I like you Screemy...................................

Small-City Crime: Is Section 8 to Blame? is Tehachapi Next?

In this month’s Atlantic magazine, journalist Hanna Rosin explores a recent trend of crime in large cities tapering off while crime in medium-sized cities climbed as much as 20 percent in a year.

At least one report blames the surge in small-city crime on Section 8, a program established in the late 1970s to move public housing residents into better neighborhoods.

Tennessee housing expert Phyllis Betts and her husband, Richard Janikowski, merged a map of crime locations with a housing map of Section 8 tenants and discovered a near-perfect match.

But when an April 2008 study of Section 8 at the University of North Carolina mapped crime locations and compared them to locations of voucher residents, the results didn’t match up. In Durham, N.C., high-crime areas in fact housed “relatively few Section 8 residents.”

Still, Section 8 beneficiaries are hardly welcome tenants in many places. A 2007 New York Times article discussed a local proposal obligating New York City landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers. Frank Ricci, of the independent Rent Stabilization Association countered that forcing landlords to take Section 8 tenants was unfair.

But crime isn’t the only issue. A Fannie Mae report from 1999 showed that having only a handful of Section 8 homes close to other homes “positively effected” real estate values in mostly white neighborhoods. However, having “high densities” of Section 8 sites did not.

My view is these neighborhoods were already devauled anyway, couldnt go much lower, the people in section 8 housing down give a hoot about their house or how it looks and how they devalue the neighborhood, while the rest of us pay their rent for them.

Isn't this rather moot? Hasn't it been approved and is a done deal for Tehachapi? 

I'm tired and I have to drive to bakes today, so much to my chagrin, I'm sorry I won't have the pleasure of bantering with you on this topic today screemy1. Those who think just like you might as well start building a large Section 8 compound for all the low income folks in America, since real upstanding folks (us v. them!) shouldn't have their property values decreased. Only the middle class or middle-to-upper-class-climbers should be living in our neighborhoods. Let's just sweep all those people into a neat pile where we can keep and eye on them while go about your middle class business. Because everyone knows, social problems are for the poor folk (criminals!) to figure out for themselves. While you're congratulating yourselves for a job well done, by all means, continue to compare apples to oranges so that you can drink you delicious fruit flavored smoothie instead of the Reverend Jim's cool aid. I don't recommend the cool aid. I'm outta here. Peace. 

How about just changing the requirements for people to work for their low income housing?, make them pick up trash in the parks or help out at schools or SOMETHING!, this whole mentality of give me something for nothing is the problem, it just breeds more of the same, and with that, brings more crime,

You seem to miss the definition of  low income . It is what it says, low income, folks that do not get paid very much money. Low income could be an older person, could be a single parent that works at Home Depot, K-Mart, Albertsons,  a farm worker, or office personel in a local realty or insurance office. A low income person could be and probably is a neighbor of yours, that possibly without benefit of marriage or cohabition,  may not be able to afford live on their own.

Most jobs in Tehachapi are low income. Low income people does not mean they are bad or evil, they just don't make much,Wher do you expect them to live?  They certainly will not commute her to work for low wages, and who will pick your vegetables?

nickeynine, cool name, anyway, how about some control and oversight over who gets section 8 housing?, if it is elderly or single parent, then yes, they should get a break, but what if it's just lazy people who want to sell drugs or just sit on their duff and collect their welfare and disabilty and dont care about the neighborhood so they let their trash pile up?, if their able to work don't you think they should to offset what the rest of us pay for them?

I have known many people who have been low income and on the system only a small amount of them actually needed it. I was on the system for a while because I was left with a child to raise on my own and what I was making working was not enough to get by. 

I have a friend that was married and both her and her husband basically refused to work because they felt it was easier to sit on their rear ends. Then these two decided to have another child despite they could not afford another child and that they were on the system. That is what really irks me, if you have to depend on the system to get by financially or for medical insurance why would you want to bring another child into the world? Prevent that from happening and wait until you are more financially stable, before you add another child?

Well said eek, I couldnt agree more, I have known people like  that too, and they just stay lazy and their kids follow the same path, Children learn from watching their parents and repeat the cycle, and we all keep paying for it

Well said both of you.  It's too bad that with so many restrictions on so many things in this world, any idiot can procreate, at will, and without consequences!!!  The sad part about it is that the children end up being the true victims.

