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.

 

Odd public housing rule that makes 3 people share one bedroom

page: 15
3
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

Originally posted by rocketman70433
Then let the boyfriend & girlfriend use the living room as a bedroom & give the foster kid the 1 BR in the house. Problem solved.


BEST advice yet. Short, sweet, to the point, and spot on. You sir are a genius. Can't believe I didn't think of that!



Originally posted by dreamseeker

I made this suggestion too.

However - - I do know by law - - it is not acceptable. It should be IMO - but its not.




posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by rocketman70433
Then let the boyfriend & girlfriend use the living room as a bedroom & give the foster kid the 1 BR in the house. Problem solved.



That was what I also suggested back on page 10... and we have since learned that you can't have bedrooms (sleeping areas) set up in a commons area... which a livingroom is. So the problem isn't solved.

[edit on 12/6/2010 by Hedera Helix]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I hate to burst your bubble OP, but to quote a familiar ancient maxim - "Beggars can't be choosers". I'll probably get major flamed for posting this, but I believe caving into this sort of demand from people is a large part of the reason the government is broke and massively in debt.

Firstly, I would be interested to know if this family had a three bedroom living space BEFORE they were on unemployment. It sounds like something the average working couple with a child would be hard pressed to afford.

If they are unemployed and they are trying to adopt a foster child on the state's dime (after all, they are on unemployment), then they need to accept the public housing for which they qualify. If her fiance has religious needs that state they can't shrare a bedroom, then he needs to move out and move back home or into an assisted living facility, not force the taxpayer to pay for two extra bedrooms to accomdate what is, after all, a luxury that many working couples with a child can't afford.

If the choice is public housing they've been offered or a street alley to sleep in, I'm pretty sure I'd know which one I'd choose.

Her future husband seems to be hypocritical here - he believes in no sex before marriage but believes it's okay to be living with a female before he marries her? Most folks who believe in abstinance before marriage will also consider living together unmarried as "living in sin". He can't have it both ways.

As far as adopting a foster child, I applaud their efforts, but if they're on unemployment, they may need to make some harsh decisions as to whether this is the best time for this if they have no income other than that provided by the state.

It's time that Americans realize that when you're on unemployment, you can't have everything you want and can't continue to live the same old lifestyle that you had before. Lifestyle and spending cutbacks are to be expected, and sometimes harsh decisions need to be made. It's not up to the state to keep funding the lifestyle you had before.

Oh, and for the record, I have the worst case of adult scoliosis (a VERY bad back) in Canada. My doctor's can't figure out how I'm still standing upright, let alone walking around. I am also awaiting surgery. I have also been offered disability, and turned it down flat. A bad back does not necessarily qualify you for disability - laziness, a "bleeding heart" social welfare system, and a lack of motivation does. I know MANY people who are on the disabled list with a myriad of very severe mobility problems (wheelchairs, crutches, learning disabled etc) who are still working full time and live very active lives. Don't use the bad back as an excuse not to work.

I appreciate your religious situation, but for many people (especially couples with even a single child) a 3 bedroom apartment is out of reach for even people making good money working full time.

Time to reevaluate your living situation, and quit complaining that the tax payer won't fund your chosen lifestyle, or an upgrade to accommodate your lifestyle needs.


[edit on 12-6-2010 by babybunnies]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


SIGH more judgements. They have to have a 2 bedroom due to the foster parenting rules end of story. There are no arguements here! I wish people would read before they comment.
They don't have cell phones, the have ONE modest car, they have $1500 together. She is going on an interveiw monday actually. They are working hard to make their situation.
I just think it is unfair that they are thrown into a one bedroom. Where can we find the public housing rules for Kansas City,MO?
Whoever thinks that it is ok for her to lose her child because she has having a hard time has never been a parent.
Once the child is taken away she will go to another family. There are hardly any children under 3 in the foster care system because everyone wants a baby or a toddler.
I don't know what I have said is so hard to understand. I got away from yahoo answers because of judgements. People ATS are a lot wiser than people on yahoo answers. (at least I thought).
THE RECESSION HAS CHANGED THINGS! It is no longer easy out there. Who ever does not see this is living under a rock!



