I would agree with the skepticism about Section 8.  It's too small and too dispersed to blame for much.  I obviously wrinkle my nose at in in libertarian principle, but numbers matter in practice.

 

I don't know if I agree. In looking at the map that is on page 6 of the report that StrapHanger linked, it appears as if there are suburbs where every neighborhood has at least 10% Section 8 housing, and several neighborhoods of 20-45% Section 8 housing.

 

Not necessarily: Note that the proportions are "as a percent of all renter-occupied units."  Granted, some of those neighborhoods may have very few owner-occupied units (especially in Cleveland proper), but the inner-ring suburbs probably have a decent number of owner-occupied homes.

It would have been better if they had used % occupied housing units as the gauge.

 

Also, I think clevelander17's argument is a very good one for deconcentrating all low-income housing, but a poor one for ending Housing Choice Vouchers (which are only a portion of Section 8, btw).  This article covers an interesting twist on HCV, by making the subsidy higher to live in more affluent neighborhoods:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/business/economy/housing-program-expansion-would-encourage-more-low-income-families-to-move-up.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

To Gramarye's point, Garfield Hts has about 11,700 households (2009-2013 ACS) and about 640 voucher recipients, so we're talking about 5% of total households citywide. And Garfield Hts had about 1700 households with sub-poverty incomes as of 2012-ish (again, from 2009-2013 ACS), so most poor households weren't there because of vouchers.  I don't doubt voucher-holders in particular can make some pockets un-attractive to middle class residents, but the suburbanization of poverty is a much bigger phenomenon.

I see competing pressures, though, on the concentration-dispersion debate.  And of course, you can't feasibly have perfect dispersion or perfect concentration.

 

For example, if we make access to public transportation a goal in siting low-income housing, then you are making peace with a certain amount of concentration.  If you make dispersion a higher priority, then you are making peace with the fact that some people will either (a) have no access to public transportation at all, or (b) will have only impractical access to it.  (You can technically live out in Richfield and still be on an Akron Metro bus line since the 101 runs out there.  But, seriously.)

^That tension is real, but I'd point out that it plays out very differently in different metro areas. Cleveland suffers from some the most dramatic "job sprawl" in the country, so that transit access may be worth a lot less than it used to be when weighed against job proximity and schools, etc.

I see competing pressures, though, on the concentration-dispersion debate.  And of course, you can't feasibly have perfect dispersion or perfect concentration.

 

For example, if we make access to public transportation a goal in siting low-income housing, then you are making peace with a certain amount of concentration.  If you make dispersion a higher priority, then you are making peace with the fact that some people will either (a) have no access to public transportation at all, or (b) will have only impractical access to it.  (You can technically live out in Richfield and still be on an Akron Metro bus line since the 101 runs out there.  But, seriously.)

 

I think that the transportation challenge is an issue, but there are a number of second- or third- ring Cleveland suburbs with strong non-residential tax bases and decent transportation access that I think need to be looked at as future locations for low-income housing and expansion of Section 8. Some of these suburbs are even in bordering counties, which is also important to consider.

It would have been better if they had used % occupied housing units as the gauge.

 

Also, I think clevelander17's argument is a very good one for deconcentrating all low-income housing, but a poor one for ending Housing Choice Vouchers (which are only a portion of Section 8, btw).  This article covers an interesting twist on HCV, by making the subsidy higher to live in more affluent neighborhoods:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/business/economy/housing-program-expansion-would-encourage-more-low-income-families-to-move-up.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

 

I guess that's a fair point. I'm only in favor of ending the program if it continues on as it has been in concentrating low-income residents in a limited number of neighborhoods/suburbs.

Transit access is certainly a factor to consider, but not every LIHTC unit or HCV needs to be transit accessible.  The study posted by straphanger above indicates that a bit over half of the incoming HCV recipients had access to a car.  I can also speak from personal experience having managed LIHTC units that most of their prospective residents have access to a car.  In fact, not having off-street parking at a LIHTC unit was considered a considerable handicap in getting that unit filled.

