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.

 

Social housing, are you for or against it?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

Im in the US. We called them Government complexes, Senior housing and tenements. Apartment high rises, first floor duplexes and the like.

Usually managed by government "agencies" and not very well at that. Some of my city's subsidized housing for seniors is very good...yet talking with them...they too struggle day to day.

The 3 I can think of considered the lowest or worse, have non english speaking, gov. assisted...residents and refugees of different nationalities that do not get along so well together and those places are not kept up very well.

I see the need of course for places you suggest, but wish there were more alternatives. We also have homes too- Section 8 welfare/social services...usually in large blocks, and spread out too within most suburban communities. Not the affulent ones though. Somehow...they keep those out..




posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: nonspecific
In theory, I'm for it.
In practice, it gets abused so much that the benefits are always overshadowed by those who abuse the system. So it gets a bad rap.

How does it work over there, Here it is owned by either the local council or housing associations which are not for profit and that is how the rent is kept at a reasonable ratte but I cannot imagine that happening in the US?


You didn't ask me but, I'll answer maybe?
Some 'projects' and apartments and homes are owned by the housing authority (local government of the city/county). Usually, although not always, those can be provided rent free or at a great reduction. Occasionally, utlities are part of the package.
Private owners of homes and apartments can rent to Section 8 recipients (if their property meets a set of standards) and all or most of the rent can be paid directly to the 'landlord' from the housing authority folks.

I work for a 'non profit' and, in my experience, they desire to make a profit, it just can't be the sole motivator.

As for my local housing authority, they are building more homes and apartments as well as assisting with funding for folks who want to become homeowners (much like the habitat for humanity).

The corruption is seen in circumstances where the 'good ol' boys club are the ones who receive the permission (or whatever it is) to get on the *list as a Section 8 landlord. It's guaranteed money every month so, why not?
edit on 4-12-2016 by TNMockingbird because: spelling



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
There's intent, and then there's reality. Like others have said, public housing here, at least, was originally intended as a stop-gap measure for people who needed some time to get their act together. I had a girlfriend who grew up an Army brat where her Dad was retired enlisted, then her parents divorced. She got pregnant in high school and became a single mom with few resources who lived in public housing for about five years. During that time she worked, raised her kid, and managed to get a Masters in Social Work. Once she got a job she was able to move out of pubic housing and pay her own way. At first she did not rent the most luxurious apartments on the world, but eventually she was able to buy her own condo.

The Authority used her as a poster child for how it was supposed to work because in reality public housing and welfare becomes a way of life where generations stay there. I know of several 'families" where grandmother started out in public housing and now her granddaughters are having babies to collect AFDC (Aid for Families with Dependent Children). Mom even said, "We gotta have her keep popping out babies so we can have a good income." Of course fathers are not on the scene here because they would mess up the program. In other words, the public housing scheme actually encourages fathers to be absent and discourages the nuclear family. That's how "poverty" becomes institutionalized.

It's not that these people are stupid. They're not, though they are usually uneducated. They are simply utilizing what is available to them.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler


I know of several 'families" where grandmother started out in public housing and now her granddaughters are having babies to collect AFDC (Aid for Families with Dependent Children). Mom even said, "We gotta have her keep popping out babies so we can have a good income."


Not to go too far off topic but, locally there is a cap on the amount a woman can receive from AFDC. The amount now is about $240/month regardless of the number of children. I don't see how someone can raise two children + on that.
Perhaps that is solely in my state.

I do agree though that a nuclear family participating in one of those housing benefits is more unusual than the norm.

At least, in my experience, the man isn't often 'seen' around.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

Not in Southern California,those are the places to stay far away from,nothing but violence,shootings a perfect example how socialism works,not very well here evidently



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

Not in Southern California,those are the places to stay far away from,nothing but violence,shootings a perfect example how socialism works,not very well here evidently



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TNMockingbird

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: nonspecific
In theory, I'm for it.
In practice, it gets abused so much that the benefits are always overshadowed by those who abuse the system. So it gets a bad rap.

How does it work over there, Here it is owned by either the local council or housing associations which are not for profit and that is how the rent is kept at a reasonable ratte but I cannot imagine that happening in the US?


You didn't ask me but, I'll answer maybe?
Some 'projects' and apartments and homes are owned by the housing authority (local government of the city/county). Usually, although not always, those can be provided rent free or at a great reduction. Occasionally, utlities are part of the package.
Private owners of homes and apartments can rent to Section 8 recipients (if their property meets a set of standards) and all or most of the rent can be paid directly to the 'landlord' from the housing authority folks.

I work for a 'non profit' and, in my experience, they desire to make a profit, it just can't be the sole motivator.

As for my local housing authority, they are building more homes and apartments as well as assisting with funding for folks who want to become homeowners (much like the habitat for humanity).