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


By the way if you did not read they still will pay 30% of their income to rent. I am getting SICK of this. This was just an innocent post to try to figure out the public housing rules and to see if maybe others thought some sort of prejudice or bais was there. I figured a few people on here either worked for public housing or have live in it.
SHESH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO MORE NEGATIVITY in this thread. I will put anyone who spews the same ignorant BS on ignore.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
i dont agree with not giving them a 2 bedroom, a 3 bedroom is ridiculous. If he cant sleep in the same room because of his religion, then he needs to rent his own apartment. You really think tax payers are going to pay for this guy to have his own bedroom because of his beliefs? lol no wonder you got the replys you did on yahoo awnsers and i find it funny you would even think anyone here would feel any different or sympathize for this man lol....



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by WARhampster
 


They will still pay $500 per month which is the actual price of the one bedroom apartment. We ARE ALL TAXPAYERS! WE are all humans. Why judge my friends. They could be you someday.
I am just shaking my head. Makes me sick that no matter how hard my friends work all some people see because one is on unemploymenet due to the RECESSION and the other on disablity due to something that is NOT his fault; is that they are living off of their money.
NOw if I would said my friend is a drug addicted prositute than I could understand your reactions a little more.
BY the way don't you get most of your tax money back?
So according to some people on here we should have the rich and than those who are poor have nothing because it takes away from the middle class and wealthy.
That is just sickening. I just want to be sick!



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
just curious as to how the "foster care institution" have granted them the foster rights since they seam to have a hard time coping with them selfs.

not intending to be rude or use harsh words , just curious thats all ,



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I have seen poverty on a scale that most will never experience in a lifetime.I have seen people who fish in public lakes for food. I have seen others who had NO furniture . These were nice honest hard working people but the recession came knocking them off their feet.
I have seen homeless and 8 people living ina 3 bedroom house. In the end the 8 people were all kicked because the landlord found out. I have seen a lot worse situations than this before.
I have seen people who had their own kids taken away due to depression and poverty.
IT IS A SAD WORLD AT TIMES>

My cousin died of poverty; no one knew because she kept it hidden. No one knew she was poor yet she had pride. She never asked for hand outs. They took away her kids due to depression and she lost the will to live. She worked but it was just so hard to just make it. We learned of her situation only after her death.
Do you see why this hurts so bad to be judged? One of my family members was a causuality of poverty so I take it very personally when people put down the poor and the weak.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 


NO
They are doing a lot better than most would in this situation.
She had a job at the time. The foster care system does not care if you make only $1500 per month. It is more about the bills a person has and their expenses.
All they have is electricity, rent and car insurance.
Blame the recession not her. When she was laid off her boss said "due to the recession we are elminating all third key supervisors." That is almost word for word.
She worked at a clothing store as a supervisor and she started out not much more than minuim wage. She held that job for years. It was supposed to be secure but it wasn't. She went to college and got a degree while working there. She has worked very very hard.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by dreamseeker]

[edit on 12-6-2010 by dreamseeker]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
First of all, edit your initial post to include the details you're leaking in thread. Make sure to include that a common area can't be a bedroom according to CPS. Take out the part about needing a 3 BR because the boyfriend doesn't want to share a bed with his fiance. The 3 BR line is what's getting everyone ticked off.

If she was the birth parent, then living in a 1 BR wouldnt be a problem, right? The problem comes in because of the foster child.

It's economically infeasible for your friend, plus downright selfish. She's going to subject this innocent child to the "negativity of poverty" that you keep railing against.

The job market is tough, so I know "get a job" doesnt really help these days. Your friend either has to cut back her spending so she can afford a 2 BR, move in with relatives, or stop being a foster parent.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I would also like to add, I don't know about the Jewish religion, but in many cases christian/catholic religions will offer help so have they tried talking to their Rabbi? All it takes for a marriage license is like 35 dollars, the rabbi may perform the wedding free, and how about family doing the reception, I mean the cooking and just have the reception in the cynagogue, a lot of catholic/ christian churches have a kitchen plus a hall, I don't know again, about cynagogues, but if they can find a rabbi who will allow the use of the area for free at a cynagogue that has one, they may help your friends out. Even if the family doesn't want to cook the meals for the reception, maybe all of their friends could.

