Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
ParticipantOh, and I forgot to mention that the majority of rental complexes in 92107 (also adjacent to 92106) accept Section 8. In fact, this zip code may be one of the zip codes in the county sporting the MOST “Section 8” tenants :-}
IMO, the most coveted residences in this county lie within 92106 . . . by far. And it’s wedged between TWO Section 8/govm’t housing locales.
You can’t get away from Section 8, unless you live within a Covenant. So my advice is to “get over it” and be happy :=)
ParticipantOh, and I forgot to mention that the majority of rental complexes in 92107 (also adjacent to 92106) accept Section 8. In fact, this zip code may be one of the zip codes in the county sporting the MOST “Section 8” tenants :-}
IMO, the most coveted residences in this county lie within 92106 . . . by far. And it’s wedged between TWO Section 8/govm’t housing locales.
You can’t get away from Section 8, unless you live within a Covenant. So my advice is to “get over it” and be happy :=)
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Its all WAMU with a $1M first TD and $350Kish 2nd TD. neither has been paid in 2 years nor have taxes of about $20K.[/quote]
Do the taxes of “$20K” include MR??
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Its all WAMU with a $1M first TD and $350Kish 2nd TD. neither has been paid in 2 years nor have taxes of about $20K.[/quote]
Do the taxes of “$20K” include MR??
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Its all WAMU with a $1M first TD and $350Kish 2nd TD. neither has been paid in 2 years nor have taxes of about $20K.[/quote]
Do the taxes of “$20K” include MR??
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Its all WAMU with a $1M first TD and $350Kish 2nd TD. neither has been paid in 2 years nor have taxes of about $20K.[/quote]
Do the taxes of “$20K” include MR??
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Its all WAMU with a $1M first TD and $350Kish 2nd TD. neither has been paid in 2 years nor have taxes of about $20K.[/quote]
Do the taxes of “$20K” include MR??
ParticipantHere’s a local link (Board letter) I found dated 2003 that states that in order to receive a “Section 8” voucher, an applicant must have submitted to a criminal background check. However, these tenants did not have to keep their criminal background check current during their tenancy. Supvsr Cox proposed that these recipients should have to report any criminal conviction they sustained while a tenant to the County Housing Authority. Don’t know if this new ordinance was ever passed by the BOS.
Of course, enforcement could be problematic and also labor-intensive.
ParticipantHere’s a local link (Board letter) I found dated 2003 that states that in order to receive a “Section 8” voucher, an applicant must have submitted to a criminal background check. However, these tenants did not have to keep their criminal background check current during their tenancy. Supvsr Cox proposed that these recipients should have to report any criminal conviction they sustained while a tenant to the County Housing Authority. Don’t know if this new ordinance was ever passed by the BOS.
Of course, enforcement could be problematic and also labor-intensive.
ParticipantHere’s a local link (Board letter) I found dated 2003 that states that in order to receive a “Section 8” voucher, an applicant must have submitted to a criminal background check. However, these tenants did not have to keep their criminal background check current during their tenancy. Supvsr Cox proposed that these recipients should have to report any criminal conviction they sustained while a tenant to the County Housing Authority. Don’t know if this new ordinance was ever passed by the BOS.
Of course, enforcement could be problematic and also labor-intensive.
ParticipantHere’s a local link (Board letter) I found dated 2003 that states that in order to receive a “Section 8” voucher, an applicant must have submitted to a criminal background check. However, these tenants did not have to keep their criminal background check current during their tenancy. Supvsr Cox proposed that these recipients should have to report any criminal conviction they sustained while a tenant to the County Housing Authority. Don’t know if this new ordinance was ever passed by the BOS.
Of course, enforcement could be problematic and also labor-intensive.
ParticipantHere’s a local link (Board letter) I found dated 2003 that states that in order to receive a “Section 8” voucher, an applicant must have submitted to a criminal background check. However, these tenants did not have to keep their criminal background check current during their tenancy. Supvsr Cox proposed that these recipients should have to report any criminal conviction they sustained while a tenant to the County Housing Authority. Don’t know if this new ordinance was ever passed by the BOS.
Of course, enforcement could be problematic and also labor-intensive.
Participant[quote=faterikcartman]My wife and I are disgusted by the practice of requiring such housing in exchange for issuing permits for upscale developments. One can bust their arse all their life to escape a certain demographic and the planning gods say “no you can’t”.
We were looking at some master plans for Santaluz, for example, and the low income housing is identified.
It is such a turn off to us that in the future we would not buy anywhere near. I’m not sure everyone is willing to be so honest, however.
It may explain the continued attraction and prices of older upscale areas even when the houses are out of date. People aren’t buying the house, they’re buying the demographics of the neighbourhood and schools.[/quote]
fat erik, even “older upscale areas” have their share of section 8, even if it is in an adjacent zip code. Case in point: 92110 is adjacent to 92106 and has both a huge complex of military multifamily housing AND multiple Section 8 complexes. The “naked eye” can’t tell a “Section 8” complex or the “market-rate” units from the “subsidized units.” They are truly one and the same. The vast majority of these tenants are law-abiding working stiffs.
I know it was the OP and not you that posted it, but I believe it is DISCRIMINATORY to require a Section 8 applicant to submit to a background check (criminal investigation). If I were you, I would be far more concerned about renting my upscale SFR I owned to unsuspecting associates of the Mexican drug cartel. These are the applicants that have first and last months rent, as well as a large damage deposit in cash for you … no problem. But curiously, their rental application reveals that no one in their family has any paying “job” or other “legitimate and verifiable” income.
The “poor” or “near poor” are NOT the tenant-applicants you need to worry about in SD … we don’t have any “public housing projects” here.
Participant[quote=faterikcartman]My wife and I are disgusted by the practice of requiring such housing in exchange for issuing permits for upscale developments. One can bust their arse all their life to escape a certain demographic and the planning gods say “no you can’t”.
We were looking at some master plans for Santaluz, for example, and the low income housing is identified.
It is such a turn off to us that in the future we would not buy anywhere near. I’m not sure everyone is willing to be so honest, however.
It may explain the continued attraction and prices of older upscale areas even when the houses are out of date. People aren’t buying the house, they’re buying the demographics of the neighbourhood and schools.[/quote]
fat erik, even “older upscale areas” have their share of section 8, even if it is in an adjacent zip code. Case in point: 92110 is adjacent to 92106 and has both a huge complex of military multifamily housing AND multiple Section 8 complexes. The “naked eye” can’t tell a “Section 8” complex or the “market-rate” units from the “subsidized units.” They are truly one and the same. The vast majority of these tenants are law-abiding working stiffs.
I know it was the OP and not you that posted it, but I believe it is DISCRIMINATORY to require a Section 8 applicant to submit to a background check (criminal investigation). If I were you, I would be far more concerned about renting my upscale SFR I owned to unsuspecting associates of the Mexican drug cartel. These are the applicants that have first and last months rent, as well as a large damage deposit in cash for you … no problem. But curiously, their rental application reveals that no one in their family has any paying “job” or other “legitimate and verifiable” income.
The “poor” or “near poor” are NOT the tenant-applicants you need to worry about in SD … we don’t have any “public housing projects” here.
-
AuthorPosts
