable facts about the program:




• The CHA pays for some to live in high-rent, luxury properties, largely in upscale neighborhoods that are predominantly white. Many of them contribute little or nothing toward their rent. On the other hand, thousands pay far more and remain clustered in poor, black neighborhoods on the South Side and the West Side.

• The amount of financial assistance that voucher-holders get varies widely, largely because of the CHA’s willingness to provide more help to people who find homes in “opportunity areas” that traditionally haven’t welcomed public housing tenants.

• Of those receiving a voucher, 298 are leasing apartments, townhouses and single-family homes that cost $2,000 or more a month. The CHA spends a total of $7.5 million a year on those units, ranging from spacious homes to condos in skyscrapers.

• Taxpayers cover a higher percentage of the total rent for voucher-holders in two downtown wards than anywhere else: 87 percent in the 42nd Ward and 83 percent in the 2nd Ward.


Welfare as a whole needs to be reformed and in a drastic way. I would love to offer a solution but there isn't one. You need to go into each and every program and start cutting it. I also do not have a problem helping those that are truly in need. Those that put forth an effort to work and also stay clean from drugs. So you show me proof of those two items and we'll talk. Fail any of those and sorry you need to figure out how to get there.

chicago.suntimes.com...
edit on 15-3-2016 by HawkeyeNation because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

Okay, so lets say out of the 107,000 people about 80% fail your standard of helpworthiness.

What do you do as a major with the new homeless 85,000 people? They should stay with their folks? Which didn't work out in the first place?

Okay. Now you have 85,000 homeless people more in the streets.

What do you do now?



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   
The fraud and waste in these programs is enormous. This is why government should not be involved in administering these types of programs. They have zero incentive to combat this type of nonsense and put political concerns above the needs of the taxpayers.

As a conservative, I have no problems with private entities setting up programs to help those truly in need. However, there is a fairly large segment of society that has made a living taking advantage of these types of programs. If these programs were administered at a local level by private entities, it would be much harder to defraud them.

I live in Chicago. My wife and I have spent the better part of our 20 years in the work force busting our butts, obtaining graduate degrees, etc. We have a 1%er household income and cannot afford to buy a $1 million townhome. The fact someone is getting to live in one on my dime infuriates me.

But here is what is really probably going on. The person living in that townhome is boinking someone at the CHA. I guarantee it. The person living in that property is some how tied to one of the political hack bureaucrats who works at the CHA or some other government agencies. This is how they pay back political favors by using the system to get perks that they otherwise would never afford or get in the private sector.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I'm not asking what your income is, but what is the threshold where an earner passes into the 1%?



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Nationwide is about $375-$400k. Depends on tax year. Here is a map showing what the 1% makes in each state.

What the top 1% makes in each state



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

The new Cabrini Green?



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: HawkeyeNation


In this case a couple could not find anyone to buy their $935,000 townhouse. The owners got a call and the potential lease said she was a part of this program. The CHA foots the full $3911 per month while she pays $0 because she has zero reported income. No only does she not have to pay the schmucks receiving the payment are just as much to blame as they have collected more than $100,000 from this program.


I don't get it, if they had zero income, their townhouse, whether they could sell it or not, is still an asset and they would not be able to get welfare. Even if they sold the place for half the amount, they would have money.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Night Star
a reply to: HawkeyeNation


In this case a couple could not find anyone to buy their $935,000 townhouse. The owners got a call and the potential lease said she was a part of this program. The CHA foots the full $3911 per month while she pays $0 because she has zero reported income. No only does she not have to pay the schmucks receiving the payment are just as much to blame as they have collected more than $100,000 from this program.


I don't get it, if they had zero income, their townhouse, whether they could sell it or not, is still an asset and they would not be able to get welfare. Even if they sold the place for half the amount, they would have money.



Sorry I need to clarify that statement a little more. I'll make an edit after responding to you.

The couple trying to sell the townhouse are not the one's that are the direct beneficiary of this program. A female approached this couple about leasing the townhouse. The couple stated to her that she probably couldn't afford it and that is when the female indicated she was a part of the CHA program.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Night Star
a reply to: HawkeyeNation


In this case a couple could not find anyone to buy their $935,000 townhouse. The owners got a call and the potential lease said she was a part of this program. The CHA foots the full $3911 per month while she pays $0 because she has zero reported income. No only does she not have to pay the schmucks receiving the payment are just as much to blame as they have collected more than $100,000 from this program.


I don't get it, if they had zero income, their townhouse, whether they could sell it or not, is still an asset and they would not be able to get welfare. Even if they sold the place for half the amount, they would have money.





The townhouse owner has a mortgage to pay. They weren't able to sell the home. Probably underwater, so they couldn't sell it for more than their mortgage debt. So you have a townhome that you paid $935k for and have a mortgage for say $748,000 (Assuming 20% down). So they have the monthly carrying cost of the townhome. The monthly nut on that property between mortgage, property taxes, and HOA fees is probably around $5k.

CHA comes along and says, we will let one of our hoodrats rent your property for $4k. As a homeowner, you are now like, great! I'm only losing maybe $1,000 a month vs having to pay $5k/month. Good deal for homeowner.

I don't really blame the homeowner. Anyone would take that deal.

The issue is why the CHA thinks it is a good idea to subsidize people living in areas that are obviously high income. there is no reason for someone on government assistance to be living in a condo building overlooking millenium park in Chicago. NONE. there are plenty of more affordable areas where this person could live. No one has a "right" to live wherever they want to live if they cannot afford to pay market prices.

I'd love to live in SOHO, nyc... however, I cannot afford it so I don't live there.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

Okay, so lets say out of the 107,000 people about 80% fail your standard of helpworthiness.