I understand where they are coming from I am trying to also help my friend get married, I told her I would do the reception cooking and all. I would help her pay for it too, and that if I had the money.I told her I do have a friend whose father is a deacon (catholic and it's a gorgeous cathedral in Philly) who I may be able to get to help to keep costs minimal for her. These are things It threw at her, to talk to the priests, reverends, etc in her area, I believe she had already gotten the licenses so that's the one good thing, however she wants a grand honeymoon too, at a nice hotel not a days inn, I told her if we cut all those costs it's possible it can be done, but probably her honeymoon would have to be in Canada side of the Niagra falls, which would be cheaper than NY side or any other honeymoon.
I could probably do her whole wedding for less than 4,000 dollars and that's mostly for the honeymoon.
[edit on 12-6-2010 by ldyserenity]

[edit on 12-6-2010 by ldyserenity]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Okay - this is definitely my last post on this thread - I mean it this time.


To the OP:
I've been doing a lot of thinking you see, and I wonder if I have been a little too harsh, even though I genuinely meant well and was trying to offer what I thought were helpful suggestions.

I was wrong to say that your friend shouldn't be looking after the kid - today I've been thinking about a situation me and my hubby were in about a year and a half ago, contemplating having to give up the ones we love if we couldn't find a way out of the tricky situation we were in. Thankfully things turned out ok on that score, but just the thought of it was upsetting enough.

So I do sympathise and I'm sorry for anything I said that was hurtful.

I do still stand by my comments that asking for a 3-bed apartment is too much, and if your friend is not looking for work anywhere in the country then I think she needs to start doing that. But on reflection, if the rules are that the woman can't use the living room as a bedroom then yes, a 2-bed is necessary. I'm surprised that if the rules about foster child means the kid needs a room of her own, then the housing authority don't recognise that.

Please tell your friend to stay positive and try hard - that is the most important thing, as I said before. She has to have determination to get a better life.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
For the record, I NEVER ONCE suggested that this person give up their child as they were on unemployment - I just said that this is probably not the best time to adopt, mostly due to the expense involved in this process. The child is still in their foster care, and as mentioned in my previous post, I applaud them for this.

As far as the negativity you assumed, I was merely suggesting alternatives to having them receive a heavily subsidized apartment (70% on the tax payers' dime is after all heavily subsidized) and then complaining about what they were being offered. This man doesn't like sleeping with his fiance before marriage? Fine, then he should move out to other living accommodation, which I'm sure would be offered if they weren't trying to be a couple living in sin.

I'm just fed up with people being offered all sorts of free / subsidized things on the taxpayers' dime, then complaining about it. If you want a bigger place, then you'll have to pay the going rate, or accept alternate arrangements which may not be to your liking.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   


That sounds really judgemental. He is on disablity. He has a bad back; can't work and needs a lot of sugery. He only gets $700 per month for disablity she gets unemployment.
They do not have enough money to get a market rate apartment to accomandate everyone. She never asked for a mansion; she just wanted at least a 3 bedroom apartment that is a far cry from a mansion.
THey are not asking for the tax payers help at all.


How can they "not be asking for taxpayer's help" when she is on unemployment, he is on disability, and they are only paying 30% of the cost of their rent?

In my math, he is getting 100% of his income, she is getting 100% of her income, and they are getting a 70% donation towards their housing expenses, all at the taxpayers' expense.

I have a hard time equating how this is "not asking for taxpayers' help".


[edit on 12-6-2010 by babybunnies]

[edit on 12-6-2010 by babybunnies]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by brainwrek
 


Once again he paid taxes too. Housing should be based upon a person's income anyways. Yes we have too many taxes but just think about the poor who pays those taxes yet has less money to afford bills.


