TimesArgus.com - We Are Vermont

Section 8 housing feeling strained



Toolbox

By STEPHANIE M. PETERS Staff writer - Published: July 19, 2009

In Vermont, applicants for the federal Section 8 voucher program have long faced a wait for housing assistance.

Now more than ever, however, local housing authorities are finding themselves caught in a balancing act as they try to accommodate the demand for the program – as the economy has faltered, more and more applications are being received. The portion of the rent costs the housing authority pays for its voucher holders has also increased as voucher holders join the unemployment rolls.

The only portion of the equation not growing at an equitable rate is the budget local housing authorities receive from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to pay for the program.

In both Rutland and Barre, the executive directors of the housing authorities say their programs are currently oversubscribed – in other words, the cost of the vouchers they have in circulation are greater than their monthly budgets.

At Rutland Housing Authority, the disparity has staff implementing "interventions" in the way it has traditionally administered the program to help bring their costs into check.

In Barre, the situation isn't quite so precarious.

Thanks to recent news that it will receive a small increase in its monthly budget, the Barre Housing Authority will even issue a few new vouchers this week, but will still likely rely on its reserve funds to help make up its budget gap, according to Executive Director Chip Castle.

"Our funding situation has improved a little bit," Castle said in an interview Thursday. "We were hoping it would work out that way, but it still wouldn't be a surprise if we ended up finishing the year in a slight deficit."

To be eligible for the Housing Choice Voucher program, or Section 8 as it was once called and still commonly known, a household's annual gross income can't exceed 30 percent of the county's median income.

According to HUD, in 2008 that meant that, nationally, a family of four living on about $19,450 would be at 30 percent of the median income. The median family income was $64,800, according to the department.

With a voucher, participants pay a percentage of their adjusted monthly income, usually between 30 and 40 percent, toward their rent and the rest is covered by the housing authority.

In an economy where unemployment continues to rise monthly, housing authorities have seen these unfixed financial responsibilities fluctuate as participants once employed full-time pick up part-time jobs to get by, and others remain unemployed.

"I've had folks who've lost their jobs," said Patty Alberti, the Section 8 administrator in Rutland. "Thirty percent of nothing is nothing. So we've had to pay entire rents."

According to Kevin Loso, executive director of the Rutland Housing Authority, larger housing authorities have so many vouchers they can absorb such a change in the economy, but at a smaller agency like Rutland, which only has 70 vouchers, it can wreak havoc with the finances.

"When you only have 70 (vouchers) its much more of a balancing act," he said earlier this month. "It doesn't take too many changes in the voucher holders to end up in a situation where we have nowhere near enough money to pay for the vouchers that are out there."

To help rein in costs, Rutland began implanting two interventions in its program about six to nine months ago, Loso said.

First, it has become more stringent about its eligibility for applicants claiming a need for larger apartments. For example, a family consisting of a mother, father and two kids would qualify for a two-bedroom – not a three-bedroom apartment, according to Loso.

And though Rutland has put a freeze on its voucher issuance, when it does begin handing them out again, it will "pick and choose" applicants seeking efficiency or one-bedroom apartments off its waiting list rather than go in order of application. According to Alberti, this is because the housing authority can't currently afford the more expensive two- and three-bedroom apartments.

"This will be the first time in the program's history we've had to do that, but it's happened in other parts of the country as well," Loso said. "I have colleagues around the state who are in the same situation. The end result is that in Section 8, you're not funded to the level needed."

Of the 70 vouchers the Rutland Housing Authority owns, 68 are currently in use. Forty-one of those are one-bedroom apartments, 14 are two-bedrooms, 11 are three-bedrooms and only two are efficiency apartments. Next month, the number of vouchers in use will dip to 66, helping reduce costs slightly, Alberti said.

The waiting list in Rutland, meanwhile, has jumped from about a year to a year-and-a-half's wait that it used to be before the economy collapsed to more than two years.