Also relevant to this recent discussion are the new HUD regs coming out, that will finally define the "affirmatively further fair housing" mandate that has always come along with HUD funding, but never really meant anything.  This Foxnews.com article contains some entertaining hysteria: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/08/new-hud-rule-good-intentions-or-another-government-power-grab/?intcmp=latestnews

A little late to this discussion, but Section 8 isn't a cause it's a symptom, if you want to look at it as a problem in the first place.  Good neighborhoods don't go bad because Section 8 residents come, the Section 8 residents come because the neighborhood has already gone downhill such that landlords can't get enough market renters. 

A little late to this discussion, but Section 8 isn't a cause it's a symptom, if you want to look at it as a problem in the first place.  Good neighborhoods don't go bad because Section 8 residents come, the Section 8 residents come because the neighborhood has already gone downhill such that landlords can't get enough market renters. 

 

Or that these neighborhoods were destroyed by the crash of '08.

Also relevant to this recent discussion are the new HUD regs coming out, that will finally define the "affirmatively further fair housing" mandate that has always come along with HUD funding, but never really meant anything.  This Foxnews.com article contains some entertaining hysteria: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/08/new-hud-rule-good-intentions-or-another-government-power-grab/?intcmp=latestnews

 

First of all, I love the way FoxNews runs their debate segments. The "neutral" host and one or two conservative guests come on and pound away on whatever poor token liberal was brought on for the segment. It's their tried and true formula and it's still working after all of these years.

 

Second, I love the logic of the brief education discussion they had: Low-income students, who on average have lower test scores (regardless of race), are concentrated in inner-city schools. These schools end up having lower overall average test scores and are then labelled "failing" by faulty ratings systems. The proposed solution by conservatives is without hesitation always "school choice," where these low income students are almost always segregated further into other failing schools (usually charter schools). The fact that this housing plan would, by nature, allow more students access to "better" schools (i.e. those schools with larger concentrations of wealthier students and thus higher test scores) is completely glossed over. But the entire education discussion ignores the real reasons why schools "fail" or "succeed," so it's almost as if it would be better off if not even discussed when talking about housing policy (which is really an unfortunate consequence of the ignorance).

Transit access is certainly a factor to consider, but not every LIHTC unit or HCV needs to be transit accessible.  The study posted by straphanger above indicates that a bit over half of the incoming HCV recipients had access to a car.  I can also speak from personal experience having managed LIHTC units that most of their prospective residents have access to a car.  In fact, not having off-street parking at a LIHTC unit was considered a considerable handicap in getting that unit filled.

 

How many of people had to have subsidized housing because our transportation/land use policies forced them to own a car and thus divert limited income to it? I think you'll find that in low-income households, a greater share (20% oer more) of their total income goes to transportation than in higher-income households.

A little late to this discussion, but Section 8 isn't a cause it's a symptom, if you want to look at it as a problem in the first place.  Good neighborhoods don't go bad because Section 8 residents come, the Section 8 residents come because the neighborhood has already gone downhill such that landlords can't get enough market renters. 

 

Or that these neighborhoods were destroyed by the crash of '08.

 

The 2008 crash generally hit owner-occupants a lot harder than it hit renters.  The combination of overeager borrowers and overeager lenders could also affect landlords (especially novice landlords that just thought they'd start getting into the investment property game because credit was so easy to come by), but the effect on the tenants would be indirect and at least slightly attenuated.

^I think Clevelander17 is referring to what happened to those owner-occupied homes after the owner defaulted. Neglect, which depressed neighborhood housing values and rents, and shift to investor ownership, which means more renters, some of which may be section 8 voucher holders. It's not clear to me the outlook of these neighborhoods would be any brighter without Section 8, though.

Also relevant to this recent discussion are the new HUD regs coming out, that will finally define the "affirmatively further fair housing" mandate that has always come along with HUD funding, but never really meant anything.  This Foxnews.com article contains some entertaining hysteria: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/08/new-hud-rule-good-intentions-or-another-government-power-grab/?intcmp=latestnews

 

They're out.