What do you do as a major with the new homeless 85,000 people? They should stay with their folks? Which didn't work out in the first place?

Okay. Now you have 85,000 homeless people more in the streets.

What do you do now?


What do most people do? I know what I do and that is I go into survival mode. 14 years ago when I was 22 years old I told myself that I need to make drastic life style changes if I wanted to be "successful" in life. Now, I wasn't by any means a terrible human being and was never homeless but I had failed out of college by 20, gotten 2 DUI's by the time I was 21, was working full time but hated my job as a call center agent for MCI.

One day I had enough. I ditched the earrings, the FUBU clothes, enrolled back in college & now I've been working IT for one of the largest hospital networks in the midwest for the past 10 years.

It's not going to be an overnight job...it's going to take years of overhaul. When you feed a cat milk and tuna what do you think will happen once you try to give them water and friskies. They were privileged so you need slowly ween it back off of them.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ItCameFromOuterSpace
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

The new Cabrini Green?


Sorry I have no clue what you are talking about lol



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
Nationwide is about $375-$400k. Depends on tax year. Here is a map showing what the 1% makes in each state.

What the top 1% makes in each state


Nice...hmm, not even close, lol. I'm ok with that!



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation

originally posted by: ItCameFromOuterSpace
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

The new Cabrini Green?


Sorry I have no clue what you are talking about lol


Cabrini Green was one of the most notorious and violent housing projects in the country. It was a massive high rise project in downtown Chicago. It was torn down about 10 years ago and has been replaced by luxury high rises. Most of the past residents have been shipped off to other neighborhoods.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated




My wife and I have spent the better part of our 20 years in the work force busting our butts, obtaining graduate degrees, etc. We have a 1%er household income and cannot afford to buy a $1 million townhome. The fact someone is getting to live in one on my dime infuriates me.


I feel your pain. While I can't say that I'm in the 1%-er range, my wife and I have worked ourselves to the point where we both command relatively good salaries. Of course, we do live in one of the more expensive parts of the country.

We have been saving for years to purchase our first home and even though the taxes in our area are insanely expensive, we would be able to afford the costs of home ownership. The problem for us has been saving enough for a down payment. That, in and of itself is our problem and only our problem.

Then enter the government. In my neck of the woods grants in the amount of up to $32K for use as a down payment are given to those who, "qualify." I want to stress that this is a GRANT and not a LOAN. Unfortunately, based on our years of being dedicated workers who have moved up the ladder one rung at a time, we find ourselves in a position where our annual income is above the upper limit. We do not "qualify." I guess we shouldn't have taken those last promotions that we earned.

Now, before people start accusing me of being greedy because we already make more money than those who qualify for the grant.... I want to say this... I'm not saying that the government should or shouldn't provide us (my wife and I in particular) with a grant. What I am saying is, if the government is going to be in the grant business, it should be open to everyone.

I've long accepted that this nation, in many ways, is upside down. In this case, our hard earned money that should be going into our savings account for our down payment is taken from us and given to someone else.

I would also point out that these grants are in no way a "safety net." People need shelter, yes. However, nobody "needs" to be a home owner. Either make "help" available to everyone or to no one.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

What's the problem with offering those without homes and without the means to own homes, their own home ?

I mean they're empty apartments, they're effectively useless while empty so what's wrong with putting poor people inside them ?

Is it a jealousy factor of "I'm working my ass to live and they just get given a beautiful apartment for free" ?

Because that's all a lot of welfare and to great extent societal issues stem from, one side being resentful/jealous of the other



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

What's the problem with offering those without homes and without the means to own homes, their own home ?

I mean they're empty apartments, they're effectively useless while empty so what's wrong with putting poor people inside them ?

Is it a jealousy factor of "I'm working my ass to live and they just get given a beautiful apartment for free" ?

Because that's all a lot of welfare and to great extent societal issues stem from, one side being resentful/jealous of the other


Did you not read the article. This program is costing tax payers $37 million A MONTH!

Also I have no problem helping people that deserve it. The problem we have is A LOT of people abuse the system and they tarnish it for those that truly do need it. I am not jealous but I am sick and tired of having taxes raised every damn year and pretty much negating my 3% - 4% raise I earn every year.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

There's lots of programs though that cost tax payers far more than $37 million a month that are nowhere near as charitable as this scheme seems to be though.

Why don't you complain about that 300+ billion a year being spent on the defense budget ? That's over 30 billion a month of tax payers money.

At least this scheme while you might not agree is actually ethical spending of peoples tax money and helping people instead of killing them



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

There's lots of programs though that cost tax payers far more than $37 million a month that are nowhere near as charitable as this scheme seems to be though.

Why don't you complain about that 300+ billion a year being spent on the defense budget ? That's over 30 billion a month of tax payers money.

At least this scheme while you might not agree is actually ethical spending of peoples tax money and helping people instead of killing them


I get what you're saying but if I wanted to talk about the DOD I would have. I stumbled across this article so I posted it. Also the DOD is entirely different then our welfare program. And no, just because it's not as bad as the DOD does not mean it's ethical in anyway.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

Why is it bad though ?

Would the system be better if instead of paying the rent to the landlords they just bought the buildings instead and offered the free housing ?

I get why you're pissed off and there's nothing wrong with it but out of all the things to complain about what's wrong with our society and government tax spending I honestly don't think something as charitable as this is something people should be ranting about

Say you happen to get into the position these people get into, wouldn't you be glad there's a scheme like this to save you having to live on the streets ?



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Discotech

Keep in mind that many of our people fall through the cracks, are hard working but barely making ends meet and can't get any help because they are making a dollar or two above the poverty level. Some of these people sometime have to choose between life saving meds or food. These people are paying taxes that help others yet get no help for themselves.




top topics



 
4

log in

join