I haven't been in that part of the city in about a year. Outside of Steelyard Commons which really isn't in Old Brooklyn...is there anything happening there? It's a rather large neighborhood, and being new to the boards maybe I've missed some of development threads, but it seems to be largely ignored by developers. The Deaconess area could really be a nice area to redevelop into a small urban haven.

Deaconess has reopened. I'm not sure to what capacity, but it is open. And you wanted to know what is going on in Old Brooklyn,,,,, just more suburban landlords renting out more section 8 housing. But hey, it's not their neighborhood.

just more suburban landlords renting out more section 8 housing. But hey, it's not their neighborhood.

 

Can you back up your statement with facts?

Since Old Brooklyn hasn't seen the decline of other Cleveland neighborhoods, it has little vacant land for new development. Thus most of what is happening is limited to infill housing and building renovations. Here are some of them:

 

> Most notable was the reopening of Deaconness Hospital as the MetroHealth South Campus, where 450 back-office functions from the main campus were relocated there starting last fall. A second phase would relocate and expand skilled nursing facilities and senior health programs from multiple providers to MetroHealth South.

 

> Infill housing includes the Stanford Homes, a three-unit townhome project on Stanford Avenue, just west of MetroHealth South. For more information, see  http://progressiveurban.com/stanford/index.html

 

> Two old, 3-story buildings at either end of the Pearl Road bridge are being renovated, or about to be renovated with ground-level retail and 18 apartments each. One is the Krather Building; the other is the Masonic Building.

 

> The vacated Charter One check processing center on Memphis Avenue is being renovated into a Cuyahoga County services center, and will see at least 100 jobs relocated to it (I can't remember the number).

 

> The vacated McIntyre Center, an old party center on Pearl Road, is being renovated into a call center and will house 100 jobs.

 

Those are just a few projects off the top of my head.

The area CDC is in the begginings of a master plan. It was put on hold for last years council elections and because the Old Brooklyn Neighborhood Services and the CDC for the Denison-Archwood neighborhood merged.

 

Also, the July 7 Cleveland Planning Commission accepted a grant from Northeast Ohio Area Coordinating Agency for the Transportation for Livable Communities Initiative Program. (As I reported on my blog, here:

http://clevelandplanner.blogspot.com/2006/07/july-7-2006-summary-of-cleveland.html)

 

 

6. Ordinance No. 1063-06: Authorizing the Director of the City Planning Commission to apply for and accept one or more grants from Northeast Ohio Area Coordinating Agency for the Transportation for Livable Communities Initiative Program.

 

This is the second year of the grant program. Last year there were four recipients and this year there are three: V.A. Hospital (pedestrian friendly), Old Brooklyn (transit service along Pearl Road) and the Clark Metro area (bike path study along Train Avenue).

 

The grants range from $30,000 to 75,000 and require a 20% match from the city. The appropriate CDC’s will administer each grant. They will be responsible for obtaining consultants.

 

^^Musky/KJP thanks for the info.

 

You are right, KJP...there would be less need for developement/re-devolopment in Old Brooklyn and the Westpark areas since they've seem to have weathered the population loss storm a bit better than other neighborhoods.

MyTwoSense, I don't have the facts on paper I assume you are looking for. But, I do live in Old Brooklyn. This is my third house in Old Brooklyn in which I have lived/do live. I also have a rental property in Old Brooklyn--- NO SECTION 8. I know of landlords, watch the papers, and call on every "for rent" sign around my houses. Old Brooklyn now is exactly the same as the other neighborhoods I lived in within the City of Cleveland. They never were rich neighborhoods, but they were solid. Then, folks who choose not to work came in, were allowed to live for free or close to free, and lived the same neighborhood myself and my parents earned. The working folks left after seeing their block go down hill. Old Brooklyn will be another one of those neighborhoods within a decade. Call on some "for rent" signs yourself. See how many of those phone numbers you dial have a 330 or 440 area code.

MyTwoSense, I don't have the facts on paper I assume you are looking for. But, I do live in Old Brooklyn. This is my third house in Old Brooklyn in which I have lived/do live. I also have a rental property in Old Brooklyn--- NO SECTION 8. I know of landlords, watch the papers, and call on every "for rent" sign around my houses. Old Brooklyn now is exactly the same as the other neighborhoods I lived in within the City of Cleveland. They never were rich neighborhoods, but they were solid. Then, folks who choose not to work came in, were allowed to live for free or close to free, and lived the same neighborhood myself and my parents earned. The working folks left after seeing their block go down hill. Old Brooklyn will be another one of those neighborhoods within a decade. Call on some "for rent" signs yourself. See how many of those phone numbers you dial have a 330 or 440 area code.

