A family earning $134,000 annually gets low-income public housing?

[left-of-center2012]

(Parenthesis are my comments)
The Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh said a family of four earning $134,624 is among 65 families with more than allowable income levels to qualify for low-income public housing.
As of Friday, 1,900 people were on waiting lists for low-income public housing in Pittsburgh.
(Locally, in Albuquerque, there are 3,000 on the waiting list)

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced this week that it intends to crack down on people earning too much money for public housing. The agency reacted to an internal audit that found more than 25,000 families across the nation — some of them earning nearly $500,000 annually — exceeded income limits.

The audit found that a family of four living in New York City brought home $497,911 in annual income, more than $430,000 above the income threshold for a family of that size. A family of five in Los Angeles earned $204,784, more than $134,000 above the maximum.
(Housing assistance needs to go to the truly needy, and not to those who know how to play the system)

Read more: http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/8955162-74/housing-income-public#ixzz3jaJddMkL

[PowerToThePeople]

1. Is this the new Cadillac driving welfare queen meme?

[hunter]

5. Yes.

In any case it's good to have a mix of incomes in any neighborhood, otherwise banks go away for expensive check cashing places, supermarkets and pharmacies go away for sketchy expensive liquor stores / markets.

The U.S.A. wants everyone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but then beats down anyone who does.

The solution to this problem is to charge sliding scale rents based on income, from fully subsidized and up to put no greater than market value. If there's still a shortage of housing, build more! Duh.

It seems the wealthy and powerful are always seeking to destroy established lower income communities and create classes of homeless people that they can point to and "That could be you, prole! Work harder, don't complain!"

[left-of-center2012]

2. No

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ... found more than 25,000 families across the nation — some of them earning nearly $500,000 annually — got subsidized housing that could have, should have gone to low income families.

[daredtowork]

8. Local Housing Authorities are often under funded

Many don't have good financial controls and lose track of changes in financial situation of their clients.

There are also genuine incidents fraud. In ANY situation where there is many to be had, there is going to be someone getting away with fraud. There was a case in Oakland a few years ago where some lame guy was caught selling Section 8 vouchers. Guess what - your own post shows HUD doing an audit and catching the problem!

But spreading around the "welfare queen" meme just builds up outrage about a phony "problem", and it's a prelude to cuts in public housing, at a time when there is an epic crisis in housing costs across the United States. Do we really want to cut what few resources in public housing we have left at this time? This is a program we need to buff up and *restore* in many communities as a "public option" against skyrocketing market rate rents!

[Gormy Cuss]

12. Housing authorities benefit from letting over-income tenants stay in place.

For one thing, they're paying more rent than the lower income tenants and that helps authorities with operating expenses. Another benefit is that these tenants typically have been part of the community for awhile and letting them stay in place creates a more mixed income community where these residents are examples of (generally modest) upward mobility.

Now the ones committing fraud to keep a low rent should be kicked out -- but those tenants are NOT the focus of the OIG report.


eta: the problem is that we haven't increased the supply of subsidized housing in decades. In fact, the unit-based subsidized housing counts have declined. Tenant-based subsidies like Section 8 have failed to fill the need.

[daredtowork]

16. These are the problems I see

Housing Authorities seem to have problems getting the landlords to pay for maintenance. Therefore it becomes tempting to sell to private developers who can "get things done". However, these private developers are in it just to raid HUD money and take the building full private 25 years.

Also the private developers change the definition to "affordable" based on median area incomes rather than a portion of their actual income. This is a whole different ball game for poor people and unhelpful for people on Section 8 in major urban areas because even the "affordable" rent may be higher than the Section 8 voucher! Moreover, if the rent is right on the line to begin with, what about annual increases?

The situation where I live is currently the height of ridiculousness, and I wish there was a way people could start stepping away from landlordism and new development all together. This may sound counter-intuitive: the demagogues of "trickle down housing" have been calling for building more over-priced housing to lower rents. However, it will never "pencil out" to rent these units at reasonable rates. Instead landlords of existing units will look at the rents on those with green-eyed envy, try to use Ellis Act Evictions or whatever means possible to push current tenants out, so they can charge super high rents, too!

Part of the problem is in the economic engine plan seems to be based on constantly drawing new people to house and throwing the old people away with no concept of where they will be housed once they are unemployed and/or unemployable. This whole region needs to stop planning for "growth" and start focusing on taking care of people from the ground up: stable employment and housing go hand in hand. We need to look at policy ways to reduce rent-gouging and exploitative speculation from foreign investors. We need to start taking care of ourselves first.

Housing Authorities can take a stronger role in that.

