Affordable housing in expensive areas

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy

do you really not see the issue with shipping the homeless out to a homeless community where all the homeless are gathered up and kept in 1 location?

I am going to guess this homeless community will have to be fenced in and patrolled so the homeless dont escape and go back to the nice areas of town again.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

NYC tried this for many years with Camp LaGuardia, and I used to live across town from it for many years:

https://www.vaildaily.com/news/large...fter-70-years/

Largest homeless shelter in NYC to close after 70 years
February 26, 2007
Associated Press

CHESTER, N.Y. – Every day, a bus picks up homeless men off the streets of New York City and takes them 70 miles out into the countryside to a shelter, in a practice that has been going on quietly since the Depression, when homeless people were called Bowery bums and fresh air was the solution to just about all ills.The 1,001-bed Camp LaGuardia is New York City’s biggest homeless shelter – and the only one surrounded by farms and trees – but its very existence is probably a surprise to many lifelong New Yorkers.Now the city is closing it down.While 73-year-old Camp LaGuardia was born of good intentions and what was then considered progressive thinking, some activists disapprove of it as an out-of-sight, out-of-mind answer to the city’s homeless problem.City Hall says its decision to shut down the shelter was more practical: It is too far outside New York, and the city wants to move away from temporary shelters to subsidized housing.The shelter opened in 1934 on the site of a women’s prison. It was named for the city’s exuberant mayor, Fiorello LaGuardia, a year later. The place was expanded greatly in the 1980s with the growth of New York’s homeless population.Old jail cells in the main brick building are still used to house older, frailer men, though most of the men are assigned a cot and a squat locker in dorm-style rooms in other buildings, some of which were built in recent decades. The rooms and halls are careworn, and some of the paint is peeling.In the camp’s early decades, the homeless men could rustle up summer work in the kitchens at the big Catskills-style hotels, grow potatoes on the camp’s farm, even relax over beer at the tap room – yes, a tap room – though they were not allowed to get drunk.

Nowadays, some of the men work day jobs at places such as a chicken-plucking plant operated by a community of Hasidic Jews.Homeless men who seek shelter from the city and are assigned to Camp LaGuardia can refuse, and go back on the streets, or they can seek a transfer. Once they are here, they can come and go from the 300-acre camp, but there are not many places to go. The commercial center of Chester, a town of about 12,000, is more than a mile down the road.About a third of the men leave on the daily buses to New York City for medical appointments, housing searches or family visits. Some work in the city.Mohamed Chakdouf, 58, lost his job as a concierge at a big New York City hotel, separated from his wife, became depressed, fell behind in his rent and was evicted. By 2001, the Moroccan immigrant was camping out in a park in Manhattan. Breathing problems made winters tough on the street, and he came here by bus one night in January 2005.”First day I woke up I’m surrounded by mountains,” he recalled. “I say, ‘OK, I have no problem here, but it’s so far away.”‘Isolation is a big complaint among homeless men used to urban hubbub. Richard Berlly said he considered staging a fistfight to get kicked out. Celso Trinidad said the 90-minute bus ride back to the city is tiring, so he stays in his room studying maps of the city, hoping to get another job driving a bus.”It’s not a fun place,” he said.Patrick Markee of the Coalition for the Homeless in New York said the big problem with LaGuardia is that it is so far from the city. That makes it difficult for the men to look for jobs and housing or take advantage of other services.

Though LaGuardia was started for the right reason, Markee said city leaders found the shelter especially useful when homelessness soared in the ’80s.”The city expanded Camp Laguardia and made it into the largest homeless shelter in New York in part to sort of keep the homeless out of sight of the general population,” Markee said. He commended Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration for “doing the right thing” by closing LaGuardia.With a homeless population estimated at 35,000, the city wants to spend LaGuardia’s $19 million budget on longer-term solutions such as subsidized housing with social services.Robert Hess, city commissioner of homeless services, said the goal is to reduce the shelter population by at least two-thirds by 2009.Hess said local opposition to the camp was also a factor in the decision to close the place. For decades, people have complained about LaGuardia men wandering into town, getting drunk, urinating in public and, once, slashing a woman.Michele Murphy, a mother of two children who lives next to the camp, said: “You’re afraid to have them play outside because you’re not sure.”Still, some men have turned themselves around at LaGuardia.Chakdouf has become a full-time liaison between homeless people and caseworkers. Berlly, 60, has come a full-fledged caseworker at LaGuardia.