 

i agree with what you are saying.

MyTwoSense, I don't have the facts on paper I assume you are looking for. But, I do live in Old Brooklyn. This is my third house in Old Brooklyn in which I have lived/do live. I also have a rental property in Old Brooklyn--- NO SECTION 8. I know of landlords, watch the papers, and call on every "for rent" sign around my houses. Old Brooklyn now is exactly the same as the other neighborhoods I lived in within the City of Cleveland. They never were rich neighborhoods, but they were solid. Then, folks who choose not to work came in, were allowed to live for free or close to free, and lived the same neighborhood myself and my parents earned. The working folks left after seeing their block go down hill. Old Brooklyn will be another one of those neighborhoods within a decade. Call on some "for rent" signs yourself. See how many of those phone numbers you dial have a 330 or 440 area code.

 

Ok thanks.  However, it seems that you equate section 8 (and i dont know anything about the program) with less desirable people.  Also, I've never been to OB, it just seemed stranged that you made that statement with no further explanation, like you did in this message.

 

thats all......

Personally, I don't like living near section 8 housing, but that is just MY personal choice.  I think Lakewod is starting to take the same stance by wanting to change doubles into singles to get rid of absentee landlords AND sec 8 housing stock.  Too bad it came to that because it will reduce the density in Lakewood eventualy.  I guess I am the weirdo in this site....I am not big on suburbia at all, I enjoy urban living, but at the same time....I love the rural lifestyle as well (I guess since I have lived in both worlds)....

I like urban and rural, but I won't stand for anything in between those two.

Personally, I don't like living near section 8 housing, but that is just MY personal choice.  I think Lakewod is starting to take the same stance by wanting to change doubles into singles to get rid of absentee landlords AND sec 8 housing stock.  Too bad it came to that because it will reduce the density in Lakewood eventualy.  I guess I am the weirdo in this site....I am not big on suburbia at all, I enjoy urban living, but at the same time....I love the rural lifestyle as well (I guess since I have lived in both worlds)....

 

You demand urban and rural, yet it's this fear of Section 8 housing that drives suburbia. Almost every American metro has it's poorest people living in the city limits. Running away from that problem has been going on for too damn long, and has led to the decline of cities all over the country. That's why I'm all for Steelyard...folks in Section 8 housing aren't gonna benefit from new office space...but they can find work at Home Depot and in turn get off Section 8.

^ I don't "demand" anything....I live in the city of Cleveland...but have also lived in a rural area as well....both have good and bad....rural speaking...there weren't many panhandlers or crackheads walking the streets to deal with...but on the other hand, driving 20 min one way to buy a gallon of milk was a bitch as well! (no, I DIDN'T have a cow)  Like I said, BOTH areas have great qualities.....but as for the "burbs"..you can keep em.  I am with you on SYC...never said anything bad about the place.

Interestingly, last week my parents, who live in a semi-rural/industrial park area of Avon Lake, had two seperate people in two days come up to them and ask for money or gas for their cars while they were sitting on their front porch.

 

As for section 8, it beats the alternative of federally constructed hyper-ghettos, but there needs to be a cap per neighbhorhood or we are essentially defeating that purpose.

Personally, I don't like living near section 8 housing, but that is just MY personal choice.  I think Lakewod is starting to take the same stance by wanting to change doubles into singles to get rid of absentee landlords AND sec 8 housing stock.  Too bad it came to that because it will reduce the density in Lakewood eventualy.  I guess I am the weirdo in this site....I am not big on suburbia at all, I enjoy urban living, but at the same time....I love the rural lifestyle as well (I guess since I have lived in both worlds)....

 

You demand urban and rural, yet it's this fear of Section 8 housing that drives suburbia. Almost every American metro has it's poorest people living in the city limits. Running away from that problem has been going on for too damn long, and has led to the decline of cities all over the country. That's why I'm all for Steelyard...folks in Section 8 housing aren't gonna benefit from new office space...but they can find work at Home Depot and in turn get off Section 8.

 

My bad, that was Wimwar on the rural and urban thing. Mucho apologizo.

