Subsidized housing and crime?

[Felix]

From the May 10th TFP:

The number of homes in Hamilton County
communities around Chattanooga approved this year
for federally subsidized housing has increased, records show.

In Red Bank, the number of residences in the housing choice
voucher program, formerly known as Section 8, has risen
from 135 in 2004 to 173 in 2007, according to the latest
Chattanooga Housing Authority figures.


Tammie Reeves, voucher program director with the
housing authority, said that in October 2006 officials
started allowing victims of condemned housing to have
first priority for housing voucher homes.

Immediately after the above excerpt, Red Bank Chief of Police Larry Sneed attributed an increase in crime in RB to the relocated public housing residents issued Housing Choice Vouchers to rent in privately owned units.

Further down in the article, Chief Sneed does credit CHA with terminating assistance to residents involved in crime in RB.

The bottom line on crime in rental units is that a landlord who carefully screens prospective tenants can avoid most problems of this sort. It has always been the policy of CHA, following guidance from HUD, to bar participation in the various housing programs by those with serious criminal records, and to drop from any program participants who are proven to be in violation of regulations.

I guarantee that any landlord who does not screen tenants will have trouble, and this is true whether or not the tenant is on a public housing program.

[stray]

The problem is that 'careful, prospective screening' can lead to claims of profiling and racism.

[Justin Thyme]

What would be the minimum screening procedure you would recommend, Marvell?

[Kordax]

All the landlords' fault?

Why does Section 8 allow criminals the privlege of government rent subsidies in the 1st place? I can just see the people at the housing authority (picture Nigerian-style scam "I need your bank account # & we'll split this $200K I found" boiler rooms):

Clerk ambles up to the front of the office & prepares to ring a wall-mounted bell: "Another criminal deftly used Section 8 to get into a Hixson/Red Bank/East Ridge house!" RING! RING! RING! RING!!!!!

[Felix]

Justin, screening means anything legal, including credit checks, verifying past rental records, public legal proceedings (many sources online) and much else. The key is that all prospective tenants go through the same process. Some of this-credit checks-costs money, but it is legal to charge an application fee to cover this, also with the proviso that all applicants get the same treatment.

Kordax, you enjoy so much your scenarios of inept and/or corrupt public employees eagerly extending assistance to criminals that I hate to contradict you, but:

Jumping Jack Fax, Nah, nah, nah!

(appy polly loggies to the Stones.)

As I pointed out above, criminal background checks on all prospective participants are done, subject to appeal (as are all decisions denying or terminating assistance.)

When I left, similar checks were in the works for the yearly re-exams. Since almost nobody I worked with is any longer there, I can't easily check up on that.

Stray, "profiling and racism" charges are defused by the above equal treatment in the approval process.

[stray]

You don't seem to understand, though... True equality isn't what 'folks' are looking for. If they don't get preferential treatment, they'd play the 'race card' like they were on the World Poker Tour.

[Justin Thyme]

play the 'race card' like they were on the World Poker Tour.

I missed that episode.

[Felix]

Justin, I missed that show as well.

Of course, I would as soon watch paint dry as watch poker on TV, but I digress.

Stray, the point of absolutely equal procedure for any applicant is to obviate charges of "discrimination." We are not talking "quotas" but treating all applicants alike. You seem to believe and imply that all programs are slanted towards one certain group, but barring individual cases of discrimination, the policy is that only economic factors, sometimes augmented by consideration for involuntary displacement or family violence, will guide admission. Nothing is perfect, but those are reasonable parameters.

I know you believe otherwise, but I had seventeen years of close-up experience, and what I say above is my considered opinion.

[stray]

I understand and respect the fact that you've had so much experience....but even though the 'process' would stand up to a test in the 'scientific method,' the fact remains that certain ethnic groups feel the need for entitlements and special consideration.

I respect numbers on a spreadsheet. If a process is truly fair in all angles, I can respect that.

There are those, however, that can't/won't.

[Felix]

True, there are plenty of people who want to game the system, whatever the system is, and feel entitled so to do.

That's why the rules are there, and why they are structured the way they are.

It might be of interest to you that many persons of the majority demographic would argue that they were disadvantaged precisely because of the entitlement mentality of the demographic I am sure you meant to reference.

So you have incoming fire from more than one direction.

Not saying, or anything.

Just saying.

[stray]

...and one thing that many in the current majority really don't grasp yet is that their majority status will be changing much sooner than they think. At that point, will they be eligible for minority status? It's only fair, after all...

...but I digress...