A family in public housing makes $498,000 a year. And HUD wants tenants like this to stay.

[Umka36 781]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/08/17/a-family-in-public-housing-makes-nearly-498000-a-year-and-hud-wants-tenants-like-this-to-stay/

[Rob L 3,811]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/08/17/a-family-in-public-housing-makes-nearly-498000-a-year-and-hud-wants-tenants-like-this-to-stay/

Interesting, and maddening. Only true in less than 3 % of the cases, but there are good people waiting

The question is ..why would a family with 1.6 million in assets want to live in public housing?

[Operator 1,925]

The question is ..why would a family with 1.6 million in assets want to live in public housing?

So next year their assets will be 1.9 million.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Report: 0.03% of Families in Public Housing Make a Lot of Money

By Kevin Drum | Mon Aug. 17, 2015 5:54 PM EDT

Email

37

The Washington Post reports today on what's sure to become a shiny new conservative talking point. Here's the inevitable headline:

In a nutshell, the story behind this is pretty simple: HUD checks your income when you apply to live in subsidized housing, but they never check it again. Most people who move up the income ladder move out anyway because they want to live someplace nicer, but a few don't. And of those few, a very few make really large amounts of money.

How many? Well, out of 1.1 million tenants, about 2.3 percent are over the income limits. Most of them, however, are only modestly over, or have been over the limit for just a short time. Only 0.03 percent are "egregiously" over the limit. Still, 0.03 percent is 0.03 percent, and these are the families the audit report focuses on. Why not kick them out?

HUD tweaked its policy on high-earning tenants in 2004, encouraging the thousands of housing authorities in the system to move families out of public housing if they earn more than the income limit for their area. While HUD gives money to the housing authorities, theyre run by states and local governments.

But the 15 authorities investigators looked at told them they had no plans to evict these families, because if they did, poverty would continue to be concentrated in government-subsidized housing. The goal, they said, was to create diverse, mixed-income communities and allow tenants who are making good money to serve as role models for others.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Trump will get this under control right after he takes care of ISIS, North Korea and China.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Congressman Charles Rangel and His Four Rent-Stabilized Apartments

Representative Charles Rangel isn't so happy with the New York Times: The Gray Lady revealed the high-ranking Congressman has four rent-stabilized apartments at Lenox Terrace, the Harlem development where Governor David Paterson also lives (Paterson only has one rent-stabilized apartment, though).

The NY Times reports three of the apartments were combined to make one 2,500 square foot apartment on the 16th floor, while a fourth apartment serves as his campaign office "despite state and city regulations that require rent-stabilized apartments to be used as a primary residence." The Times points out most building owners and landlords, including the owners of Lenox Terrace, the Olnick Organization, would like to get rid of rent-stabilized apartments: "Yet Mr. Rangel, a critic of other landlords’ callousness, has been uncharacteristically reticent about Olnick’s actions."

The Times breaks down Rangel's apartment costs this way:

Residence, units 16M, 16N, 16P:

Two-bedroom apartment: Rangel pays $1,329; market-rate rent is $2,600 to $2,750

One-bedroom apartment: Rangel pays $1,329; market-rate rent is $1,865 to $2,005

Studio: Rangel pays $606; market-rate rent is $1,300

Combined monthly cost: Rangel pays $3,264; market-rate rate would be at least $5,765

Office, unit 10U:

One-bedroom apartment: Rangel pays $630, half of which is paid by his Congressional re-election fund; market-rate rent is $1,700 to $2,005

When asked about his real estate situation, Rangel told the Times, “Why should I help you embarrass me?” and hung up on the reporter. There are also questions about how Rangel got four apartments and whether the fact that they are rent-stabilized would constitute a "gift" by the government, because Congressional members cannot accept gifts over $100.

http://gothamist.com/2008/07/11/congressman_charles_rangel_and_his.php

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

I understand the idea of having mixed neighborhoods so that you do not have concentrations of poverty - its been working well in New Orleans with the rebuilding there. I don't understand why they should be subsidized - I didn't see in the story how the well-to-do ended up in these places.. Maybe some point they qualified for low income housing and just never left after becoming more successful? Too busy making money!

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I understand the idea of having mixed neighborhoods so that you do not have concentrations of poverty - its been working well in New Orleans with the rebuilding there. I don't understand why they should be subsidized - I didn't see in the story how the well-to-do ended up in these places.. Maybe some point they qualified for low income housing and just never left after becoming more successful? Too busy making money!

Only Democrats and liberals do that. Republicans and conservatives don't.

[GandD 5,966]

A few insulting posts removed.