 

http://www.huduser.org/portal/affht_pt2.html

 

I'm reading the executive summary now.  Still waiting to see the commentariat reaction; the only one I've read so far is arch-suburbanist Stanley Kurtz', and his reaction was able to be disseminated quickly because it was probably planned weeks ago and with neither knowledge nor need of any knowledge about the content of the rule.

A little late to this discussion, but Section 8 isn't a cause it's a symptom, if you want to look at it as a problem in the first place.  Good neighborhoods don't go bad because Section 8 residents come, the Section 8 residents come because the neighborhood has already gone downhill such that landlords can't get enough market renters. 

 

Or that these neighborhoods were destroyed by the crash of '08.

 

The 2008 crash generally hit owner-occupants a lot harder than it hit renters.  The combination of overeager borrowers and overeager lenders could also affect landlords (especially novice landlords that just thought they'd start getting into the investment property game because credit was so easy to come by), but the effect on the tenants would be indirect and at least slightly attenuated.

 

In 2007 I rented from a guy who was about 25 who had just bought four houses in a row near UC.  He bought the houses in late 2006 or early 2007 for about $85,000 each with his sister's credit then promptly lost two of them to foreclosure by 2009 helped in no small part to him buying cocaine with the rent he was collecting.  The two houses each sat empty for about a year and then were bought by some guy for under $15,000 each.  He spent about $10,000 on each and started renting them out.  So that guy who swooped in made out huge.  He has two paid-for houses generating $1,000/mo so he's already seeing a return. 

 

 

^I think Clevelander17 is referring to what happened to those owner-occupied homes after the owner defaulted. Neglect, which depressed neighborhood housing values and rents, and shift to investor ownership, which means more renters, some of which may be section 8 voucher holders. It's not clear to me the outlook of these neighborhoods would be any brighter without Section 8, though.

 

Yeah to clarify, that's what I meant. The crash started a domino effect that lead to a significant percentage of housing in some specific areas (inner-ring suburbs particularly) quickly going from owner-occupied to Section 8 rentals.

Sometimes, suburban sprawl is within central-city boundaries:

 

Study: Columbus area has a suburban feel

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/10/Greater-Columbus-area-considered-suburban.html

 

Sometimes, suburban sprawl is within central-city boundaries:

 

Study: Columbus area has a suburban feel

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/10/Greater-Columbus-area-considered-suburban.html

 

 

Hell, there's parts of Cleveland proper that seem rural....

Sometimes, suburban sprawl is within central-city boundaries:

 

Study: Columbus area has a suburban feel

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/10/Greater-Columbus-area-considered-suburban.html

 

Sometimes, suburban sprawl is within central-city boundaries:

 

Study: Columbus area has a suburban feel

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/10/Greater-Columbus-area-considered-suburban.html

 

Just look at that map...so areas like Westgate and Eastmoor that are 100% walkable in Columbus are suburban, but areas that are sprawled out in far south Columbus around Obetz are urban, and Polaris of all places is also urban? Right. I have to think there must be more, additional, or better criteria to determine 'urbanity'.

 

Also another way to bash Columbus on this board (lol)

 

I swear if God came down to Cincinnati and Cleveland and said to them, "I will grant you anything you want, but with one condition-whatever I do for you, I will do twice as much for Columbus", Cincinnati and Cleveland would get together, and finally have an answer for God-"destroy half of our cities, and destroy ALL of Columbus!" lol

Also another way to bash Columbus on this board (lol)

Or you can blame the Columbus Dispatch and Community Research Partners for the article.

Also another way to bash Columbus on this board (lol)

Or you can blame the Columbus Dispatch and Community Research Partners for the article.

 

I was just joking around about that of course..  and I would LOVE to blame the hated Dispatch for any and all of the problems of the world and 'dispatch' the Wolfe family to a very warm subterranean place with a quickness!

 

The Dispatch has only really been the voice of the wealthy or suburban population of Columbus from time Immemorial anyway.

 

But there is some truth in the statement that one of the few things Cincy and Cleveland have in common is their mutual disdain for Cbus. c'mon now.

