Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Disclaimer - I am ignorant in this area. But what I object to is compusory aspect of this. I think landlords should be able to rent to whomever they like, period. I also do not like the idea of government planning in the market place, for what I believe are obvious reasons.
That said, I don't necessarily disagree with the effects you believe your plan would have, but I would be pissed off as hell if a landlord in my building or next door decided to acept vouchers. Tell me, would the government compensate me for any dimunition in my propery value?
|
Everybody would be diminished slightly, if at all. That's the whole point of breaking up the concentration. As for the landlord's action, if its in your building, how does the landlord rent to someone else and yet affect your property value. If its the building next door, is your property value diminshed when the lottery winner (ex section 8) moves in?
I believe that your post implicitly acknowledges an objection to the existing section 8 mandate (if I'm correct) that a landlord who accepts 1 must accept any others. What protectable interest does a landlord have in refusing to rent to someone based on section 8? If there is any legitimate reason (criminal background) etc., that's one thing. And if the recipients need to be evicted, the local laws should apply. But if you put out an ad in Lake Forest asking for $8000 to rent a mansion, and I show up with my 8 kids and a voucher statement (verifiable by one call to a federal agency), good for $8000 on a renewable annual lease, than what exactly is your protectable interest in refusing me?
And really, you take away the ability to refuse people based on section 8 status (the tradeoff being that you can only accept 1 in the 200 unit building), than pretty much what you are really facing is a whole bunch of people who just don't want to rent to poor minorities. Lord knows we see that often enough even outside the section 8 context to know it exists.
Who gets harmed again?
Threaded Mode