Speaking Of Section 8


I also have a couple sec 8 tenants. The good thing about sec 8 is that its rent is very competitive with market pricing, so it’s the opposite of rent control.


I like section 8 and dislike rent control :rofl:

Every year Seattle should issue awards to section 8 landlords to appreciate their acceptance of section 8 tenants. It’s stupid to force landlord to accept section 8 and make accepting section 8 unattractive. Just give honors to section 8 landlords and let it become fashionable and honorable to accept section 8 tenants.


Didn’t Seattle pass a law last year that landlords are required to rent to the first qualified candidate who turns in an application (or walks through the door)?


I have a dream. Someday I’ll buy a mansion in pacific heights and rent to a good section 8 tenant.

My second dream is a Palo Alto mansion with a section 8 tenant.




I think you would still be bleeding cash flow for that even if paid all cash (rent might not even cover property tax alone).


:joy:Well I think section 8 pays more for the WSJ house peter pan is trying to lease. Wsj should have more section 8 tenants to increase its market rent.

High end neighborhood usually has a negative cash flow anyway. I’ll be a social justice warrior in that case and economic consideration would be secondary



Bunch of cry babies.

I said that some hypocrite landlords here accept section 8, which is a government thingy. Then, you can’t stop them from insulting the government. :rofl::rofl::rofl:


Something to watch out for… you know how we have copy cat cities here.



$260M on 700 units in Wiscousin. That’s $350k per unit. Can’t they buy new apartment buildings or even new single family houses below those price? With the public land, they should have a lower cost per unit.

Milwaukee median home price is only 118k. Government is a huge waste, we definitely need to minimize the government. Nobody can afford an expensive and huge government.

“But between 2009 and 2015, the city received grants totaling $260 million from HUD to redevelop the neighborhood.”


Yes. Because once a large population of “undesirable” people are dependent, you can argue to exterminate them for the benefit of the country… Eugenics in action.


Do you think that’s the end game? Once those people are dependent on government, then they are a guaranteed voting block. Why get rid of people that’ll vote for you no matter what? Although, your theory makes sense when you consider planned parenthood. It’s primarily in low-income and minority neighborhoods. The irony is Hillary would have won easily if PP didn’t exist.


I don’t know that it’s intentional, but the way the country is going, I see it as a real and significant danger.


You can fire the nanny when the nanny becomes too expensive.

What do you do when the nanny state becomes too expensive? You can’s fire your government, at least 99.999999% can’t.



Sorry I missed the chance to respond.

Yes, sarcasm is my thing.

and yes, I abhor section 8 landlords who just throw the key at their tenants and never come by to see the destruction (some of them, at least the ones I have lived with) they cause to the neighborhood.

We got read of one section 8 home on my block, another one remains. You can’t even walk to the corner facing their home, they yell at you for “taking pictures/videos” when you are just visiting your friend in that corner.

That’s been my point, the negligence from landlords watching over these people in section 8. Are they all bad? I doubt it. I can’t generalize, but in my case, my own experience, something is wrong with their attitude towards people around them.

That’s all.

If you are different to the ones I described, congrats. Keep the good job going!