Jackson Jambalaya

Great aticle!

Thanks for posting it KF.

I wish there was a way to correlate the entire cost of Section 8. Police, Court, Jail space, Emergency Room visits
(from the shootings, fights, knifings, multiple production of fatherless children), Lawsuits against Landlords. It would be a helluva lot more than 19 billion.

The wisdom of Mayor Mary vindicated once again. It is plainly obvious why cities all over the metro have declared moratoriums on new apartment construction.

Why hasn't the journomarm, her hoochie koochie economics man and those ever mindful 'interns' demanded Watkins accept Sec8 vouchers in the KE and SL digs?

That is the difference I noticed between what Watkins is doing and that article about downtown Detroit. It seemed the prices in Detroit fell low enough to the point where young people could afford them and started moving in. Supply and demand at work. Downtown Watkins projects seems more like a mixture of tax credits, government loans, subsidies, and the like in exchange for keeping rents for residential at $900 and up. Not so much with water finding its own level through supply and demand but creating something hoping demand will develop, which apparently it has so far.

With their hats in hand begging for public money all the downtown projects promise a set aside of units at below market rates ostensibly for those not as well off. How many units in the KE and SL are being leased below market? Betcha the answer is ZERO.

Seems I recall for two decades the Jtown city council, when considering taking any action at all, opens the process to a discussion of 'how many black' this or that, does this represent. Used to be the acceptable figure was somewhere around 15-20% of the 'whatever black' was being sought. Jobs, construction contracts, housing units, storefronts, loans, sidewalks paved, street lights, large plastic catfish in front of which businesses, yada yada.

Now, with the demographic shift in council seats, the figure is probably 55-80%.

Not at all surprising that Choke-Mo-Keb and the boys are demanding half of the high rise and low rent units be marketed to 'the less fortunate' or at least available to them.

How can anything be marketed with a vision of lowest common denominators? This is why we don't see Dollar Tree and Fred's at Renaissance. Or a radiator shop next to Malco Grandview.

@ 10:48

You obviously don't know anything about Section 8. First of all it is NOT specific to apartments. The vouchers can and many times are accepted by landlords of single family residences. See Kingfish's video of Mcdowell Rd?

I don't like Mary's methods, but I can't argue with the results, however, she will lose everytime if HUD ever comes knocking on her door.
Frankly, I predict some sort of HUD "thrust" into the City of Madison one day. The liberals can't stand nice places built by the people who can actually afford to live there.

Where were 10:48's comments limited to only apartments? I don't see it.

" radiator shop next to Malco Grandview "

That's a good one Shadow.

Choke-a-way-fee-mom-bay,
... IKO ! IKO ! ...
is as sly as 2 foxes and one K-Stokes.

Kenny's MOA is to appear just ig'nant. Lum-baw-
baw, plays the same politic with a somewhat
educated voter base.

Both of these two are brilliant politicians.
They play to the educational level of their
constituents.

Section 8 residents within the King Edward is a
great idea !

Whatch'a think Watkins ?

Way to go Jackson.

"A Terry Road Shell gas station clerk is fighting for his life after being shot this afternoon, according to the Jackson Police Department.

One male juvenile suspect is being interviewed by police and charges are pending, said police spokesperson Officer Colendula Green.

Police got a call around 1:21 p.m. when the 49-year-old male was shot in the head as a green Volvo with four people inside pulled off."

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20110905/NEWS/110905015/Jackson-store-clerk-fights-life-after-shooting

Ain't no cap-poppin' in the Grandview parking lot for sure. If one do dat, his ass is popped by the PO PO within four minutes.

@10:48; 'section 8' is a euphemism as used in this context. It refers to all things 'entitled'. You know, those things not labored for, not earned, not deserved, just gotten from somebody else's labor. You probably have a few within arm's reach.

As a comparison we live in Annandale Estates, a nice gated community in Madison. Our house note is with a local bank, and we have relatively little equity. Any of the three subsidy amounts listed in the article would exceed our monthly payment for housing.

How do we get on the program? ;-) I'd love Uncle Sugar to pay my house note, and the government would save money compared to what they spend elsewhere.

I steer clear of anyone who describes his residence as either 'gated' or 'an estate'.

PS: 'relatively little equity' doesn't go well with 'low housing payment'.