Ohio cities are not exactly known for their warm support of other Ohio cities.

This is one of the realities of regionalism generally--could go here or in the regionalism thread.  If you consolidated all of Franklin County (or Cuyahoga) tomorrow, it still wouldn't actually look any different the day after.  The suburbs wouldn't exist at law anymore, but they'd still exist in fact.  Dublin, Westerville, Pickerington, etc. would simply be more neighborhoods of Columbus that are fundamentally suburban.

"I will grant you anything you want, but with one condition-whatever I do for you, I will do twice as much for Columbus"

 

That's pretty much the deal that we already have.

But there is some truth in the statement that one of the few things Cincy and Cleveland have in common is their mutual disdain for Cbus. c'mon now.

Ohio cities are not exactly known for their warm support of other Ohio cities.

 

I believe the disdain is predominately for the Cbus legislature. I think Clevelander said it best:

 

"I will grant you anything you want, but with one condition-whatever I do for you, I will do twice as much for Columbus"

 

That's pretty much the deal that we already have.

This is one of the realities of regionalism generally--could go here or in the regionalism thread.  If you consolidated all of Franklin County (or Cuyahoga) tomorrow, it still wouldn't actually look any different the day after.  The suburbs wouldn't exist at law anymore, but they'd still exist in fact.  Dublin, Westerville, Pickerington, etc. would simply be more neighborhoods of Columbus that are fundamentally suburban.

 

I believe this is why, on paper, Columbus proper's various population statistics (income, crime, etc.) do not look as dire as Cleveland's. The presence of significant suburban areas within the city boundaries of Columbus allow the city to offer the "suburban lifestyle" while still being actual Columbus residents. The existence of the Win-Win school district agreement even allows many of these Columbus residents to attend the more desirable suburban school districts like Dublin, Westerville, Worthington, etc.

 

I imagine if Cleveland ever fully consolidated with Cuyahoga County, a similar outcome would exist with the vast suburban areas remaining suburban in character.

But there is some truth in the statement that one of the few things Cincy and Cleveland have in common is their mutual disdain for Cbus. c'mon now.

Ohio cities are not exactly known for their warm support of other Ohio cities.

 

It's a six-lane, two-way arterial road.

The Wolfes no longer own the Dispatch. The sale to GateHouse Media was finalized a few weeks ago.

The Wolfes no longer own the Dispatch. The sale to GateHouse Media was finalized a few weeks ago.

 

they are still in town and own WBNS(CBS affiliate) so they are still here(unfortunately).

This is one of the realities of regionalism generally--could go here or in the regionalism thread.  If you consolidated all of Franklin County (or Cuyahoga) tomorrow, it still wouldn't actually look any different the day after.  The suburbs wouldn't exist at law anymore, but they'd still exist in fact.  Dublin, Westerville, Pickerington, etc. would simply be more neighborhoods of Columbus that are fundamentally suburban.

 

I believe this is why, on paper, Columbus proper's various population statistics (income, crime, etc.) do not look as dire as Cleveland's. The presence of significant suburban areas within the city boundaries of Columbus allow the city to offer the "suburban lifestyle" while still being actual Columbus residents. The existence of the Win-Win school district agreement even allows many of these Columbus residents to attend the more desirable suburban school districts like Dublin, Westerville, Worthington, etc.

 

I imagine if Cleveland ever fully consolidated with Cuyahoga County, a similar outcome would exist with the vast suburban areas remaining suburban in character.

 

Part of the Win/Win agreement is that any new areas annexed into the city after that agreement went into effect go to Columbus City Schools. If you look at a map of Cbus City Schools, you will see the main inner area(about 1960 area city boundaries) and then a sprinkling of areas on the perimeter of the city, like small planets orbiting a sun. I think this is a part of the reason annexation has slowed in the city since around 1990 and also why no already built up residential area will ever be annexed by Cbus again-it would mean Cbus City Schools. Columbus will be growing by infill, increasing density, and building on existing annexed perimeter areas. I think the areal expansion of the city is pretty much over, and the city is pretty much surrounded by incorporated territory, territory this is already built up but will never annex to Cbus(southern Delaware County), or territory that is not really suited for development(Darby Creek area to the west) ..IMO of course.