An even longer wait exists in Barre, where 220 families have been approved for the program – a process that involves background, criminal and bank account checks, and is good for only six months before the application must be updated, according to Castle.

Applicants are told they can expect a two to three year wait, but still Castle encourages them to apply for both public housing and Section 8, as well as to other housing authorities throughout the state, he said.

Despite owning 135 vouchers, up until last week Castle only had the funding to cover having only 117 in use.

"It's frustrating because you're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place," Castle said. "You don't want to give false hope, but at the same time you don't want to say 'there is no hope for you.' Right now it's just a matter of hurry up and wait."

stephanie.peters@rutlandherald.com








READER COMMENTS


I am all for helping the people that are in a bind and are doing everything they can to get out of the bind they are in. What I don't agree with, however, is the mother of 5 kids, 3 different fathers who doesn't work and only collects child support checks and public assistance. This woman was driving a $40,000 SUV until it was repossessed. I am sickened that my tax dollars are paying for her to lay on her back and keep giving birth. I think before our tax dollars are given to "needy" families, a complete look at the situation should occur. When people knowingly put themselves in a situation, that is not something we tax payers should be footing the bill for.
-- Posted by None None on Wed, Jul 22, 2009, 10:43 am EST

report this comment



Walt - I have to disagree on a small but important point:

I strongly believe that motivation DOES drive behavior. Motivation doesn't guarantee you'll be a billionaire. If circumstances controlled outcomes we would all be born into our fate.

The easiest example of motivation driving behavior is the numerous sports analogies we all know. Without motivation there will never be success. I know many people (some living, some not) that grew up in the Great Depression and were dirt poor. Some had only a 5th or 6th grade education. They worked hard and sought to make a life. They wanted their kids to do better. You know the rest of the story with a happy ending.

Christina, your story is a positive one. Thanks for sharing so much about yourself. I don't think you would EVER be on TANF if you had kids. You have a college degree and you're intelligent. You'd get hired anywhere. I'll spare the readers my self-efficacy rant, Herb Brooks and 1980.................

.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Tue, Jul 21, 2009, 4:16 pm EST

report this comment



"By saying that as long as it is legal we can't stop them from taking social services money for cigerettes . . . . Get on the system when you need it, use the system for what it was intended. Since the Government is the watcher of my tax money I expect them to discipline its proper use."

What is your solution that would stop a cigarette-addicted parent from using an EBT card to buy them? That's all I am asking. If you make that a prohibited transaction, then what do you do to force someone to beat an addiction she is not ready to deal with? If she were ready, she would not be buying a carton of cigarettes.

I think first the state or federal government would have to look at the legality of prohibiting cigarette purchases with that card. If that was an EASY or even legal prohibition to set up, don't you think it would have been done already, even in another state? And would your solution cost less than letting these people smoke? I remember a ridiculous argument in another thread over blood- and urine-testing people receiving TANF. It all boils down to legality and the cost to prevent the wasting of small amounts of money.
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Tue, Jul 21, 2009, 1:56 pm EST

report this comment



Bill B: "Poor Farms were funded with charitable acts."

And how effective were poor farms in not becoming a lifestyle choice?

I am all for further tweaks to TANF and experiments. The success of changes must show the children growing up on TANF appear in fewer numbers as adults than the prior generation, correcting for family size differences. That is how success of the program should be measured.

My mother only had two children on TANF. While some may scoff at that she should not have been supported for 20 years, the elevation of both her children to educations beyond hers, one with a GED and one with a BS, should be seen as Vermont having done something right in the last 30-40 years in providing opportunity to poor children. Neither adult child has ever received TANF, mainly because neither had children.
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Tue, Jul 21, 2009, 1:55 pm EST

report this comment



"By saying that as long as it is legal we can't stop them from taking social services money for cigerettes . . . . Get on the system when you need it, use the system for what it was intended. Since the Government is the watcher of my tax money I expect them to discipline its proper use."