A year ago, all of Camp LaGuardia’s beds were full. The last new arrival came in November, and the camp is now down to about 360 men. The last will leave by May 31.Orange County is buying the place for $8.5 million, perhaps for a senior-citizen dining center, voting machine storage, an office park or affordable housing for workers in the county, which is undergoing a housing boom.Remaining staff members like Berlly are looking for other jobs. He is still interested in social work.”I’m going to miss it,” he said. “It’s like a family, almost.”—

On the Net:New York City Department of Homeless Services:http://www.nyc.gov/html/dhs/html/pro...eetadult.shtml

[bimmer456]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

There are a few who HAVE taken it upon themselves to move out to the desert. They are the hardiest of those living on the street. IT is both extremely hot during the summer, and extremely cold during the winter. A few were interviewed and were PROUD of their accomplishments.

But again we have to make a serious distinction between economically homeless and vagrant. The latter want no help from you other than some extra cash, whether you donate it or they take it themselves.

Low-income housing, as stated above, still requires income. If many were moved to the rural areas, they have no opportunity to generate income without a large metropolis nearby to provide them at least menial/unskilled (NOT derogatory intent) jobs that they don't have to commute (no car/gas).

Chicken/egg unfortunately.

They could work on farms in rural areas for those that are able. There are plenty of cheap areas that aren't in the desert, housing in Atlanta is way cheaper than LA, not suggesting they all move there but there are cities that are more affordable on a modest income, for those that are able they can get entry level jobs and a better housing situation where cost of living is lower so they don't have to be on the street.

[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by bimmer456

They could work on farms in rural areas for those that are able. There are plenty of cheap areas that aren't in the desert, housing in Atlanta is way cheaper than LA, not suggesting they all move there but there are cities that are more affordable on a modest income, for those that are able they can get entry level jobs and a better housing situation where cost of living is lower so they don't have to be on the street.

Serious question - you think the homeless people in LA are homeless simply because housing costs are high in that city?

Seriously?

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by Run Silent

Serious question - you think the homeless people in LA are homeless simply because housing costs are high in that city?

Seriously?

The HOMELESS, yes.

The VAGRANTS, absolutely not.

We need to be more precise in our grouping.



I'm quite ashamed of my actions yesterday. I was in Smart$Final getting stuff. I saw this guy walk down the aisle with all the items in the containers where you just dish out how much you want. He grabbed several handfuls of stuff and was just grazing his way thru. Then he went to the deli section and I'm pretty sure opened some packages of meats. Next stop was the refer with juices, I think he got thirsty.

As I was in the checkout, the lady in front told the cashier. He went over and challenged the guy, very politely. The reply was "I'll beat your ass down" and then I rejoined with "Really, you're stealing food and then talk like that?" Not my brightest moment in life

I should have walked out, asked him what he liked best, then got that AND some fruits/vegetables, since giving him cash he was no longer allowed in the store and couldn't get any more to eat.

[Run Silent]

Wede - I should probably clarify my statement to mean 'long-term' homeless people. None of these are in that situation solely because of high housing costs. Or at least a minuscule amount of them.

I understand that low income folks sometimes get a bad run and end up sleeping in a car or a shelter for several weeks or months until things work out better for them, but they don't end up permanently on the street just because it's expensive to live in LA.

[bimmer456]

Originally Posted by Run Silent

Wede - I should probably clarify my statement to mean 'long-term' homeless people. None of these are in that situation solely because of high housing costs. Or at least a minuscule amount of them.

I understand that low income folks sometimes get a bad run and end up sleeping in a car or a shelter for several weeks or months until things work out better for them, but they don't end up permanently on the street just because it's expensive to live in LA.

Yes but the governments solution is to but them in a massive tent on property worth millions of dollars. Maybe they can build this tent in a less expensive area and the more expensive land can be used to generate property taxes for building more tents and buying cheap land to house these people long term. The tents can even have solar powered AC and other amenities at a fraction of the cost and be sustainable.

[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by bimmer456

Yes but the governments solution is to but them in a massive tent on property worth millions of dollars. Maybe they can build this tent in a less expensive area and the more expensive land can be used to generate property taxes for building more tents and buying cheap land to house these people long term. The tents can even have solar powered AC and other amenities at a fraction of the cost and be sustainable.

Fair point, of course one then has to ask: If that is a realistic solution, why has it never been done before? I imagine there is a reason.

In addition, the vast majority of those folks living on the streets are simply not going to move unless you force them to. If you do that, they are then going to head right back to that original location for the same reasons they ended up there to begin with. Some, but certainly not all, of the reasons they are where they are can be attributed to (a) local access to drugs (b) easy access to other wants and needs, such as food and water, (c) access for their preferred location to obtain alcohol or other substances, and (d) easy access to more affluent populations where they can obtain handouts or generate income through begging to feed addictions.