I sometimes have trouble deciding whether Stanley Kurtz or Joel Kotkin is the more loathsome crusader for the cause of sprawl.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421389/attention-americas-suburbs-you-have-just-been-annexed-stanley-kurtz

 

I'm not even that big a fan of the proposed AFFH rules, as noted upthread, and yet Kurtz somehow makes me want to defend it just on the general principle that people who are that sanctimonious are generally missing most of the picture.

I sometimes have trouble deciding whether Stanley Kurtz or Joel Kotkin is the more loathsome crusader for the cause of sprawl.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421389/attention-americas-suburbs-you-have-just-been-annexed-stanley-kurtz

 

I'm not even that big a fan of the proposed AFFH rules, as noted upthread, and yet Kurtz somehow makes me want to defend it just on the general principle that people who are that sanctimonious are generally missing most of the picture.

 

On the other hand, if he's even half right I'd like to know how something like this gets put forth without Congressional approval, which it would never ever get in the year 2015.

It's definitely a power grab based on veto power.  Congress could amend the Fair Housing Act tomorrow to clarify what I think was clearly the original intent, i.e., that it was intended to ban both de jure segregation as well as state and local laws with the deliberate intent of segregating neighborhoods, but was never intended to go far enough to allow "disparate impact" as the basis of a claim of liability.  But Obama could veto that, and then the only way of reining in HUD here would be through the budgetary process, which is a blunt instrument and not the ideal tool for the job.

 

Kurtz' real issue is with Obama being in control of HUD, though of course I'm sure he'd be happy to see disparate impact theory statutorily eliminated and would probably be happy winding down HUD entirely.  But the new rule has so much flexibility in it that a Scott Walker or Rick Perry administration could basically take it as written and do whatever they wanted as well.  That's part of the problem I have with the modern regulatory state in general, including but not limited to this AFFH rule--knowing the regulator becomes more important than knowing the regulation.  That's also part of what makes Kurtz so difficult to empirically disprove, while Kurtz basically doesn't need evidence because it's just an exercise in who you trust.

Congress approved the obligation of CDBG recipients to "affirmatively further fair housing" in 1974 (it's written into the Housing and Community Development Act), but didn't define what it meant. No administration did either, till now.  FWIW, the CDBG program isn't a giant hammer like highway funding. It's a much smaller amount, most of which is supposed to be used to benefit low/moderate income people in any case.

 

Not sure yet the import of the FHA decision.  Will be interesting to read some informed opinions on that one (that emphatically excludes Kurtz).

Washington Post ‏@washingtonpost  30m30 minutes ago

The old suburban office park is the new American ghost town http://wapo.st/1OvAfj0 

Distaste for Suburbia is turning to revulsion. https://t.co/mcwJxlsbFU

? That was the same article from your previous post ...

Proof that I don't even read the links in tweets I post! :)

Siegal Lifelong Learning to address land use and sprawl from a Cuyahoga County perspective

 

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

Follow on Twitter

on July 27, 2015 at 10:22 AM, updated July 27, 2015 at 10:52 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – Of all the issues facing the city, Cuyahoga County and Northeast Ohio, land use may be the most important and least discussed.

 

Land use is how people interact with geography. It concerns the type of activity, the density and the intensity with which we use land at specific locations across the map.

 

Recent research shows definitively that Cuyahoga County and Northeast Ohio as a whole face serious challenges thanks to their current land use pattern, in which the combined effect of sprawl development and population loss are creating a more costly and less sustainable way of life.

 

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2015/07/siegal_lifelong_learning_forum.html#incart_2box

Maybe Cuyahoga County should set up tolls along all freeways leading into the county from Lorain, Medina, and Geauga counties? ;) I don't know what the solution is, because the state certainly isn't going to stop subsidizing costly sprawl with our tax revenues.