What is your solution that would stop a cigarette-addicted parent from using an EBT card to buy them? That's all I am asking. If you make that a prohibited transaction, then what do you do to force someone to beat an addiction she is not ready to deal with? If she were ready, she would not be buying a carton of cigarettes.

I think first the state or federal government would have to look at the legality of prohibiting cigarette purchases with that card. If that was an EASY or even legal prohibition to set up, don't you think it would have been done already, even in another state? And would your solution cost less than letting these people smoke? I remember a ridiculous argument in another thread over blood- and urine-testing people receiving TANF. It all boils down to legality and the cost to prevent the wasting of small amounts of money.
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Tue, Jul 21, 2009, 1:30 pm EST

report this comment



Walt and Christina, I am absolutly for giving people and business a temporary hand up when tough times fall on them. But it should be temporary and not a life style choice. If you receive social assistance then you should not be allowed to waste that hard earned tax money on cigerettes. Just like the tax payer does not want their hard earned money going to over paid executives when we are bailing them out. By saying that as long as it is legal we can't stop them from taking social services money for cigerettes we are in a sense saying let the companies that took the bailout money continue to pay executives large bonuses, after all its not illegal. We need to use common sense. Get on the system when you need it, use the system for what it was intended. Since the Government is the watcher of my tax money I expect them to discipline its proper use. Not just sign off that whatever you use these dollars for is okay with us.
-- Posted by Jim Eckhardt on Tue, Jul 21, 2009, 12:22 pm EST

report this comment



Although constitutionally we may not "be our brother's keeper", we also - according to the constitution - don't necessarily have the right to vote and we're not going to rescind that,are we? The point of the matter is what's happening now. And Olde Man, the fishing analogy is fine but it is not character that drives behavior nor is it motivation, however much we'd like it to be. Circumstances and experience are far more accurate predictors of how people will behave. That's what generational poverty is all about and it is why the cycle is so difficult to break.
-- Posted by walt amses on Tue, Jul 21, 2009, 7:00 am EST

report this comment



you can find the discussion about poor farms and more in the Brigham decision.
-- Posted by Bill Brueckner on Tue, Jul 21, 2009, 6:45 am EST

report this comment



Remember the poor farms? Government has no power to use our tax money to support other people.

The Legislature of Vermont ordered the towns to find some means of support for those who could not care for themselves.

Towns are a social compact were people contributed according to their means what was necessary. This effort took place without government suppling taxes.

By Constitutional law we are NOT our brothers keeper.

Poor Farms were funded with charitable acts.
-- Posted by Bill Brueckner on Tue, Jul 21, 2009, 6:43 am EST

report this comment



the success rate of returning to work is very rare. I have heard the dismal rate of 1% repeated several times.

to clarify...

return to work and no longer collect any Social Security benefits. . .
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 10:43 pm EST

report this comment



Olde Man,

What you consider fatalism I consider reality. I have been told my story of being a college graduate when both parent were drop-outs is very rare. There was a great deal of luck involved in my graduating--unstable housing nearly sank me during my second year, and that was despite attaining a rank for my class that year of first. I had a second housing scare less than six months from finishing. As I was a subletter, I am not sure what I would have done when my roommate planned on moving away from the Boston area. I would have tried to find a roommate but there was no guarantee. I was somewhat limited in locations because I had no car.

As far as the fate of SSI/SSDI people go, the success rate of returning to work is very rare. I have heard the dismal rate of 1% repeated several times. Mathematica Policy Research has done several reports on why this is. Fear of loss of health care and steep offsets for earnings are leading reasons. SSI people, and some SSDI people enrolled in a study, lose 50% of earnings above $85 per month if on SSI and above $980 a month on SSDI, the so-called 2-for-1 program. After SSA takes half of earnings, and the housing authority takes 30%, what IS the work incentive? Personal dignity from being self-supporting EXCEPT for health care and probably housing obviously is not a big enough carrot, except for the very young, who want to be working like their peers.