As for section 8, it beats the alternative of federally constructed hyper-ghettos, but there needs to be a cap per neighborhood or we are essentially defeating that purpose.

 

I definitely agree.  It's also pretty crappy that outer suburbs zone out any possibility of section 8 or other low (or even middle) income residents.  I would love to see an affordable housing development with Section 8 recipients and working class families built in Pepper Pike or Hunting Valley- open up Orange Schools to people who could really benefit from the change of scene.

I live over in OB, I have been here for almost a year.  Some of the houses need some work around here, but you can get a really good deal and still live in a decent neighborhood.  It seems every street in OB is great, minus one house.  Like on my street, two houses down there is that one section 8 houses.  They don’t cause any problems, but you can tell it is section 8.  It doesn't bother me, I just it as part of leaving in the city.  The downtown needs some MAJOR work, but other than that, I love it hear.  My buddy bought a house on the end of my street cause he liked it so much.  It puzzles me though with so many people that go to the zoo that the downtown can be that bad. 

 

I don’t think it will be like every other Cleveland neighborhood in 10 years.  It is just your typical blue-collar neighborhood.  It’s no Westlake, but it is much better than leaving in Parma. 

 

As for section 8, it beats the alternative of federally constructed hyper-ghettos, but there needs to be a cap per neighborhood or we are essentially defeating that purpose.

 

I definitely agree.  It's also pretty crappy that outer suburbs zone out any possibility of section 8 or other low (or even middle) income residents.  I would love to see an affordable housing development with Section 8 recipients and working class families built in Pepper Pike or Hunting Valley- open up Orange Schools to people who could really benefit from the change of scene.

 

Those people who live in those areas would just move somewhere else -- probably some emerging former farm town. In New York, people always say, you can find the best mix of poor and rich mixing. According to this NYC.gov site (http://gis.nyc.gov/nycha/im/AddressMap.do), there are no public housing buildings between E. 59th street and E. 98 street, which seems to me is some of the most desirable residential space in all of New York. I'm sure there are some sec. 8 units in there, though -- seems as though it might be a legal requirement? But, I think if you said you were going to put a project tower in there, the rich, UN-types would throw a fit like any self-respecting suburbanite.

 

Section 8 has a bad reputation among suburban people because they equate it with crime. In Cuyahoga Falls when I was young, the city tried to block a low-income housing development but lost in court. So up went an average-looking apartment complex. A few years later, a city police officer told my mom not to shop in the Giant Eagle next door because it wasn't safe anymore. Was it really more dangerous? I don't know, but when a cop says to stay away, you tend to take his advice.

 

Nationally, is there a stastical correlation between sec. 8 housing and crime? I don't know, but I suspect it does. In the small town in Michigan where I worked, the nicest apartment complex in town was low-income only. That's where the neighborhood thugs hung out and robbed pizza delivery guys. They might not have even lived there but in some neighboring blocks, which also were pretty rough. In Akron, there is a 10-year-old sec. 8 development that is among the most called upon locations to the Akron PD. It's in no-man's land on the border of Cuyahoga Falls.

 

These suburbs prize themselves on having practically ZERO serious crime, unlike in a dense city where criminal stuff happens all the time and you deal with it. So, when people think they see the writing on the wall, the "For Sale" signs go up, and everyone leaves. If it weren't tragic, you could focus on how interesting it is. People fundamentally give up on their communities and their governments' ability to protect their families and property. 

 

^ Well, crime is one thing. It's everywhere. It may be covered up better in certain areas or exploited in certain areas. We also own a small house on 10 acres in Newcommerstown. I have had 3 house windows broken out there as opposed to 0 on my two houses in Old Brooklyn. My problem with section 8 is allowing people to live with no accountability. It shows in the houses which in turn destroys solid neighborhoods. Nobody wants to live next to a messy property. Think about this: We (Americans) live in the only country on the face of the planet where one can choose to never work a day of his life and still be obese. Now I realize someone is going to ask "what does that have to do with section 8?" Everything. We allow people to exist with no consequences nor responsibilities. It shows in every aspect.

I don't know if I'd consider broken windows serious crime, though. When I was little, a neighbor kid used to sneak out and smoke pot and then at one point he and his friends ripped the basketball hoop off the garage. This is the sort of stuff I'd expect. We didn't have break-in robberies or muggings or visible drug dealing. I think that Old Brooklyn sounds similar to Cuyahoga Falls, if it's populated by a bunch of blue-collar, regular folks.

