Section 8 voucher rules

Wow!!! What is wrong with you people? You basically said that most poeple (or a high percentage of people) on section 8 are more than likely criminals and cant hold a job..well im sorry that is not true at all...i have a full time job that i have had for 12 years..its not low income but it does'nt cover what regular rent cost..i have 3 kids (all from the same father) and my kids father decided that he did not want to be with me..so he started another family..i come from a family with both parents and never lived in "low income" areas in my life!! Do i want to be on any assistance?? No , i dont but at this moment in my life ..i have to!! So, since we are stereotyping..im just going to assume the people that are talking nonsense are the people that came from a very wealthy family that had there education paid for and lived a wonderful life without any flaws..well im sorry that..thats the way you think about section 8 people but what i think of you ..is that you are totally asinine!! And im not on disability or elderly..i work my ass off every day!! And 1 more thing i've been on section 8 for about 4 and a half years ..i lived at one house for 3 years and decided to move and i cleaned everything out of the house and which i know everyone is not like me but there are some that care about other people (their landlords)..so dont judge everyone from a few bad apples ..everyone is not bad!!!

You did not read the post very well. I posted that, " Section 8 programs in all areas of the country do not screen tenants for background. They do in your area, but not in all areas of the country. So S8 tenants in some areas of the country remain unscreened and may have criminal backgrounds. Criminal backgrounds are more prevalent in lower rent units than in luxury (high rent) units. (Fact: Those with criminal backgrounds often have trouble obtaining good paying jobs and must live in lower rent units.) LLs must be careful of who they rent to in any unit."

It is a fact that S8 does not screen their tenants in most areas. They only screen out sexual offenders and those who have drug convictions for sales (not use) of those drugs. Any other offender still qualifies for S8. Therefore, LLs need to screen S8 tenants the same as any other tenants and not just assume that S8 has done this for them. Additionally, there are a higher percentage of people with criminal backgrounds in lower income than in higher income. Look in any prison. There are few higher income inmates. People with more income have less need to commit crimes. Not all lower income people are criminals. (Doesn't say that anywhere.) But there are more, and since S8 doesn't screen them out, a LL needs to check.

I also said that ALL tenants move extra people in with them and for this reason a LL needs to screen anyone who stays in the unit.

Further, "It is also a fact that most S8 tenants are noncollectable. Their income alone means the LL will be able to collect very little or none of any damage/unpaid rent judgment obtained against them." If you don't meet low income requirements, you don't qualify for S8. Low income = no ability to collect for unpaid rent or damages. There is no way around this. There are limits on the amount of money you can garnish from people. This is no more than 25% of take home pay. So a fraction of the low amount that a low income person makes, means a very long time to try to collect for any unpaid rent or damages.

And as a business model, this holds: While you may be an upstanding citizen, LLing is a business. In any monetary business, the business owner has to weigh the risks of doing business with a person against the chances of making a profit from that transaction. (This is why places do credit checks, verify your identity, and take deposits before they sell you anything on credit.) LLs must view any prospective tenant impartially and in respect to the purpose of their business - to make a profit (just as any other business). A lower income, being noncollectable, the numerous regulations and requirements mandated by Section 8 rules, ... These make many LLs turn away form accepting these tenants. These are business decisions. Many LLs are upset by the regulations of this program (the inspections, the verifications, the paperwork/contracts, using S8's leases instead of their own, having to wait on the government, being locked into a year's lease). They do not make getting on this program easy for the tenant or the LL. Some do not like risk associated with the lower income tenants (the noncollectible issue, the fact that they qualify for free attorneys, the extra time required to terminate a bad tenant on this program). Some have just had bad experiences with tenants on this program and that can color their decisions.

And if we want to talk about stereotypes: 3 kids with no babies daddy (where's the child support?), 4 and 1/2 yrs on what was originally designed as a a temporary assistance program, and if you are on S8 you are low income.

[LegalPrincess]

