Speaking Of Section 8

But will anyone rent to the lottery winners???

In case someone is debating participation in the program…


There’s nothing wrong with section 8 renters. The ones I know, and the ones people I know have told me how they behave…well…that’s another discussion. Some I can say very casual are scum of the earth, believe me when I say that. Nobody is supervising those who get a voucher. It could be your drug dealer or a pimp. Believe me, they can go to jail back and forth, nothing is done by the housing authority. They can’t even tell you who is in charge of such address because of “privacy concerns” while you and I are violated by their some times criminal activities.

If you remember my case, the house from evil, excuse my French but the idiot landlord over here, put his house on sale after investing $50K-$100K to make it desirable. Practically the 3 years profits he got were washed out.

The sale price put our home value down at the same time. Another house with one floor and less rooms sold for $1 difference. Barely anyone showed up to see it, perhaps the house was jinxed because of the constant police and SWAT team visiting them, or one guy losing his health after being stabbed in his lung by this tenant at that house of evil, and we lost innumerable moments of peace.

We still have one property on section 8 here, from where I hear once in a while a “spic” insult yelled at me. They need to go, one totaled car by one of their kids, a once every other week police presence, nothing bad, buy they need to go. Our kids don’t like the bad word “F” resonating on the block from a person in that house :scream:

Ok, potential changes to Sec 8…

1 Like

Yes! I firmly believe social programs should be dependent on a minimum hours per work of work, education, or volunteering. States that do this see a 50%+ drop in applicants. Basically, if people can do nothing and get free money they will. Once they have to get a job, then the job often pays enough that they no longer qualify for benefits. Why on earth should we pay taxes to cover people that choose to do nothing?

Clinton reformed welfare by requiring people to work to receive benefits. Obama allowed states to get a waiver to that requirement and no surprise the welfare numbers sky rocketed. Democrats used to be reasonable about this stuff, but now it seems they only care about getting as many people as possible dependent on the government.


I had a friend volunteer to help SF homeless…when she brought this concept up, the carreer social workers thought she was being insentive, cruel, racist …pretty funny since she is black…Everybody is so pc that aren’t even allowed to criticize other people’s lifestyle even if it is deviant and self destructive…She quit. She realizes now that the SF social workers actually believe that the homeless should be helped and encouraged to be homeless and helpless


I tell conservative people, stop being a bitchy boy, if you hate anything “government-liberal” stop using their programs or leave any liberal state. It is not good for your health, you got to be funny and enjoy life. But, as an abused dog, they keep themselves tied to the liberal bed.

But, as we saw during the tax reform, they are capable of selling their grandma down the river for a buck.

Isn’t strange than anything that is going to be wrong, say tax cuts creating recessions and whatnot are enacted during republican administrations?

Section 8, the latest amended one was created during a republican administration.

The Act was amended again in 1974 to create Section 8. This new law signified a switch in focus. Instead of developing and managing public housing, it sought to help low-income people who were spending too large a percentage of their earnings on housing. Federal funds now paid a share of rent in units renters chose on the open market. Since 1974, legislation has refined and restructured the Section 8 program several times.

Presumably using “small area fair market rents” to determine Sec 8 payments should be more accurate no?

Small area fair market rent is per zip code. It could make it harder for section 8 tenants to find housing. Now they have the option to live in expensive neighborhood such as Palo Alto and pacific heights. But that could make HUD over budget. Also the lower rent for worst neighborhood would make the landlord less likely to accept section 8.

Is SF converting the old public housing to project based section 8 program? I heard from people that some Bayview neighborhood is getting better after the public housing became project based section 8 and the section 8 residents are much better than public housing residents

1 Like

Yup, it’s always about ways of redistributing. Why don’t we have programs to help those people increase their income, so they can afford market rent?


Weird, the hypocrite “I hate the government, specially the liberal government” bunch of landlords are the first one in line to take the section 8 government handout.

Pretty funny.

I don’t see the point. If landlords don’t take the section 8 money, who is going to?

1 Like

In some areas, you have enough qualified renters that you don’t need to take it. In other areas, the rents are high enough that it’s not even an issue.

Did you even read? If your statement is your conclusion from reading the article, then that’s sad. The landlords don’t want to accept section 8 tenants. They are refusing it, so they aren’t taking the government money. They’d rather rent to non-section 8 tenants.

1 Like

Well, what if Sec 8 were willing to give you, an owner, a premium say +5% or even +10% above “market” to accept the voucher? Would you do it? Some folks may still say no way, but others might go for it.

My question was merely a response to @buyinghouse’s comment. The section 8 program is designed to pay rent to landlords to house section 8 tenants. Nobody else can get it. The cynicism seems completely misplaced.

I am a landlord and I do have section 8 tenants, so I felt somewhat offended by that comment. I understand sarcasm is his style of writing and he didn’t mean harm to anyone, but it was a comment completely out of context so I felt obligated to respond.

I placed 2 section 8 tenants last year in my Oakland building. Both of them like the remodeled apartments I was providing and they are thankful that I was willing to rent to them. Of course I like the rents the government is paying me on their behalf, but it’s not like I can’t find other tenants who can pay at the same level. I am providing housing to the tenant in exchange for the rents I receive. It is not a “government handout”. It seems obvious to me but it won’t hurt to clarify that.


A handout to whom? Seems a taxpayer handout to tenant, not to the landlord. If government gives landlord money even when the landlord provides no housing, it would become a handout. I guess no one wants to refuse a nice handout as long as the taxpayer pays.

Government is nothing but the taxpayer’s subordinate. Government money comes from taxpayers.