I steer clear of anyone who describes his residence as either 'gated' or 'an estate'.

Thanks anonymous but you're anonymous so BFD.

This is pretty disturbing in the face of the economic reality. Additionally, it looks like phase two, to reconcile phase one. What absolute craziness!

The Obama administration is now launching a pilot program giving local housing authorities wide discretion to pay higher rent subsidies to allow Section 8 beneficiaries to move into even more affluent zip codes. Hasn't this program helped wreck enough neighborhoods?"


If this goes forward they will destroy any remaining safe neighborhoods.

Not all of the costs of Sec 8 housing go for rent subsidy. It's a lucrative federal program for those who build Sec 8 housing and a guaranteed income for slum lords. The administrative costs should also be included in any analysis of the programs costs.

The late Milton Friedman ,a conservative economist who advised Nixon, pointed out correctly that a percentage of our population is unemployable due to mental, emotional or physical handicaps. We can add another percentage who are unemployable due to substance abuse or criminal history. Friedman suggested a negative income tax at subsistence level. Both liberals and conservatives rejected such a plan but as yet, have failed to offer alternatives.

Both will point out, correctly, that any suggestion will contain the ability to abuse any plan.

I've watched different attempts to deal with housing for the unemployable or underemployed for 40 plus years. Whether it was creating high rises or pockets of single family housing, nothing seems to work well. But, homelessness , over time, also becomes a bad problem for any community. Whether it's cardboard box dwellings or beggars on the street, inadequate housing for the dysfunctional quickly becomes a problem for everyone.

And, suburbia can't fairly stick it on the cities and then criticize the cities for their poverty and crime problems. And, cities that are suceeding in gentrification of downtowns are simply driving poverty to rural areas.

So, pray tell, what answers have you critics?

Once upon a time, a family was responsible for their crazy, ineffectual relative but families no longer easily obtain guardianship or conservatorship. Nor can, in a society where there is not a woman at home to tend to the needs of a dependent relative, can a family effectively care for problematic relatives. We can't lock crazy Aunt Millie in the attic anymore.

Suggestions, particularly,tying government assistance to birth control, meets loud criticism on the right as well as the left. So we continue to increase the number of citizens with either inherited problems or who cannot raise children. Indeed, the right objects to providing birth control information or free birth control to those who will be having another generation of children dependent on the government.

So, point me to something that works. I've already seen how shifting the burden to others doesn't work. And,preventing the problem with mandatory education, effective protection of at risk children, and preventing unwanted pregnancies is not acceptable to either conservatives or liberals. Both will get up on the bandwagon of individual rights as you both seem to agree having a child is a right. So, tell me what your plan is?

As Frazier would say, " I'm listening".

Section 8 vouchers really destroy middle class black neighborhoods faster than any other neighborhoods (at least in the Jackson area). Just think about it. The voucher holders aren't trying to get to Annandale. They probably don't even know it exists! They ARE trying to get to Woodhaven and other areas around Calloway with hard working black people. Now they definitely know about THAT area. There goes the neighborhood!

I hate the way homeowners move out an rent the house. It's a sure fire way to tell that the neighborhood will soon go down. Renters in general don't take care of rental properties, and when the owner is getting his rent money from the gov't each month (Section 8 pays the owner directly, so there's no fear of late payments), he's not really worried about the yard, the property values, or the behavior of the renter. He's moved on, and he usually has little concern about the neighborhood.

If we could apply common sense to a government program then this should be stopped right where it is. No more destruction of neighborhoods. There must be a better way.

Here is a solution September 6, 2011 10:46 AM, "don't solve the problem with a larger problem."

The percentage of population that is invalid, etc. is minute in comparison to the $19 Billion spent. Criminals and substance abusers - so you want me to solve their woes?

The only ones I really would be concerned with are the long-term unemployed due to lack of leadership with regards to the economy.

Here is a novel idea. The last number I saw for unemployed is 14MM (CNBC 8/31/11). Let us disect this number and discuss how to get them jobs so that they can afford homes that do not require subsidies.

Spending more money on a problem created by spending money is the same thing as repeating a process over and over and expecting different results.

You know, the more I think about this, the more I think that this administration is trying to bring down the overall wealth of the working class all the way up to the top. By bringing them all down, depressing their earnings, home values, etc. they will effectively raise up those in poverty. Interesting. I wish we could have some leadership in this country to spur growth.