 

What you're saying is interesting though. What do you think the sec. 8 landlords' responsibilities are? It's their property, shouldn't it be their job to keep a house looking good? That's just a question. I wouldn't ever want to be a landlord. No matter how much a person makes, if they are a slob, they're a slob.

I agree about the broken window thing. I guess I was being a little narrow minded---- just relating to my own experiences.

 

My own personal knowledge regarding section 8.--- The rent is government paid. Translation, the working tax payers foot the bill. A person is to pay a portion of the rent. I have seen the renter's portion be as low as $2 a month------- In this particular case, the renter was evicted after not paying her potion for two years. That's $24!!!!!!!!! Such low portions are not uncommon. The house is to pass an inspection for housing codes. In a major city, they are rarely enforced.

Landlords get to collect a pay check every month. They are in it for the money. Who isn't if you own rental property??!! But, the landlords who live in the suburbs have no stake in the city neighborhoods. Who cares what quality of person they rent to, the money is the same. I wish the city would enforce housing code violations. They could handle it the same way landlord/tennant court does. Intercept the rent and only release the money to the landlord when the codes are up to par. That would include the outside appearance of the property. Furthermore, and going a little futher in depth, I wish anyone convicted of violent crimes, drugs, etc., would have the "benefits" the government provides revoked. At the very least, that may be some incentive to stay on the right path.

So, how about that Old Brooklyn redevelopment!

 

A patently transparent attempt to bring this discussion back around to its originally stated purpose!

 

Here's another attempt:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=8513.0

Think about this: We (Americans) live in the only country on the face of the planet where one can choose to never work a day of his life and still be obese.

 

Ummm....I'd check my facts if I were you.

As for section 8, it beats the alternative of federally constructed hyper-ghettos, but there needs to be a cap per neighborhood or we are essentially defeating that purpose.

 

I definitely agree.  It's also pretty crappy that outer suburbs zone out any possibility of section 8 or other low (or even middle) income residents.  I would love to see an affordable housing development with Section 8 recipients and working class families built in Pepper Pike or Hunting Valley- open up Orange Schools to people who could really benefit from the change of scene.

 

Actually there are "subsided" housing projects in either Pepper Pike & woodmere or orange & woodmere (that strip is such a blur to me).  Of course these are not viewed as "housing projects" or PJ's as in the city based soley on where they are located.  There is one or two in cleveland hts, shaker hts, oakwood, lakewood, rocky river, Berea or Middleburgh hts.  However, alot of the burbs want to keep their properties of the cmha website or publications....aint that some shit.

 

When my best friends grandmother (keep in mind his family is loaded, so granny didn't need to be on assistance) was looking for an apartment she wanted to move downtown from the shaker square area, because as granny put it, "every one else is moving downtown, why should I be left out" CMHA told her to move to woodmere.

^MTS, I think the stuff you're thinking of is in Woodmere which is actually a really interesting place- an old, traditionally black middle class area that's been engulfed by upper middle class predominantly white sprawl.  It's an excellent affordable entry to top notch public schools.

 

Sure, several 'burbs have affordable and even subsidized housing.  What bugs me are the outer burbs whose 4-acre min lots or subdivision requirements effectively bar the construction of anything new that isn't large single family.  You'd think the C in CMHA would mean that all the municipalities (and as importantly, school districts) should pitch in to deconcentrate the county's poverty and open up the best school districts and some of the best job markets to those who need them most.

I'm really surprised that people are operating under the assumption that Section 8 housing increases incidences of crime and decreases housing value. I'm afraid I won't believe that until I see some hard data associated with it. My intuition tells me that Section 8 actually lowers incidences of crime because a) theft and break-ins are associated with financial hardship; subsidized housing reduces the financial hardship associated with housing needs and b) the program decentralizes poverty. Instead of ghetto-izing the poor, it decentralized the economically disadvantaged, moving those who otherwise could not afford it to raise their families in safer, more economically integrated neighborhoods. I think our country's fear of the urban poor really prevents us from achieving the full potential of our cities. Again, I don't have any hard data to back up my thoughts on the topic, but apparently, neither does anyone else in this thread.