FYI, SGA is currently $980 a month.

http://www.chiip.org/pdf/Mathematica%20earnings%20increase%20issue%20brief%204.pdf
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 10:38 pm EST

report this comment



"The 'system' whatever that is, does not prevent personal growth."

I thought the Reach Up Post Secondary Education (PSE) program was scrapped. That is the personal growth I was speaking of. College education is no longer a goal of that program. How are people on the system building skills to make the ever-unattainable livable wage? It sounds like some young people, who had difficulty in school and not a strong parent to steer them, are getting by with part-time jobs while living in Section 8 housing with a parent with no big goal. I find it scary that with no direction, the idea of having a baby becomes more attractive to these young people. I have to wonder if Section 8 should make more demands on adult children not enrolled in school to move onto full-time employment or enroll in a community college or training program as a condition of living in Section 8 housing past age 18 or 19. The question then becomes, what happens to those who do not participate? Couch-surfing could lead the undesired outcome, a baby for someone without the education or skills to support it.

I too know some single women in my building on Wellington Street who did take care of their children without public aid, to my knowledge. But the two I am thinking about had a high school diploma and their children were preteen, not in need of babysitting. They obviously had skills to be able to make an acceptable wage, and I am not sure how much child support, if any, came from the absent parent. Were they savvy enough to enough enroll in the business program at Spaulding, so they had a career goal in mind, like working for a particular employer? Would these women have been successful in TODAY'S circumstances with stagnant wages, high health insurance premiums and rents? I don't know.

In my mother's circumstances ending in the late '80s, there was no facilitation to getting a GED or any job skills whatsoever. And due to family dynamics, I am unsure she would have been free to attend such programs, even if within walking distance. I am unsure how my father would have reacted. He was pretty suspicious and jealous. His view was a woman's place was in the home, and if it had not been for my guidance counselors sending home written course recommendations for him to sign off on, I could have ended up in go-nowhere domestic programs clogging my high school schedule. He would verbally object to me, but as a drop-out himself must not have felt empowered enough to ever call Spaulding and object, which was good news to me.
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 9:56 pm EST

report this comment



Ancient Saying:

"Do you give people fish? Or, teach them to fish?"

And fyi Christina - I totally agree with your point that some men are "baby machines." I said the same earlier. They father numerous kids by several women and have no income to support them.

As to your comment: "...if the system would allow for such personal growth...." The "system" whatever that is, does not prevent personal growth. Most of the single parents I know, and I know plenty, are responsible, working and taking care of their kids with little or no government aid. The last two decades have afforded the most opportunity ever for people to make a living and get ahead. Right now we are in a severe recession and many people have lost their jobs and can't get any work. That hasn't been the case for most of the last 30 years. Your posts contain a fatalism I can't agree with. I know too many people who went from barely surviving to being what most of us consider a success. Environment plays a role, but motivation usually overcomes external factors.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 8:43 pm EST

report this comment



"If by chance this lady was on social assistance then she should be forced to stop smoking on my dime. I can't afford to buy her cigerettes then pay her doctors bills and raise her kids. She used a credit card and I really wonder if it was the so called welfare card."

So what are your recommendations to get her to stop smoking? So long as tobacco is legal, she cannot be arrested for substance abuse and sent to a treatment center to beat her addiction. As far as your "not being able to afford to raise her kids," what happens to the boy? As he is already here, the options are the natural mother raises him or another family does. So the state either pays the mother to raise him or a foster family to raise him. I don't see another option. Do you?

