Cea Weaver

Imo the situation I have in this building, where I pay a third of my gross monthly income in rent and if I lose my income the rent becomes 25$, is the ideal so long as the building is well maintained

Correct but the building needs cash to be well maintained which can come from other ppls rents (if they make more than you) or federal subsidy (section 8) But shouldn’t the value created by section 8 (rent) go to the people (public) and not private (landlord)

The solution is not to prop up Section 8 which is an entitlement program for LLs who are guaranteed federal funds and may legally evade the rent laws. This is the breaking point between progressives and the radical left. Section 8 is a capital plantation and must not be funded.

your main arg here is that S8 money goes to landlords and limits renters' rights. I agree that that is bad. I'm saying ... what if it didn't do either of those two things?

Tx for engaging on this. Then it would not be Section 8. LLs would have no incentive to rent to LIT. The problem is even reformed Sec 8 is still extraction. The Sec 8 Pareto's Law LITs need public supportive housing with community based services, not Sec 8 2.0.

Ok, forget about section 8 and I’m not talking abt vouchers anyway im talking PB. Let’s say the state buys and then owns a bunch of currently private housing. It still needs to cash flow, so it still needs ongoing subsidy (rent) to run. My point is that section 8 is just money.

I would phrase as Section 8 is money + legally sanctioned evasion of rent regulation. In PH the state owns underlying land which removes most of the speculative value and the financing is via bonds not a mortgage, so operating income entitlements can count for income and float it

ok we're talking in circles. im saying what if we designed a work around to all that - then isn't basically what we all want? you're saying "thats impossible!" and i'm saying, "no it's not!"