[Gormy Cuss]

18. The OIG report is solely about publicly owned low income housing.

It's not about private housing with HUD-subsidized units or tenants. There are privately-owned, publicly subsidized developments that may have physical characteristics that make them look like older public housing (high-rise or low-rise, moderately high density, in low income neighborhoods, etc.) Many of these developments had expiring use restriction 20-40 years after construction. Most but not all of these developments had unit-based subsidies, which means that the unit is reserved for low income people and HUD pays the Sectio 8 subsidy directly to the owners. In the 1990s the first of these properties matured and in hot real estate areas, owners cashed out. Residents were given tenant-based Section 8 assistance (e.g. vouchers) to use on the open market. As I stated above, tenant-based Section 8 has never fulfilled the promise of meeting low income housing needs, largely because there are an insufficient number of landlords willing to put up with the inspections for habitability and the restrictions on tenancies.

As odd as it sounds, building a substantial number of higher priced rentals does exert downward pressure on the older stock because there's more competition in the market. That's good new for middle income workers who can't afford to buy. However, adding luxury rentals alone will not address the shortage of affordable housing for low income people. That's where more public housing (publicly owned, publicly subsidized) housing is the essential and missing element in housing strategies.

[napi21]

3. I HOPE we all get to learn how those families got approved.

I know one of my relatives who lived in Pgh. was eligible because when social services did the calculations, all medical expenses were included and he was a transplant patient with medicine that cost well over $4,000 a month. Just a few months before he died he & his wife had to declare bankruptcy completely because of the cost of him meds.

We have no idea if there is a similar reason that the people mentioned in the op.

[LiberalElite]

9. It could be that they started out low income

but there is no system in place to make sure they still qualify to live there. In subsidized middle-income co-ops in NYC residents have to submit a notarized affidavit every year stating income as shown in their state income tax return.

[left-of-center2012]

13. "there is no system in place to make sure they still qualify to live there"

I know from friends who live in HUD subsidized housing that they must re-certify each year and provide proof of income, bank statements, etc.

[LiberalElite]

14. Then I'm out of ideas nt

[Gormy Cuss]

19. Yes, and that's how the OIG was able to identify the number of over-income households.

Having an income below 80% of the local median for a similar size household is how they became eligible in the first place and yes, there is an annual recert required.

Tenants pay rent based on their reported incomes and those over-income tenants are NOT getting a HUD subsidy.

[left-of-center2012]

20. those over-income tenants are NOT getting a HUD subsidy.

So the HUD audit is wrong.
Guess that solves the mystery.

[Gormy Cuss]

22. No, the audit is correct. n/t

[napi21]

24. That'ss he same in Pa. My cousin lives in subsidized highrise

and I'm pretty sure she has to submit all her income and expenses like medical etc. every six months. Her rent is then adjusted for any changes. I guess if someone worked under the table they'd be able to hide that income, but I can't see any under the table job where anyone makes really big money...other that MAYBE drugs.

[closeupready]

4. The problem with public housing, IMO, is

that while cheaper than market-rate housing, maintenance and upkeep leave much to be desired. LOL, if I made $500,000 per year, I'd have my own place somewhere, not living in public housing.

[daredtowork]

6. Welfare queen post. nt

[blogslut]

7. Is it that they RECEIVE HUD assistance or is it

...that they live in places that accept HUD assistance while not actually receiving it?

[Gormy Cuss]

10. They live in public housing

which is publicly owned housing for low income residents. They do NOT have their rent subsidized by HUD if they are over income. While the news outlets like to shriek about the outliers, most over-income residents are still earning less than the local median income for same sized families and have been over-income for less than 2 years. IOW, most are people who are climbing the ladder of economic stability.

Link to my earlier post on a different thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7088936

[blogslut]

11. Thank you.

Most of these articles have been deliberately vague on the details.

[BainsBane]

15. That's the upper 12% of households in America

That's ludicrous. $500k is in the 1 percent. Who would want to live in public housing with that kind of money? You can get a mortgage with that income, surely.

[Fairgo]

17. Social sabotage draped in sanctimony

I assume that your intentions were honorable, and so I must conclude that you did not fully consider this line of reasoning, or it's real effect, prior to posting. Working backwards, you state a compromised truism. Yes, housing assistance should go to people who need it. The metric for "truly needy" is up for debate, and for the sake of semantics perhaps we could honor citizens who find themselves struggling with housing with a less derogatory label. Then, you qualify you original statement. Why? You've already ruled out those who do not need help. Whether you meant to or not, this shades the set whose members are those in need. Now we know that need is not enough. You must also be a passive unit in the system, because aggresively getting what you can has been subsumed in the term, "play the system".

Not what was intended, I am sure...but what was communicated. Personally, for those in need, I say go for it. Take all you can get. If you think the surplus offered by the state beyond the ephemeral state of being " not truly in need" is bounty, you have never known poverty. If every citizen in need took every dime entitled them (and yes, entitlement is a good and righteous word), they would still struggle...as the underclass always does in such societies.

