I've got to say, some of the comments about "irresponsible Section 8 families" bringing in gang warfare and destroying decent neighborhoods on those other threads have some shady historical echoes. That is pretty much exactly the type of characterization white folks used to make to fight open housing. That's not to say that some of the people being moved from historically crappy housing projects to the suburbs aren't bringing crime with them, but it seems really, really dangerous to lump together everyone accepting Section 8 vouchers into some undifferentiated criminal mass. These are all individuals, and I guarantee you that your average homeowner couldn't pick out the majority of the people on Section 8 in his neighborhood.

Posted by NS | June 19, 2008 4:20 PM

Just to throw my 2 cents in, although I didn't see this blog's original Section 8 post:

In my experience with Section 8 (as a developer/rehabber of affordable rental properties) and in in conversation with other people in the business, I'll say that this program is a double-edged sword for owners because on the one hand you get regular and full payment of rent (since the gov't pays most of it) every month, whereas a lot of folks who live in communities where Section 8 vouchers are accepted will be late on rent or not pay at all a few times a year. On the other hand, Section 8 residents are way harder on their units in terms of tenant-caused damage (and poor housekeeping), and tend to have more friends or family that hang around that make life unpleasant for other residents, even if it's just loitering or playing loud music, stuff like that. Now, I'm not saying all Section 8 folks are bad news, but in my experience, as a general rule, you're getting a lower quality tenant if you take a voucher holder over someone else. And many times the folks that come along with them are not the greatest, either. At my most recent project we've been booting troublesome tenants, and although the majority have not been Section 8 holders, a significant percentage of our voucher units have been among those who got tossed.

And just to quickly respond to the last line of NS's post - I don't know if NS lives in an area where there are a lot of voucher residents, but I do live in a neighborhood in DC with some, and everyone can tell most of the rental properties with Section 8 residents because they are frequently poorly-maintained by the residents and overcrowded. Just my experience, anyway.

Posted by Arclight | June 19, 2008 5:33 PM

Thanks for the link to my site! To expand on the issue of screening: there are a couple of different levels. First, the housing agency qualifies people for vouchers based on income, assets and dependents; they also verify rental history and at least request the stuff to do credit and criminal checks. There are a set of rules recipients have to agree to; among other things they have to commit to paying a certain portion of their rent and agree to have their units periodically inspected (as much to keep the landlords honest as the tenants). They can opt for a caseworker to coordinate social services as well. Because of the backlog in my area (I just learned that the waiting list at Houston Housing Authority is at 27,300 with no new applications accepted until 2010), families are currently chosen via monthly lottery. Next, landlords can screen any prospective residents for credit, criminal, income and employment verification and rental history. They can disqualify any applicant as long as they disclose the qualification criteria up front. They have to be careful to comply with Fair Housing laws, but they can definitely turn away people with evictions, broken leases, criminal background, etc., at least in my state.

The problem, as others have noted, isn’t necessarily with the voucher recipient--as likely as not, the recipient will be a sweet old lady. It’s just that they often have relatives who want to move in and cause a ruckus. Still, at least in my state, landlords can background check every adult in the unit, and list every occupant on the lease, and evict lessees who have unlisted “houseguests.” They can get trespass warrants against continued unwanted visitors. They can evict for excessive noise or public disturbance or repeated curfew violations, or any other violations of published community rules. The point is, they have plenty of legal tools and support to maintain their communities. The good apartment managers in our part of town--the ones we see at the monthly community meetings with the police (and who are, almost without exception, middle-aged chain-smoking ladies)--do not play when it comes to enforcing community rules; they will put a person out on the first offense.

One obvious line of reasoning might be that all the “responsible” landlords cherry pick the “good” voucher (and other) tenants, leaving a handful of really bad ones to mess up any properties they can get into. But then, most responsible landlords don’t take felons either--but there are many of them in our city, and they obviously live somewhere, as do the evicted, the rent-skippers, the holders of multiple delinquent credit accounts, and all the others who don’t qualify under standard rental guidelines. I sometimes wonder where these people end up--perhaps living discreetly in a property like ours, or openly in a property that stopped caring about rental qualifications, or in the really marginal properties in the back streets of bad neighborhoods, the places that cater to the desperate and the undocumented. I don’t lose much sleep over it though (not to sound hard-hearted, but hustling landlords is a very popular sport; we get immune to sob stories very quickly). Your recent post on ex-cons reminded me of this issue. Housing is just one more problem that a young offender will have to contend with for the rest of his life, perhaps unfairly in many cases.

Posted by Amitav | June 20, 2008 1:56 AM