It doesnt really matter how nicely some of you try to talk about this subject.....in my opinion it is discriminatory to assume that section 8 recipients should be screened any differently than you would screen any other prospective tenant. I live in Orange County, CA, and have seen numerous units destroyed by so-called proper or wealthy BMW-driving clowns, their visitors, and their pets. And neither can these people, who will also go to jail, use drugs, break the law, break leases, and go months with unpaid bills and rent, usually be able to afford attorney fees or judgments. No one really thinks about that too much. Further more, I believe the responsibility of keeping your property in good condition is not only up to the tenant, it should be kept in good condition by the money-collector, who is also a person of business, a property owner! Why have a property, and keep it looking an eyesore, because its always claimed that its only up to the tenants to keep it up to par? I think thats where the regulations should be taken more seriously because alot of these property owners are greedy as well as lazy. Section 8 money is green too and property owners recieve the same amount that any other tenant is paying. This is one of the reasons that once-prominent areas want section 8 tenants too. This is a grant-funded program, and if regulations regarding income and background screening are not being done, well I guess that entity is getting over on everyone. And by the way, in Orange County, if youre not making $50,000 a year, just so everyone is aware, you are considered low income. Ive never seen more people driving fancy cars and jewelry now hoping to get some type of assistance. I for one, have section 8 assistance, have a very decent job, and would like it to be known that all recipients' backgrounds are thoroughly screened before you can recieve a voucher, and you MUST have income. Its just not enough to live where I live without some form of assistance. And since I am a taxpayer in the United States, I would like to know my country can help me, just like we help every one else. And no, Im not moving to Mexico or Watts. However, I just started a business, and God-willing, I will not use this assistance when I no longer need it, and it can be used to help someone else. Oh but look at how easy we turn from the subject at hand....I would like an answer for the same question!

I'm sorry, but as a business owner you should know that you cannot extend credit (the promise to pay their share of the rent or to pay for any possible damages) to those who aren't credit worthy. You cannot chance damaged property from someone who is not collectible. You, as a business owner, should know that you extend access to expensive equipment to those who have the capacity to replace it for you should they damage it. The same holds true for houses that cost tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. If the applicant cannot be held accountable for replacement costs, you don't allow access. Unless the applicant (Section 8 recipient or not) has good enough credit to be able to pay for them, you deny. That IS treating these people the same as everyone else. And refusing to rent to uncredit worthy people is not discriminatory. Per the Fair Housing Act, it is only discriminatory if the applicant is rejected on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. Rejection based on poor credit or no ability to pay is not discriminatory.

And these houses or apartments aren't in disrepair. Section 8 insists on that. They inspect the units for habitability. If the unit does not pass inspection, it is not approved for any payments, and the tenant must look for another place. In order for Section 8 to approve a place, it must meet electrical, plumbing, and heating requirements, as well as have no peeling paint anywhere. Their requirements aren't easy to pass, and many places that are not S8 assisted would not pass. So most S8 places are kept in good condition.

[LegalPrincess]

One thing is correct, if a person doesnt have the funds for a down-payment, I think it should definitely be taken under the assumption that they will not be a very reliable source of timely payments. Thats one of the reasons that so many people have lost their homes in our present state of the economy.....just my opinion. Plenty of people were deemed credit-worthy, and still didnt come up with money for their mortgages. Stop the fancy talk. Doesnt mean much. Money is King! That is the answer here.

Money may be "king" to you, not to me. There are some things that are just as important and money and paying the rent on time. One is caring for the property and another is following lease clauses & rules. It doesn't matter if someone pays on time if they are trashing the property. Yes, rent is coming in, but the deposit may not be enough to repair all those damages. Breaking lease clauses and rules is just as bad. There is a reason rules are there. They aren't arbitrary. If a tenant refuses to follow them, he needs to go. A GOOD tenant needs to pay on time, take care of the property, and follow his lease.

[LegalPrincess]

And just how will you know these things? Because they have section 8, they must not have good credit or will be most likely to do under-handed things to a property? In my lifetime, Ive seen that the majority of damages still go unpaid by people with 'good credit'. Most of the time its mommy or daddys money anyhow, and nothing gets paid for anyway. At any rate, its up to the property owner to know what they can afford to fix. They set the deposit and the rules for their property.

The way you know these things is to find and contact all previous LLs, including those they failed to tell you about. (You know they may not list alI their previous addresses on that application.) It takes some effort and a little internet searching, but it can be done. Find those addresses through whitepages, zabasearch, through the details section of every municipal, civil, criminal, or housing charge/ticket you find, as well as other sites. Look up those addresses on the county tax auditor's site and contact those owners. Ask those LLs how they cared for the house, if they paid on time, if they violated lease clauses, if there were police or health dept. visits to the residence. Ask how their pets were. How they took care of the yard, etc. Drive by their current residence if at all possible. Some LLs advocate that you stop by - didn't you forget to get them to fill out that other form? You can see how they live now. Meet any and all pets prior to signing.

As for credit, pull a credit report. Even S8 or low income can have fairly decent credit. Its not income that determines poor credit, its overspending. Those that live within their means, even if their means are meager, can still have decent credit. Those who overspend, fail to pay their bills, or overextend themselves buying things on credit they cannot afford, have poor credit. Low income people that don't buy things they don't need (not want), who pay their bills on time, and don't take out credit they know they can't pay can have good credit even with a lower income. Don't tent to people who have poor credit because you know they can't and won't pay for those damages and you will be stuck with them. If you have to accept a tenant with lower credit or higher risk, that warrants a higher deposit to cover the risk and any possible damages.