Turning now to the central sophistry, consider the outrage of the "Welfare Queen". Make no mistake, this is just fresh paint on an old turd. I won't challenge the anecdotes, they are beside the point. The sleight of hand in this sophistry distracts us from the waiting list. Why is there a waiting list? If every dole blodger were kicked righteously off the line, there would still be a waiting list, and I dare say it would not reduce in length. These things only get so long before hopelessness truncates them. Why do we have waiting lists? Because poverty begets crime and crime begets prisons and a whole system of control benefits the powerful. The oligarchy needs poverty to justify the police, to keep the precariat afraid of falling into that gaping maw. Poverty is the devil that makes the rich so righteous in their rule. ...but, I digress.

What this old horse chestnut does draw your attention to is to the nefarious huckster. They are to blame, somehow, for the waiting list. Fact is, yes, there are cheats in every system. But it is the system that is responsible here. Why is the system so poor in process that it cannot track input, throughput, and output? My guess is its under funded, under resourced, and politically marginalised (see previous paragraph). But our ire is focused on the cheats, those bastards, and they become emblematic for all, because they are the star of the narrative. No need to know the details, just remember the meme.

Finally, i want to make a case for relative outrage. You see , the argument has perverted the central concept of social/economic justice. It plays upon this Calvinist bugbear in the US psyche that equates poverty with moral failure ('Of course Welfare Queens live in mansions and drive cadillacs leeching off the righteous sweat of my brow... They are lazy, sinister, parasites...and they are beneath me, trying to steal my stuff while I am in church' - Note that everything projected upon the poor is actually true of the rich...again, I digress). So we are meant to be outraged by these stories and prepared to act accordingly. If every tax dollar mispent through nefarious deeds represented a quantum of outrage, would not that be the proper metric? Then, for a ceiling effect I would put the pallets of cash that dissappeared in Iraq and the Bankster bailout at the far end of the bell curve. 3 standard deviations above the mean. What does an appropriate response, in outrage and action, look like in that situation? Now, dollar for dollar, and assuming every word of the op's indictment were true, where do we put housing for the poor? I exhausted my outrage on this topic half way through typing the word 'assume'.

So yeah, i call shenanigans. I'm sure your intentions were good; i think your outrage is misplaced.

[Texasgal]

21. My only issue is the fact that section 8

has a several years long list to get in. This is what pisses me off. You are already in desperate need of housing only to be told the wait is 2 years! Fuck that!

[FSogol]

23. How many defense contractors are overcharging the govt by millions?

[Rex]

26. IKR!?

Um...decades of unbridled and in some cases unknown amounts of trillions down the memory hole to the MIC...but ya...home owners, they are the real enemy.

I think in a book of the guilty, home owners would be on the last page.

[Rex]

25. Socialism is evil, no matter what. So the tired old RW canard goes.

Throw them all to the dogs of war! I made my living (lie) one penny at a time so should everyone else. Problem is, in a plutocracy, people get this vile and loath anyone needing a single slice of bread. Even worse then they are heads of state.


Welfare state!

[Enrique]

27. look at the last sentence in the article

Rohrer said the families qualified for housing when the authority initially approved them, but the residents got better jobs over time.

[Syzygy321]

28. Article needs more details to be interpretable.

"25,000 families in public housing are above the income cut-off."

Well - if 90 percent of them are within ten thousand or so of the cutoff, because their income has been climbing, I say good for them. There actually *should* be something of a cushion for people living on the margin of poverty.

I am guessing that's the spread: a lot of people who are making a few dollars over, thanks to hard work and luck. And, yes, a few people who are scamming the system by showing faked-up w2's or earning a ton under the table.

There will always be scammers, everywhere there's money to be made. I think the trick is to have enough oversight that it's kept rare.

But the oversight itself is a problem: it's expensive, multilayered (reviewers have to review the work of subordinate reviewers to make sure there's no corruption/bribery in the department) and it has to make hard-and-fast rules - for example, strict income cutoffs - that lead to some people being screwed.

I don't know about housing - but Medicare rules for hospitalized patients, yeah. Lots of oversight; lots of problems. Medicare is amazingly helpful for old sick folks, don't get me wrong - but the rigid rules mean a few people are pushed through the cracks to their doom.

This week: 96 year old independent woman was admitted to hospital, too weak to stand, diagnosed with cancer and didn't want treatment. End result: Medicare wouldn't pay for her to move into a nursing home. If she had accepted treatment (biopsy, chemo, etc at age 96! - they would have paid.

[SummerSnow]

29. NYCHA...family of 15 income limit is $129,800

I knew a family of 12 in NYCHA and they had 2 apartments that were merged

[SummerSnow]

30. I read their eligibility requirements...

a family of 8 maximum income is $73,400.

http://www.hacp.org/housing-options/eligibility-requirements