 

I would note that while I wish more municipalities would share in providing subsidized housing, participants in the Section 8 program often do not own cars. Plopping families down in Pepper Pike only works if you either ensure job opportunities/workforce training close to home or organize a commuting program.

 

As for Old Brooklyn, it is a nice, stable neighborhood. Nothing too flashy, IMHO, but a nice neighborhood nonetheless. The major community development groups have started branding the neighborhood in association with the zoo, an obviously major asset for the area. I am in the neighborhood a lot and have been struck recently by the plethora of for-sale signs popping up. This might just be because we've hit the summer season, but it does seem like there is considerably more turnover this year than last.

8Shades, to clarify, I think Section 8 and the choice of housing it offers recipients is a good thing.  I think the point some of us are making is that because,as you point out, there is a correlation between concentration of poverty and crime and other unfortunate ends (I can dig up studies if requested), it would be best not to reconcentrate Section 8 recipients as exclusionary zoning tends to do.

I'm really surprised that people are operating under the assumption that Section 8 housing increases incidences of crime and decreases housing value.

 

This is a joke, right? Have you lived near Section 8 housing? Have you ever lived in an apartment complex in which the owner decides to start accepting Section 8 vouchers? I have.

 

It's not rocket science that when you replace wage-earning, working people with people living on handouts that a community's housing value is going to decline. Of course, the argument is what came first, the chicken or the egg, the bad neighborhood or the Section 8 residents? I would argue that the very presence of Section 8 residents shows a community that is struggling because it is unable to attract residents at market rents.

 

Full disclaimer: I don't believe that all or even most Section 8 recipients are "bad people." But if you take a public housing complex and stick it in the middle of a healthy area, I think reasonable people would agree that housing values will be affected. Section 8 is the same thing, just on a less obvious scale.

 

8ShadesofGray---- what cushy suburb do live in exactly? Because I know that nobody who lives in Cleveland could think that way. There's what looks good on paper, then there's the real world. Also, I don't need a study to tell me if section 8 increases incodents of crime. I have moved three times to three different neighborhoods in Cleveland. I know why, I lived it. This, Old Brooklyn, is the last straw for me. When on any given Tuesday afternoon, there are more adults sitting on thier porches than there are adults at work, I'm out.

^ Well stated....I have lived it too, and have no desire to live near it anymore...

8ShadesofGray---- what cushy suburb do live in exactly? Because I know that nobody who lives in Cleveland could think that way.

 

Think again, then. I live in the east 30s, just off of St. Clair; my neighborhood is hardly a stranger to the urban poor. My "cushy suburb" lies not too far away from the largest homeless shelters in the region. The results of Section 8 housing depend on how well it is carried out. http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/familydevelopment/components/7565_09.html. And unless it's done horribly, I still think it's remarkably better than concentrating poor people into slums.

 

If you feel inclined to run from neighborhood to neighborhood to avoid the urban poor, that's your business. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't start making claims that Section 8 residents are the problem unless we have more than anectdotes to back those claims up. Because if we're using anectdotes, I think the ones presented in Myth of the Welfare Queen (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684840065/sr=8-1/qid=1154959468/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4680174-2508927?ie=UTF8) and Rachel and Her Children (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0449903397/sr=8-1/qid=1154959381/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4680174-2508927?ie=UTF8) are a lot more accurate and a lot more compelling.

I think section 8 is needed for elderly folks, and temporary for folks who have fallen in to hard times. But as a Brooklyn centre resident I see section 8 destroying our streets. The house next store to me just became section 8, 9 months ago. Within two months US Marshal arrested 18 yr old male there for a shooting on the east side. He is part of the D-20 gang. And it didn’t stop there they are selling drugs as well, and running a daycare from home. So as it stand right now section 8 is leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

 

Now I moved, but my mom is renting that house from me, and I still hearing stories from her. I moved to the South Hills area of Old Brooklyn, it’s a great place and its quiet and I didn’t know of any section 8 there.