Maybe Cuyahoga County should set up tolls along all freeways leading into the county from Lorain, Medina, and Geauga counties? ;) I don't know what the solution is, because the state certainly isn't going to stop subsidizing costly sprawl with our tax revenues.

 

A friend and I discussed that exact same idea at a previous job when one of the many collar county coworkers said something about living just outside of Cuyahoga County so they could avoid taxes but still reap metro benefits.  We even went as far as to propose using the revenue to give breaks to companies to keep them from relocating outside of the county.

Transport. 4 America ‏@T4America  17s17 seconds ago

Tampa is considering charging developers higher fees for building outside the urban core http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/hillsborough-county-could-charge-developers-more-for-sprawl-to-encourage/2239264 …

"The majority of sprawl in this country is produced

by those who are fleeing from sprawl."—Alex Krieger http://t.co/1mJplmxUS6

 

 

"The more parking space, the less sense of place."

– Jane Holtz Kay http://t.co/7XThzfenYr

 

 

"Urbanism works when it creates a journey

as desirable as the destination."—Paul Goldberger

#copenhagen http://t.co/lpdZhMy305

 

 

"Parking's a narcotic & ought to be a controlled substance.

It's addictive, & one can never have enough"—Victor Dover http://t.co/v8L5uA3C79

A third of Americans say they've never interacted with the people living next door

 

http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/08/why-wont-you-be-my-neighbor/401762/

 

I find this to astonishing, sad and even a little scary!

Can you post the source link instead of the Twitter redirect? That way the link still works if/when Twitter goes out of business.

What qualifies as "interact?" I've hung out a handful of times with a few of my neighbors but couldn't even tell you the names of 2/3 of the 50 or so people in my building.

 

Granted, I view my condo as the place I go when I don't want to interact with people. I socialize a lot but it's basically always outside of my house. I only have 490 square feet and having more than one or two people over feels very much like an intrusion into my personal space.

Nextdoor sounds like something that was built with the intention of being bought by Facebook.  (Or Google+, when it was conceived, maybe, but that seems quite a bit less likely now.)

 

Nothing to really argue with in the article: Without modern social networking technology, I wouldn't know an enormous number of the people I know.  It would have taken me a lot longer to find my board game club and I would still probably be interacting with them maybe once a month at actual club meetings instead of also on social media.  (The intermediate days of the dumbphone text message still wouldn't have enabled quite the same level of interaction, either.)  So on and so forth.

 

I know the names of probably eight people on my street, in four houses.  But I wouldn't say I interact with them regularly.  (Heck, one of them I go out of my way to avoid interacting with, but I guess everyone probably has that one neighbor, and did even back in the pre-Internet era.)

What jmicha said, only minus the "hung out a handful of times."

 

I once helped a neighbor who collapsed on the stairs. I talked to the 9-1-1 operator and then her daughter on the phone after EMS arrived. I had a nasty argument with the people upstairs about their unruly children who scream, bang things and run up and down the stairs all evening long, and leave their shit all over the hallway. And I had to apologize to the neighbor across the way who was told to vacate while the old man who lived there was dying, due to a gas leak in my apartment. But I don't talk to any of them or socialize with them. I go outside of home for that. The only person's name I know in my building is the elderly upstairs neighbor, who is a nice lady who talks to my son when she sees him and has on occasion received packages for me the few times I wasn't able to get things sent to work (can't receive packages at home).

Exactly. Like, I help my one neighbor with random maintenance things since she has a bad hip and can't climb up a ladder or get down on the ground to do certain things. She'll often come by and ask me if I can help her out which I'm more than happy to do (she gave me like 500 dollars worth of kitchen stuff when she moved in since she didn't need as much anymore too so I feel sort of obligated since she helped me out). I have hung out in our courtyard with her and her daughter while they were drinking wine a couple times. She's the person I've interacted with the most and even then it's not overly common.

 

I just don't view my personal residence as a place where I socialize or interact in person with people. With the exception of my two best friends very few people (excluding those who I'm dating) have spent any time in my place in the year and a half I've been there. It's just not what I want out of a residence. I moved to an urban area to socialize at bars, restaurants, at the park, etc. not my home.