[zx10guy]

Here's my experience with affordable housing. In Montgomery County, MD, these affordable housing units are called MPDUs (moderatly priced dwelling units). Builders are required to allocated a certain percentage of the planned units for MPDUs. There are some loopholes which I do see as many of the upscale/really expensive developments don't seem to have any MPDUs to speak of. I don't profess to know all the ins and outs of the MPDU program.

Why I am chiming in here is I bought my first townhome in a development which has MPDUs. My end unit townhome actually faced the MPDUs. The whole development was brand new when I bought there. My unit was one of the last to be completed. I lived there for 2 years before I sold the townhouse. In those 2 years, I watched the rapid deterioration of the units to the point where you wouldn't think the units were only a few years old. This among other reasons was why I elected to sell when I had the chance and move to a "better" environment.

Now, I'm not going to take the elitist attitude here concerning providing assistance to those less fortunate. I was a product of such assistance. My parents and I needed some of the programs so we could have a chance at a better quality of life. I also leveraged a loan program under the Community Reinvestment Act which made buying my first place much more affordable.

With all that said, unfortunately, there are those that don't take the assistance they've been given seriously. Some elect to just sit back and collect without doing anything further to improve their situation. This is really a tough situation to figure out. In some ways, I feel there needs to be some sort of accountability tied to these assistance programs. Requiring a certain level of upkeep to stay in the home should be one of them.

As a slight aside, placing lower income families in more affluent areas isn't just about pure dollars. From an educational standpoint, it's pretty much a given that education in more affluent areas is substantially better than in low income areas. That's some of the drive of these affordable housing regulations. To give kids of the lower income families a better chance at a quality education. But again, that chance has to be backed up by the parents to ensure their kids utilize this opportunity.

[Delta0311]

Perfect video for this topic.

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

Some elect to just sit back and collect without doing anything further to improve their situation. This is really a tough situation to figure out. In some ways, I feel there needs to be some sort of accountability tied to these assistance programs. Requiring a certain level of upkeep to stay in the home should be one of them.

As a slight aside, placing lower income families in more affluent areas isn't just about pure dollars. From an educational standpoint, it's pretty much a given that education in more affluent areas is substantially better than in low income areas. That's some of the drive of these affordable housing regulations. To give kids of the lower income families a better chance at a quality education. But again, that chance has to be backed up by the parents to ensure their kids utilize this opportunity.

Some of your experience is why I think it is so good that HUD requires inspections on their section 8 housing. And the inspectors I know are BRUTAL in terms of making sure (at least once a year) that the place is spotless. The pre-move in inspections is equally brutal for the owner.

I'm not so sure about the education angle. It's one of those where we have yet to determine causality. Do affluent kids learn better because they go to better schools, or because their parents (ROUGH generality) have more time to invest in the kids, and directly benefit from their own education/income relationship? I grew up in the "affluent" western side of town. But until grade 6 I was bussed to the ghetto. After that, the ghetto was bussed to my area for middle school, and we all ended up at the main high school. I still got a 4.0 because my parents participated in my education, and made sure I was doing well.

My youngest son was driven to the ghetto for grade school, then junior and high school were definitely in the ghetto. But I went to all his school events, coached him in sports, and even participated in the school boards/booster. BECAUSE I value education for him. My current "affluence" allows me to be there to participate, where those less fortunate weren't always able to make it because they were working multiple jobs to keep a roof over their kids' head. I still live in the hood today, and that youngest is still doing very well in his junior year at a Cal-State school.

[PhatLyfe]

Originally Posted by 2000cs

They should have a slogan for these communities. Something catchy, of course, but also motivational.

How about “Work will Set You Free”? They could make it part of a gate or something like that as “those people” pass through to get on the buses to go to their jobs (although let’s face it, it would be more efficient to use trains).

Yes thank you Mr Eichmann.. that's where it was used last.. and the fate of the Jewish Community and others.

[PhatLyfe]

Section 8 housing in NJ, you can spot, BMW's, MB and any other car over $50k.. there is not of enough auditors to look, they just left it go under the rug then complain no money for state aid..

[spazzyfry123]

Originally Posted by 2000cs

They should have a slogan for these communities. Something catchy, of course, but also motivational.

How about “Work will Set You Free”? They could make it part of a gate or something like that as “those people” pass through to get on the buses to go to their jobs (although let’s face it, it would be more efficient to use trains).

It's terrible to laugh, but this was my exact thought. Just replace "those people" with "Jewish people" and this sounds like history on repeat.