The corruption is seen in circumstances where the 'good ol' boys club are the ones who receive the permission (or whatever it is) to get on the ist as a Section 8 landlord. It's guaranteed money every month so, why not?



I am quite suprised that they are not privatley owned, there really is so much I do not know about the US!

I think it's the same here with the corruption, there is a shortage of affordable housing yet the HA's do not really build many and the local councils will do deals with large building companies where they will give permission for large estates on the basis that they are given some od the properties for social housing.

Sadly they all need to keep the housing market up so building houses that would devalue the artificial pricing they benefit from is not going to happen and we are stuck in loop.

I just did some quick maths and the average private rental cost of a 2 bed house round here is £721pcm and the legal minimum wage @37.5 hours per week after ta and NI is £1021pcm so rent would account for 70% of a single parents income as opposed to social housing at an average of £340pcm or 33%.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific


I just did some quick maths and the average private rental cost of a 2 bed house round here is £721pcm and the legal minimum wage @37.5 hours per week after ta and NI is £1021pcm so rent would account for 70% of a single parents income as opposed to social housing at an average of £340pcm or 33%.


I don't see how anyone making only the minimum wage (assuming a 40 hour work week) in the US is surviving, truly.
Just now, talking with one of my friends...I described a home I rented for awhile.

6 bed/4 bath (he says it was decadent but, truly, it was necessary!) cost $1500/month. It was not posh, it was a basic home albeit large.
Currently I rent a 4 bed/1 1/2 bath home in town for $600/month.

No utilities included in either situation.

Ideally one would hope that their rent is less than %30 of their income, I think, and creditors, I believe, look at that as a model.

I was very lucky, IMO, to find such an inexpensive (decent) home this time in town and it has served it's purpose well.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TNMockingbird
a reply to: nonspecific


I just did some quick maths and the average private rental cost of a 2 bed house round here is £721pcm and the legal minimum wage @37.5 hours per week after ta and NI is £1021pcm so rent would account for 70% of a single parents income as opposed to social housing at an average of £340pcm or 33%.


I don't see how anyone making only the minimum wage (assuming a 40 hour work week) in the US is surviving, truly.


I worked at the minimum wage for several years working retail jobs at the local mall. I was single and very frugal. I rented a room instead of a whole apartment. I had a very old car for transport. I did not buy new clothes or go to movies. I did not drink, smoke, or do drugs, all of which were expensive. I did not have a telephone or cable. or a TV. My diet was probably not the best, but I remained thin! I had no health care at all. I paid my bills and had no debt except a student loan I kept up with.

Yet I look back on that time of my life as one of the happiest times of all. I had an active social life. My job in a bookstore was fun, though often hard work. It was a very creative period. I wouldn't trade it for anything.





edit on 12/4/2016 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: TNMockingbird
a reply to: nonspecific


I just did some quick maths and the average private rental cost of a 2 bed house round here is £721pcm and the legal minimum wage @37.5 hours per week after ta and NI is £1021pcm so rent would account for 70% of a single parents income as opposed to social housing at an average of £340pcm or 33%.


I don't see how anyone making only the minimum wage (assuming a 40 hour work week) in the US is surviving, truly.


I worked at the minimum wage for several years working retail jobs at the local mall. I was single and very frugal. I rented a room instead of a whole apartment. I had a very old car for transport. I did not buy new clothes or go to movies. I did not drink, smoke, or do drugs, all of which were expensive. I did not have a telephone or cable. or a TV. My diet was probably not the best, but I remained thin! I had no health care at all. I paid my bills and had no debt except a student loan I kept up with.

Yet I look back on that time of my life as one of the happiest times of all. I had an active social life. My job in a bookstore was fun, though often hard work. It was a very creative period. I wouldn't trade it for anything.






I agree that money does not bring happiness but what was the major outgoing that deprived you of all those things?

It saddens me that people have a hard life because landlords charge eessive rates for what should be one of the basics of human existence, a roof over your head is not too much to ask for really is it?



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

Interesting and timely topic, at least from my perspective.

In the US we call "social housing" "public housing" or some of it refer to it as Section 8 housing. Back in the day, public housing, or housing projects were Stalin type Apartment blocks like Chicago's Cabrini Green. They were just huge high rise apartment buildings where the government offered low rent/no rent housing and they stacked in the poor like cord wood. For the most part, they've bulldozed those type buildings and have, since the Clinton (Bill) era, relocated the cord wood into new two, maybe three, story modern type apartment units that more resemble private units. (I'm giving more information than you asked for). What they did was they contracted with private building contractors to build out these apartment complexes along major roads in the suburbs; the building contractors got rich of course, then turned the completed units over to government contracted management companies. The downside, from an economic standpoint, is that the "land" upon which these buildings were built, and the buildings themselves, were exempted from local school districts and government taxing jurisdictions. That meant that as the children of the cord wood was crammed into these units, they then poured into the school districts but the property they lived in didn't contribute any funding to the local school districts.