The best plan I have heard so far is investment in our power grid along with private sector investment, incentives, removing regulatory barriers, to spur real growth for the future. This would be the one area where US innovation could really come to bear on the rest of the world in regards to lowering the effective costs of energy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/6872/

10:46,

As a conservative, I can tell you I have ZERO problem with those getting public assistance going on mandatory birth control. I would go one further and say forget the pill, give them the implant. The fewer chances those folks have to procreate (white and black) the smaller my "share" for supporting their children.

Of course, liberals would howl about mandatory birth control. Takes away from their built-in voting bloc.

@anon 10:46. Although I'm not sure it was Milton Friedman, as you suggest, who originally advocated a 'negative income tax', we damned sure have it in the form of the so-called Earned Income Tax Credit.

Anon 12:05 is just now realizing Barack Obama has a goal of destroying capitalism and the middle class as a means of 'raising up' the entitled lower class. No shit! (light bulbs go off).

It was Friedman in CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM and it was a part of his flat tax proposal. Rhys-Williams in Britain in the '40s was probably the first to suggest a negative income tax.

Unfortunately, our politicians don't understand economics and so they cherry pick ways to increase revenues without looking at the tax system as a whole.

Nevertheless, my main question is how do those who hate section 8 plan to deal with the reality that not all of our population is employable or has any practical means of supporting themselves?

KaptKangaroo,
I agree with your frustrations about the manner in which the money is currently being spent.

10% of our population is mentally ill. I don't have the statistic for the percentage that is mentally challenged ( though our average IQ has dropped to 90 which suggests an increase in those with IQ below 70) or severely handicapped. But, just 10% of 300,000,000 is a significant number. We now have the added increased statistics on autism so we are looking at a huge population of autistics coming along and any plan must account for them as they now represent nearly 20% of all live births.
So, just with 10% being mentally ill and 20% in the future being austistic, that's nearly a third of the future population.

It's all very nice to have an overall philosophy, but eventually one has to deal with the dirty little realities of life and explain how one's philosophy will deal with those realities.

You're on.

I purposely left out the issue of those unable to work due to infirmary.

As an aside and in my volunteer experience, those with IQ's deemed disabled, are able to work, house themselves, and function as a contributor to society; not all, but some. This is a section of the population that is easier to write off than to get involved. I guess we agree here.

Those physically, mentally or otherwise due to no other factor other than the hand dealt them, is indeed an important issue. I fully support programs that help families in this regard. I also support hospice.

What I do not support is the basic tenants of the Section 8 program. Section 8 housing subsidies are not there for the infirm. Can we agree on that?

I am not sure where you want to take this, but here are some interesting statistics from BLS...

You are incorrect in using 300MM as a population base for analysis. The number of non-institutional civilians in the US is 70MM and should be excluded from our discussion on Section 8 housing that clearly is focused on the Government providing housing inside of a social program - in other words, the program does not target the infirm.

We have other programs targeted at helping those who truly are incapable of providing on their own.

As to your comment Dirty little realities? Isn't that a bit over the top?

Here is the source link since we don't want to speak in generalities.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat3.txt

@9:30. You wondered out loud, quoting loosely here, "If we don't provide for the needs and wants of those in society who are unwilling to participate meaningfully, what shall we do with them?" There are a number of answers to your thoughtful inquiry, one of them being 'institutionalize them in a warehouse fashion with guards and wardens and security to protect them from themselves and us from them'.

Feed them once a day, at noon, unless they are willing to work for their care, in which case, feed them twice a day. And have a system of 'get out of jail' cards based on their demonstrated willingness and ability to contribute to society. Sound harsh? Perhaps. But not quite as harsh as feeding their entitlement mentality and allowing them to then encroach upon us and take our stuff and beat on us and take the lives of others randomly. The latter is nothing more than a zoo without cages. Feed the tigers and lions and if he comes around and dumps on your property or takes the life of your neighbor, it's just a tiger being a tiger.

I live in Northeast Jackson. Why do blacks continue to move here? Doesn't "Whitey" suck and all?

Have you already covered the idea of the recipients of govt. Aid actually earning that aid by working on the filthy streets and crumbling infrastructure? Those able, of course.

That should also apply to politicians and their welfare perks.