Whew, I am going to try not to get al social workery on you here. But I own several properties here in town, GH and BV. I have been a property owner here for quite some time before I moved up here. I owned 3 - 4 plexes wherein I had "migrant workers" living. These where the nicest, cleanest and most respectful people I have ever rented to. They were low income and always paid their rent on time. They notified me on time if there were ever any maintenance issues before they turned into major issues. I owned those properties for several years until INS forced me to either sell or they would seize my property and deport people I considered friends and decent human beings.

On the flipside, I have two "cottage" houses here in town. These have been occupied by "working class" people. I have spent a fortune remodleing these homes as they are continually trashed by the occupants. I had one set of renters even go as far as to tear out all the fixtures. One of the houses has been raided (and in the newspaper - blush) as a "Meth house" on two occasions.

I have a house in BV that was rented to a middle class family. It, too, was raided as their children were selling pot out of the house. The cops kicked in the doors and trashed the kitchen.

I have a house in town that I have rented to a nice "section 8" family (I hate calling them that). Currently, of all my renters, they are the only family that pay their rent and utilities on time and that I don't have a pending court order to vacate.

In my book, people in the low to no income bracket rock.

Being a landlord sucks.

This blog just proves that one can not make blanket statements regarding any group of people.  There are slobs, liars, and bums at all economic levels.  There are those who take advantage of the system at every age group and ethnic background.  The system is imperfect.  Those administering the policies of the system have been know to use it to their own advantage. 

But, there are also many success stories from former welfare recipients who needed a boost until they could take charge of their lives.  There are those who, because of monetary help from the system, were able to go back to school and earn a decent living wage. 

Even so, the "living wage" may not be enough to provide them with housing which rents for a minimum of $550 in Tehachapi.  Shutting the door on everyone, because of some who abuse the privilege, means keeping the individual who benefits at a lower, demoralizing standard of living.  It is my understanding that welfare recipients have a timeline wherein they must accept job training or find employment on their own.  As far as legally enforcing a limit on the number of children an individual may have, I wouldn't want to open that can or worms with a 10 foot can opener.

I understand the frustration when we know of someone who chooses to mooch off the system.  But, I am ever hopeful that they are in the minority... and, I'm afraid, an inevitable by product of trying to do the best for those who are in need of it and will use it the way it was intended.

Ugh...  We already have many low income and homeless people living in Tehachapi, they have been for years. OK sure, some of Tehachapi's children have moved to places like Los Angeles because there is low income housing there and not here...we like that right?.  Maybe there is some other way we can get rid of our poor?  I bet you are wondering where Hitler is when you need him huh?  So that you can save a few bucks, seeing as only 2 percent of your tax dollars goes to public assitance.  You should see how much of your tax money is going to the flipping Iraq war... NOW THAT IS SOMETHING TO BITCH ABOUT.  Please do some research on where you tax dollars go.....  Hmmm, no wonder Gube likes Screemy.  

Sure there are people who abuse the system and they piss me right off. We need to limit how long an able body can be on public assistance.  But what about single mothers, the elderly, the disabled, even our own children that may grow up to be poor, etc. etc.?   If we need low cost housing for existing residents then I am all for it.    If we are just building low cost housing to encourage other poor people to come live here in Tehachapi....than I am against it. We have enough poor people here already.   I'm for helping our own period.  I have worked hard to live as comfortably as I do, but what I spend on poor Americans doesn't bother me at all, I'm glad I can do it.  What does piss me off is what I have to pay for unecessary wars, or what I have to spend on people who don't even live in America.

Screemy, what field do you work in exactly?

I don't have a problem with low-income people or housing or whatever. But public assistance was meant to be a temporary solution to help people get back on their feet. Unfortunately, it rarely works that way and it becomes a vicious cycle. What irritates me the most is those who abuse it, those who know how to work the system. And those are probably the ones that you can thank for increasing crime and making schools into crappy learning environments. Unfortunately, the system is made so that you cannot differentiate between those who actually need help and those who are just bums. And I don't know what you can even do to change such a system. But I have to agree with Sparks... those two problems exist right now that are so much bigger than this and they piss me off far worse than anything.

Mimi...well said.   I think we all are irritated at those who abuse public assistance.   Indeed, if these people abuse the system, they ARE already criminals.