If this child's life is tough enough to be wearing clothes with holes in them, how is cutting the amount on that EBT card, if used, going to help him?
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 7:41 pm EST

report this comment



Jim - Do you really want to literally determine where "your dime" goes on an individual basis? What about the portion of your taxes necessary to offset the breaks that corporations get? Are you interested in deciding who gets that money? Because it's an awful lot more than goes to those who are poor because of "lifestyle choice".................which has been a position staked out by conservatives since Reagan and is as absurd now as it was then. Most poor people work as I've said previously. Given the disparity of income in America though they frequently run out of money before they get paid again. Some are addicted to cigarettes. That's a shame. Maybe we should decide that those who have lung cancer shouldn't be subsidized on "your dime" either. No health care? Sorry - medicaid doesn't support smokers. Go die. Once we begin judging, it's difficult to stop.
-- Posted by walt amses on Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 6:10 pm EST

report this comment



I think there are a fair number of poor that choose through life style choices to be that way. They take advantage of the good natured people (through government).
As for the poor smoking. Alot of people smoke, I choose not to be one of them. Yesterday I was in a local Convenience Store when a woman came in with her young child. She drove in in a real beat car up with windows so smoke stained you could barely see in. Her (approx) 8 year old walked in with her. Their clothes were full of holes. I actually felt sorry for them when they stepped up to the counter until she order the carton of cigerettes for $58.00. Then I felt stupid. I felt stupid becuse there was a very, very, very good chance that that was my hard earned money buying those cigerettes. I don't begrudge anyone wanting to smoke, but at some point you have to look at your children and say they need a new pair of pants I think I will skip the smokes today. If by chance this lady was on social assistance then she should be forced to stop smoking on my dime. I can't afford to buy her cigerettes then pay her doctors bills and raise her kids. She used a credit card and I really wonder if it was the so called welfare card. We have learned that they can purchase whatever they want with it, speak with Sen. Kevin Mullin to back that up as he checked it out during a live radio show he was doing. We really need to make sure the REAL needy are taken care of properly and everyone else is getting a temporary hand up.
-- Posted by Jim Eckhardt on Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 5:32 pm EST

report this comment



Christina - You point out some of the nuances of a system that involves individual human beings and families that are pushed to the background when people are stereotyping their version of Reagan's "Welfare Queen" mythology. Those ready to criticize are probably unaware that the vast majority of America's poor are working people who simply don't make enough money to support their families and find themselves in an endless, bureaucratic loop that does more to keep them where they than to provide a way out. These same people have probably never once complained about the portion of their income that supplements the taxes Walmart doesn't pay.
-- Posted by walt amses on Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 7:03 am EST

report this comment



Zachary Hughs

I would like to see this country be governed according to the Constitutions in support of every individuals right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property without interference from government that is only supposed to provide and umbrella of protects for We the People not drive our lives with command, control and regulate all of our actions. Dont you understand what LIBERTY is?
Read the Declaration of Independence and note the similarities between it and what we the people are facing today. Our political system running this country is a despot equivalent to King George.
-- Posted by Bill Brueckner on Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 6:02 am EST

report this comment



Olde man: "That's right, if you can't afford to have kids, save your money until you can provide for them. I'm not talking about folks who lost their job. I'm talking about the irresponsible 'baby machines' that have no interest in finding work or bettering themselves. The folks that want welfare as their chosen way of life."

And for unplanned pregnancies, are you for forced abortion or adoption? Or do you believe people in low wage jobs should just mastur bate? What is the minimum earnings a couple should be pulling in before being allowed to have heterosexual sex?

If for forced adoption, at what age? You disagree with the 18-20 year childrearing "plan" of some, so how long is it before DCF should swoop and take the child and then pay a middle class family to raise it and instill middle class work values?

As for the stereotypical "baby machines, " I can only think of one. She was a Barre woman and Bingo regular who pumped them out at regular two-year intervals. I overheard adults speak about it being her way to avoid going to work. The other woman was a religious adherent, possibly LDS from her conservative dress, and she and her husband did not practice contraception of any sort. She and the kids, six I believe, lived at Green Acres during the one year my family lived there searching for another suitable apartment to rent with Section 8. So in my long span of growing up and living and working in Barre, I can only think of two women with families with more than three children. Where are the "baby machines"?

It's funny, but I can think of many more men who were great serial propagators in my era, my father included, though greatly outdone by a brother and a son-in-law. Are you for sterilizing these MALE baby-producing machines who are not making an effort to support their children? If so, after how many children?