What does that mean, housing should be based upon a person's income? If I am a millionaire, should I pay one third of what I make to live in the same digs as someone who has never had a paying job in their lives? It has always been that the more money you have, the more luxuries you will have. When I was growing up in the 60's, my mother, myself, and my two sisters lived in a one bedroom apartment because we couldn't afford better. And my mother was paying one third of her income for it. (She kicked daddy out because he was a violent drunk) She carried the laundry ten blocks to the laundromat every week even in winter. We somehow managed. To this day I don't know how, since she was only clearing 92.10 every two weeks, and had to pay 10 dollars a week for babysitting for my little sisters, plus bus fare to work, but we managed. Your friend is lucky compared to what we had.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by christianpatrick
 


Yes housing should be based on income! It is the fairest way to make sure everyone is housed!



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Well the going rate is way too expensive. They still pay $500 per month. Now if it were to go one her income alone she would only have to pay $240 in rent. They have never offically lived together so I think that is why the foster care system allowed them to both foster the child.
I actually have all the rules right in front of me.
Some people are right in saying couples must be married to adopt or foster. This complictes things; so now they have decided to make sure her and the child are housed first. He is applying for a one bedroom for himself. She is going to adopt the child and he will become the second parent later.
There will live in the same complex paying the same amount of rent between the two of them. I am glad I read fully because it seems they were only allowed to go to the classes together and although they are considered a couple by the housing authority. They are not married accoding to thet state.
Boy we sure live in a very complex society don't we?
If it wasn't for some of these negative comments they wouldn't have realized that. Although the negative comments were still unwarrented. Now they have a different plan of attack. Hopefully she can still get the 2 bedroom she needs. Her legal aid lawyer told her that the housing authority must follow the state's rules in reagards to the foster child.
I am happy to pay into a system that I can get help or anyone can get help for that matter. If Bill Gates were to become disabled tommorrow he would still be able to get disablity benefits as long as he stopped working and got rid of a lot of his assets.
I think we have a fair system at times but the rest of soceity does not agree with helping others and themsleves.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by rocketman70433
 


Its not selfish. If you had a natural born child would you give them over to the state just because the recession made you lose your job?
This is only a temproary situation. Yes she is a foster parent and has fostered her since 3 months.
As it is not my situation; I do not know every detail but she tells me as we go along. She knows I go on here so she told me to ask on here because yahoo answers did not help at all.
While we all trust our own judgement sometimes it is hard to see outside oursleves and we may need help as human beings to find solutions.
Her biggest regret would be to give up her child and walk away. I know it killed my cousin when her children were taken away from her due to depression. She fought to get them back yet could not due to extreme poverty; these were her natural born children.
What triggered this situtation was she was told by case worker to get a 2 bedroom so she could keep her child and she was referred to public housing.
You must go by these rules in order to foster or adopt. She was given the rules of that county that she is moving too and has to attend classes again. The rules are different due it to being a different county.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I don't know where you live but it sounds like the UK council housing rules so I will be answering using how it works in the UK and what you can or can't get using benefits.

So what about his religion, why should people get privileges of an extra bedroom because of religion, he can sleep on the sofa if he cares that much.

A child under 5 is expected to share with the parent/guardian/s.

Any number of children from 5 - 13 are expected to share a bedroom, I think this is up to 3 children of any sex, so you can have a 5 year old boy sharing a room with a 13 (it may be 12 but memory tells me 13) year old girl.

So there you have 2 adults and a child under 5, you are entitled to 1 bedroom.

Don't like it? then go private rented, they will get housing benefit that will entitle them to 1 bedroom.


Can't afford it? then get a job (inb4 excuses for not mopping floors for minimum wage).
Oh and before you think I am unfair, I have 2 kids and been through the system myself (council,benefits and private renting), we got by but I don't use magic invisible men in the clouds as an excuse for needing another bedroom, welcome to overpopulation and housing crisis, where homelessness means Jews cant have an extra bedroom benefit freebie.

My advice, private rented 2 bed flat.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join