okay, i do not agree with the administration on this.
or at least not completely. any disabled person who
can handle having their own housing should not be
eliminated. i know there are some needs to overhaul
this to get the abuses out. the problem is that
sometimes an overzealous government takes things too
far. how to know if a person is so disabled that their
own home might actually hurt them. also the older
buildings that can not be easily put into compliance
with ADA standards, especially when a individual wants
to just rent out their home as the move somewhere
else. putting in into the standards might just result
in a unit of housing not going on the market. if it
were rented to a AB it might free up another that is
within the standards to be rented to a person with
disability. the vouchers that make the housing
afordable needs to be flexable enough that a pwd would
not be precluded from housing. while not adversly
affecting others in the plan. like i said one time
before, if we get moral issues right, i think the
finacial will fall into place. i think the pwd
preference is morally right to bring us up to a level
field. once we are not discriminated against, then the
preference could be removed. i think race
discrimnation is pretty well gone. not predudice is
gone, but the thing of putting that predudice into
practice is gone. i think most know that they can not
get away with that now. when the discrimnation agaist
pwds gets to that point then and only then would it
not be wrong to get rid of the preference.
i have rambled, but, hopefully been clear as to what i
think.
--- "Michael H. Collis" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Alright, Ken. I'd like to know what you'd say about
> this? this is a hard
> issue for me.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justice For All Moderator
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 11:05 PM
> Subject: Voucher Plan Removes Disabled Preference.
>
>
> >Voucher Plan Removes Disabled Preference.
>
> >[[log in to unmask]] writes:
> >Administration Housing Voucher Plan Removes
> Disabled Preference.
> >
> >Administration's plan would target vouchers to
> families with
> >higher incomes and eliminate the preference for
> homeless and
> >disabled, among other negative impacts.
> >
> >National Alliance to End Homelessness
> >Online Newsletter
> >May 2, 2003
> >
> >Administration Introduces Housing Voucher Plan
> >
> >The Administration has released its plan to
> restructure the Housing
> >Choice Voucher program (typically referred to as
> the tenant-based
> >Section 8 program). The proposal, which is called
> Housing Assistance
> >for Needy Families or HANF, would do the following:
> >
> >* change the structure of funding to no longer fund
> a specified number of
> >vouchers
> >
> >* encourage States to target vouchers to families
> with higher incomes;
> >
> >* allow States to implement time limits for
> vouchers;
> >
> >* eliminate several preference options including
> ones for homeless families
> >and persons with disabilities;
> >
> >* establish several performance measures;
> >
> >* give funding to States instead of housing
> authorities.
> >
> >Instead of funding a specific number of vouchers,
> as has been the case
> >since the beginning of the tenant-based voucher
> programs, funding would be
> >provided as a block grant to States. According to
> an analysis by the Center
> >on Budget and Policy Priorities, the change in
> funding structure could lead
> >to a decline in the value of housing subsidies over
> time relative to
> >housing costs. Since 1998, the average fair market
> rent, an indicator of
> >actual housing costs, has increased at twice the
> general rate of inflation
> >and significantly more than the inflation factor
> HUD uses to set rents in
> >the project-based section 8 program.
> >
> >Other proposed changes would allow States to serve
> higher income families
> >than are now served under the voucher program. The
> proposal would require
> >States to serve the same number of families as are
> now served by housing
> >vouchers. However, if there is less funding
> available, or if funding does
> >not keep up with the rising cost of housing, States
> would have to target
> >vouchers to families that have higher incomes.
> Currently, 75% percent of
> >new vouchers must go to households that have
> incomes below 30% of area
> >median income (usually about $15,000 - $20,000 per
> year). The new proposal
> >would allow States to request waivers to allow only
> 55% of vouchers to
> >serve this population. Homeless households have an
> average income that is
> >about 15% of area median income. Thus states would
> have a strong incentive
> >not to serve homeless families under the new
> proposal.
> >
> >The bill (H.R. 1841) was introduced in the House by
> Representative Bob Ney
> >(R-OH). In a press release, Ney stated, â the issue
> of reforming Section
> >8 is a contentious one, while I am introducing this
> legislation at the
> >request of the Administration, I am also entering
> this debate as a neutral
> >partyâ A Senate version of the bill (S. 947) was
> introduced by Senator
> >Wayne Allard (R-CO).
> >
> >The National Alliance to End Homelessness has
> prepared a summary of the
> >proposal, which is available at
> homelessness.org/pol/papers/hanf.htm"
> >http://www.endhomelessness.org/pol/papers/hanf.htm
> >
> >A series of analyses of the Housing Voucher Program
> is available from the
> >Center on Budget and Policy Priorities at:
> HREF="http://www.cbpp.org/housingvoucher.htm"
> >http://www.cbpp.org/housingvoucher.htm
> >Justice-For-All Moderator
> >[log in to unmask]
> >
>
>=====================================================================
> > Justice-For-All FREE Subscriptions
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe, send mail to
> [log in to unmask]
> > with one or the other in the body of your
> message:
> > subscribe justice
> > unsubscribe justice
> >
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
|