As for your choice to continue working despite having a painful condition at the level necessary to get SSDI, are you prepared to stay home with NO earnings for a year to qualify? Could you afford your COBRA insurance waiting the two years it takes to get Medicare? Could you afford to live on the piddling amount of SSDI you would get after "winning"? The truth is, I bet you know this would be a financial disaster to chose not to work, especially if you have a house that is not paid off or children to send off to college or retirement plans. You should count yourself as lucky you have any of these rewards of working at a decent wage with decent benefits. The truth is, the junkie or average welfare mother will not, no matter how hard they try. If the goal is to have a few more clothes or a car, that may be the average reward of the average SSI, SSDI and welfare crowd, therefore, why try? Those are teen goals, not adult goals or rewards. But owing a house, sending a kid to college, or having a good retirement plan would be better motivators if the system would allow for such personal growth before taking away key supports like food stamps, childcare and health care.
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 1:49 am EST

report this comment



Christina and Frog: You are not reading ALL of my posts. I support helping the elderly and the disabled. As I stated previously, the definition of disabled has grown too much. I admit that I am not an expert on section 8. I do not think "it" should last forever. No I wouldn't give old people or really disabled people the boot, far from it. I would give the boot to people who get various forms of welfare starting when they are 18 - 20 and make no life adjustments to get off the system. They're too comfortable getting handouts.

Neither of you need lecture me on hard work or hard times, I have seen my share. I qualify for some of these government programs. I could have chosen to be counted as "disabled" and the federal government would have gladly given me Social Security Disability. I chose to work with considerable pain instead. Life is about choices.

As for having kids: That's right, if you can't afford to have kids, save your money until you can provide for them. I'm not talking about folks who lost their job. I'm talking about the irresponsible "baby machines" that have no interest in finding work or bettering themselves. The folks that want welfare as their chosen way of life. No, that's not everyone,,, but we certainly have plenty of professional welfare recipients whose only career goal is to stay on government assistance.

The economy is bad right now but most of the last 15 years there were more jobs than people. I believe everyone should go to work. But that attitude was passed to me by a generation that didn't have welfare, social security, medicaid, food stamps, WIC, ADFC, SSDI, reach-up, etc. I'm not against the programs but I think that many folks could do a lot more to get off the dole.

.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 8:30 pm EST

report this comment



My dear ski frog, YOU and your kind ARE part of the problem today. I bet you're of that "politically correct" crowd that society would be better off without! No one DESERVES to be supported by the government, that's what families ARE FOR!
And YES, emphatically YES! If you cannot afford children, DON"T HAVE THEM!!!!! DON'T expect me to pay for, or support them!
I am NOT their parents OR family.
GET A CLUE! GET REAL!
-- Posted by Say NO to China on Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 6:58 pm EST

report this comment



I love the "Live your life--not the governments" statement by Bill. What a wonderful way to look at it.
-- Posted by How do I heart thee on Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 5:57 pm EST

report this comment



Just think how strained the homeless people feel.
-- Posted by How do I heart thee on Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 5:49 pm EST

report this comment



Olde Man . Just an FYI people don't ask to be born with a development disability!

Did you really say the poor should not have kids? That's amazingly stupid, really. Another FYI, sometimes people who already have kids lose their jobs for no fault of their own and have to take minimum wage jobs to get by. I know, because it happened to me once upon a time. This might suprsise you but even working 50-60 hours a week life can be pretty hard if your job pays little and has no benefits.

You have a very narrow and negative opinion of anyone who receives any kind of social help because you assume they all fit your narrow and negative stereotype.
-- Posted by Ski Frog on Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 4:21 pm EST

report this comment



"According to HUD, in 2008 that meant that, nationally, a family of four living on about $19,450 would be at 30 percent of the median income. The median family income was $64,800, according to the department. . . .In an economy where unemployment continues to rise monthly, housing authorities have seen these unfixed financial responsibilities fluctuate as participants once employed full-time pick up part-time jobs to get by, and others remain unemployed."