Am I for it or against it? For years I was very much against it because where ever these apartments were built, the surrounding "subdivisions" of privately owned homes saw their property values plunge in value to such an extent that many buyers of those homes found themselves what we call in the States, "upside down" on their mortgages, which meant they owed more than the present day selling value of the homes. The result has been that now, those subdivisions, have been bought up by "investors" as rental properties and they then rent those very same single family dwellings to HUD (Federal Office of Housing and Urban Development----i.e., Section 8 Housing Administration) who uses them as Section 8 housing.

The result of all this is chaos in terms of housing values and I've long recommended that in the US, buying residential real estate should be avoided at all costs in and around any of the major metropolitan areas. You all most invariably find yourself buying high and then being forced to sell low as the contractors bulldozers move in to build a 3,000 unit Section 8 apartment complex. Smart Americans only buy "rural" housing/property 100 miles or more from one of the Urban pits of despair. The exception to this rule is where one is wealthy enough to buy into a gated complex complete with golf course, guards, country club and small plane airfield.

Am I for it or against it today? Today, I live 120 miles from the nearest "city"; I literally live at the end of the road, so I'm pretty ambivalent about public housing. My daughter, who was, for years, savagely beaten by her husband was forced to divorce him to save her and her three children's lives and now she has no choice but to live in Section 8 Apartment complex. We stayed with her and our grandkids at that apartment complex just last week for a visit.

My report: The apartments are clean, well managed and feature a very culturally and racially diverse population who, for the most part are very friendly. One of my grand kids was beaten up by a group of black kids and he suffered a broken collar bone, but...........that's pretty much to be expected, things being the way they are in the US. So, one has to be careful about their comings and goings to avoid what we term, "the hostiles". There is of course the occasional killing and firearms are routinely discharged in the parking lot on Saturday nights, but one learns to stay indoors after the sun sets.

I'm not against public housing and it is being done in a better way today than in the past.

The curiosity of public housing is, that for the most part, they serve the "working" poor. If US employers paid a "living" wage, there would be far less need for public housing. So, in a sense, in the US, tax payers are subsidizing business. That's kind of strange in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
nvm
edit on 12.4.2016 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Here's some examples from the past.

(Pruitt Igoe)


&

(Cabrini Green)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

I'm a big supporter of social housing.

Many of the UK's problems can be traced back to Thatcher and her policy of selling off council housing whilst banning the building of any more new council housing.

It certainly fuelled spiralling house prices, something we are still paying the price for.
It led to a rapid increase in private renting costs and in my personal opinion contributed to the breakdown in the 'sense of community' that prevailed in many council estates but is now virtually non-existent.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

I am all for assisted housing for truly disabled people.

We already have housing for non-disabled people.... they are called barracks and can be found when you enlist.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: nonspecific

I am all for assisted housing for truly disabled people.

We already have housing for non-disabled people.... they are called barracks and can be found when you enlist.



So are you suggesting that if you are on a low income you should be forced to enlist in the army?



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: nonspecific

I am all for assisted housing for truly disabled people.

We already have housing for non-disabled people.... they are called barracks and can be found when you enlist.



So are you suggesting that if you are on a low income you should be forced to enlist in the army?


I did. Best decision I ever made.

Now, I wish there was something resembling the military & peace corp that did infrastructure for our young to enter and get job skills domestically.

Paying people to do nothing is completely foolish.
edit on 4-12-2016 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Am all for it for people who need it and use it the way it's meant to be used.

Also all for tightening restrictions and implementing much harsher penalties for people who sublet. Right now subletting is a massive problem, you have what is essentially African slum lords in London that work cash in hand, claim full benefits and sublet their council properties to Romanian/Polish immigrants that end up living 4 or 5 to a room. It's disgusting.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: nonspecific

I am all for assisted housing for truly disabled people.

We already have housing for non-disabled people.... they are called barracks and can be found when you enlist.



So are you suggesting that if you are on a low income you should be forced to enlist in the army?


I did. Best decision I ever made.

Now, I wish there was something resembling the military & peace corp that did infrastructure for our young to enter and get job skills domestically.

Paying people to do nothing is completely foolish.


What you are suggesting would be a well structured education system would it not?

I fail to see how creating robotic drones willing to kill without questioning is benificial to a well balenced society?



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Worked my ass off to make something of my life without relying on hand outs from anyone .
No interest in going back nor in supporting a bunch of deadbeats that do nothing other than leech off others and whine that the world owes them .

And no government should not bail their useless asses out . Nor should it support them .



wow!

Those people who label 'everyone' on social housing the same.

There are SOME respectful people lliving in Council houses/apartments.

I guess by your comments, you have only ever visited areas with 'low life deadbeats' as you say.




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join