 

^ Agreed!  Section 8, Welfare, WIC, etc etc..all good things for a TEMPORARY fix....the original intent.  A safety net to help get youback on your feet and and become productive again.  Problem is (no matter how many studies or whatever you want to show me) too many people make a lifestyle out of it...and on top of that it becomes generational.  Do I have hard facts, figures, polls, blind tests, or WHATEVER to back this up...no!  I just see it, up close and personal.  All the social services seem to out of control and way out of line from the idea that hatched them.  Yes, there are social and societal reason for CERTAIN problems....but let's get to the root of the problem..it comes from within.  Again, parents need to parent....kids need to go to school and FINISH.  Kids need to learn respect.  They need to be punished for their wrong doings.  I was!  I didn't turn out to be a mass murderer or a killer because I got a smack on the ass once in a while.  (neither did my friends)  There is way too much psycho babble hooey out there....we need to get back to basics....look at our grandparents..I wonder how many "time outs" they got when they did something wrong?    I am old school...I believe in old school..it seemed to work pretty damn well then....compare our educational system then to now..compare violent crimes then to now.  Maybe if there wasn't such a big safety net there to catch everyone...then more people might not walk the tightrope so wildly.  There are WAY too many able bodied people out there that are sitting on their cans everyday!  Why not instead of handing money or food stamps out....make them work for it?  I see a lot of cleaning up that could be done around the city (graffiti, trash, etc) that could be done.  Maybe if some of the same people that are sitting around MAKING these problems have to actually clean up after themselves....the problem might diminish?  Who knows?  All I know, I am not a big fan of how our country runs it's social services... not enough for those that deserve it and too much for the leaches that don't!

^^ It's the old school mentality that destroyed the East Side. White flight and all that. Hey you want to fix/improve your f'n neighborhood....then don't move to Strongsville the minute you see a Section 8 property. Jesus, if the people are running a day care out of their house, clearly they can be off Section 8. Don't fire up the moving van and gossip with your neighbors...call the damn city for running a business out of their house.

^Trust me, if and when I move from Cleveland..it will be on a small farm..I have no interest in the burbs! 

 

Not a very good rebuttle for what I said...I meant "old school" discipline...never mentioned anything about moving...

I was responding to the last few threads, not just you. Mucho apologizo.

I didn't move because of section 8, i moved in with my other half. also i will never move out of city! what i have done is join the Southwest Area of Concern Citizens Group. and i have actively call my councilman. i have called the home owener who lives in burbs. (i have not giving up, i still own the house its been my family for 60 yrs, i have own it for 5yrs now.)

JJD941--- I agree. 8SshadesofGray--- E.33 and Payne was my first neighborhood. I moved from there, but it was my parents decision. Excuse me for my previous statement. With that being said, I have a hard time understanding your position.  Robclevoh--- I now live in the South Hills section of OB. The area is still great. Very little, if any residents who do not earn there homes. But, OB is more than South Hills. Also, I do agree with the "just don't move" mentallity. Although, when I am responsible for my kids, thier well being comes before my stuborness.

Again, I'm sorry for ranting about this. It's just that old Amrap and Amrap Hts. were built on white flight and well functioning East Side neighborhoods were left to rot for a pretty drab suburb. It's good to see people working to make sure that Old Brooklyn dosen't go down that road. A successful diverse neighborhood on the West Side would be nice.

Act

As for section 8, it beats the alternative of federally constructed hyper-ghettos, but there needs to be a cap per neighborhood or we are essentially defeating that purpose.

 

I definitely agree.  It's also pretty crappy that outer suburbs zone out any possibility of section 8 or other low (or even middle) income residents.  I would love to see an affordable housing development with Section 8 recipients and working class families built in Pepper Pike or Hunting Valley- open up Orange Schools to people who could really benefit from the change of scene.

 

Actually alot of suburbs are required to have a % of their housing stock be affordable housing.

 

TO go along with this post some people are confusing section 8 housing and with rental vouchers handed out by section 8.  The subruban bungalows in Old Brooklyn that are deemed to be "section 8" actually are land lords that accept section 8 vouchers (since it is gauranteed pay) and have a decreased rent per month.  Generally the voucher will cover anywhere from like 30-80% of the rent depending on income, family size etc.  Mixed income neighborhoods can work, just look at Chicago's Lakeshore mixed income projects ( i think that is the name) and Cincinnati has City West.

^Polis, I think folks have a decent handle on the project-based/recipient based dichotomy of Section 8 you describe (hence the criticism of negligent suburban landlords not managing their rental properties in this thread).

 

As for affordable housing requirements in suburbs- I'm very curious if you have any info on these in OH.  I'm aware of the Mt. Laurel cases and subsequent laws in NJ (perhaps the most studied such requirements) but have never heard of any similar requirements in our fine state (admittedly I'm really only familiar with the Cleveland area).