It sounds like there is problem with the formula. With the continuing dive in the economy, does a 2008 median income hold up? However, adjustments there only let more people qualify for nonexistent vouchers.

Why is there no rent inflation factor in the equation? I remember renting a heated one bedroom apartment in from 1992-1999 in Barre for a stable $340 a month. Rents have more than doubled in 10 years. Has the budgeted amount for a voucher kept pace with that reality? HUD needs to pump enough money into the housing authorities to account for that, and I cannot believe HUD has done that with housing authorities running deficits.

What does median wage have to do with rental prices? They seem like two independent variables to me.

My argument is the median wage is a figure slow to change as it does not reflect the current upswing in job losses. I also fail to see the mathematical relationship of median wages to rental prices.
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 4:07 pm EST

report this comment



There needs to be some sort of intervention into the lives of transition-age youth. I am acquainted with someone who has Section 8 and shares and apartment with a daughter approaching age 20. She is a high school grad with ADHD and had to attend a special school to graduate.

Her mother is concerned that the idea of having a baby is circulating among her friends and that her daughter may join in. The daughter is working part-time at a department store. It is too bad there is not something for high school grads on how to build a career BEFORE a baby is conceived.
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 3:09 pm EST

report this comment



"Section 8 should not last forever either."

After how many years should an elder be kicked out? Flat rent at North Barre Manor would consume 88.2% of my mother's income. Anyone getting SSI would have 100% of income consumed by that same flat rent there..

As a child who lived on Elm and Wellington Streets in apartments using Section 8, at what point would you have made my family homeless? Maybe because I came from "older" parents, who both experienced the Depression, but both parents wanted my brother and me to do better. I am unsure if being passed from foster home to foster home would have accomplished that.

There was never any encouraging conversation on running the streets, getting pregnant, and getting my own apartment and welfare check. I received quite the opposite lectures. However, a half sister who joined our family at age 13 did become that story. It was impossible to rein in a "wild child" with the resources available to our family at the time, and placing her in foster care did NOT prevent the birth of a second child to her in Vermont and a third child when she was shipped back to her mother. If her letter back to us was true, she had been molested by her stepfather for years, so I have to wonder how often sexual abuse plays into producing behaviors resulting in a new generation on the dole.

In your posts, Olde Man, I am still perceiving you feel there should be some sort of income test for parents on whether they should be allowed to parent their own children or not. Education and support from the community, such as mentoring, can do wonders, and perhaps the earlier, the better, so the child can see a way out. My schoolteachers were my mentors in an informal sense. I loved them in my very early years and wanted to do well for them because it pleased them and I got extra attention.

I also have no problem working with the parents to achieve a goal of finding a job paying a living wage, but is there not still a backlog for state-funded daycare slots because the cutoffs are from 10 years ago? Coming up with the appropriate sanction for noncompliance is the question, after the daycare issue is fixed.

Remember, foster care is not free and can have profound psychological effects on the child. I cannot imagine a child being happy and cooperative if the only reason they were placed into foster care was to punish the parents for not working.
-- Posted by Christina Colombe on Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 2:53 pm EST

report this comment



I was talking about the working poor, not people who sit and do nothing!
-- Posted by Say what? on Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 2:21 pm EST

report this comment



I'm all for helping the elderly and the disabled. However the definition of "disabled" has grown to include drug addict skkum, antisocial personalty, ADHD, PTSD and numerous other "conditions" that allow for some to "game the system." I know some folks who are perfectly healthy and mentally sound that have fooled the gate keepers of section 8. That's why some housing projects are so bad.

I also believe in helping people that WANT to work but can't find a job. I do not want to help the people that make welfare a WAY OF LIFE. I believe in the 5 year limit that Vermont refuses to enforce.

And if you can't afford to have kids,,, DON"T. The public shouldn't have to pay for low lifes (men & women) that pop out baby after baby with no way to provide for them except hand outs. Birth control is not expensive. Too many youngsters have kids so they don't have to work. Section 8 should not last forever either.


.
-- Posted by Olde Man on Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 1:43 pm EST

report this comment



Sorry I meant to say David not Daovd
-- Posted by Zachary Hughes on Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 1:25 pm EST

report this comment



First Off
Davod the Constitution is a valid document. Without it you would not have been able to make the statement you just made.

Bill housing paied for by government money is subject government. Just out of curiousity Bill what type of country would you like to see? You seem to imply government is bad and one by the people is better.
So tell me and the rest of us how youre system would work?
In any case I live life and not that of the goverment whatever that life would be
-- Posted by Zachary Hughes on Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 1:22 pm EST

report this comment



"because someone working full time ought to be able to afford an apartment. I'm not naive enough to think the "haves" would pay a livable wage to everyone just out of the goodness of their hearts."

are you aware that 2 or three bedroom apartments in Barre cost anywhere from 700-900 a month with no heat included? (and some are total crap holes) someone working for the measly wages we get paid these days would have a hell of a hard time paying rent- especially if they have children, and need to pay for daycare.
-- Posted by Say what? on Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 11:33 am EST

report this comment



The Constitution is an invalid document
-- Posted by David on Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 8:58 am EST

report this comment



I mentioned minimum wage because someone working full time ought to be able to afford an apartment. I'm not naive enough to think the "haves" would pay a llivable wage to everyone just out of the goodness of their hearts.
-- Posted by Ski Frog on Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 8:47 am EST

report this comment



Bruechner: I suppose the Constitution doesn't allow the government to set the minimum wage, either. The Constitution is just the base upon which laws are built and the laws are adapted and changed over time. The law is a living document.

"Every man for himself" is how we ended up with the robber barons hoarding virtually all of the wealth while millions lived in abject poverty and filth. The great depression taught us that it's in the best interest of society to give a helping hand when people are down and out, and to those who for one reason or another can't fend for themselves.

In case you are not aware two thirds of public housing tenants are elderly or disabled. So are you going to open up your house for all these families?
-- Posted by Ski Frog on Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 8:39 am EST

report this comment



Housing (property) is a right of the people to enjoy, neither the fed or state government has a right to interfere with our constitutional right to acquire, possess, protect transfer or enjoy property.

Government has no constitutional authority to create this program. Congress is only empowered to make law that will be made in pursuance of the Constitution and Vermont is a Republic we are not subjects of the Congress and President.

We are created as a laisse faire society where each person is governed by LIBERTY to apply personal responsibility to find their own means of subsistance.

Congress has limited power to make law as does the Legislature of this State.


US Constitution
Article 1 Section 8
The Congress shall have power to make all laws which sall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the forgoing powers, and all other powers vestedby this Constitution in the government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof.

There is no power granted to Congress in the US Constitution to command, control and regulate the lifestye of the people. We have liberty to run our own lives.

As a free and sovereign state republic which is guaranteed by article 4 section 4 of the US Constitution. We are not subjects of the US government and cannot be compelled to follow the laws made by Congress unless they are in pursuance to the Constitution.

Vermont has retrictions to their lawmaking

Legislative Powers "and they shall have all other powers necessary for the Legislature of a free and sovereign State; but they shall have no power to add to, alter, abolish, or infringe any part of this Constitution."

Government fed and state is using laws like houseing law to create a dependency on government

This dependency is created to advance corporatism, the blending of corporate and government powers.

Roosevelt applied the same technique with the CCC camps that were major organizations of the American workforce.
run by government.

The people minimaly impacted by that depression were FARMERS. The provided what they needed for their own subsistance.
In this depression the farmers have been wiped out because of their dependency on the corporations to pay a fair price for their milk.

Live your life -- not the governments.
-- Posted by Bill Brueckner on Sun, Jul 19, 2009, 7:13 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout