Local boy does good(?)

A former Hawai'i legislator (and, briefly, co-worker of mine) made the pages of the New York Times today.

An assistant secretary of housing and urban development, Michael Liu, said today that the minimum rent proposal was "a reasonable way to promote work and responsibility."

Of course, Mike made the news for being the front man for a new assault on poor folks by this Administration; upping the rent for public housing tenants. "The administration said the proposal was 'intended to promote work' by people who live in federally subsidized housing." Right. In an economy which is mired in recession, with unemployment rates hovering around 6%, let's raise the rent for those least able to pay. Somebody explain to me how potentially creating a new group of homeless people fits with compassionate conservatism.

Comments

Well, if you had read the news stories instead of taking some crack at Mike Liu, you would see that all the Administration is proposing is to raise monthly public housing rent to $50 minimum, and give the local housing agencies the authority to set a local rent. If the renter's can't pay, they can apply for a waiver.

Why make these "draconian" changes? Cause public housing is full of bums who make decent cash but don't want to pay rent and can't be evicted due to all the bureaucratic housing rules. Now they'll have to pay what they can afford or get out so that some more deserving, truly needy family can move in.

In addition, the extra rent goes to the local housing authority so that they can repair and maintain public housing. You should be all for this, but I'll bet you'd rather see the rents stay below $50 and additional budget given to HUD. But read futher - HUD's budget is currently $250 million dollars in the hole due to Clinton-era accounting errors! $250 million dollars in accounting errors? Where's your Enron-style outrage? Why throw good money after bad?

I read every story I link to, here or in my own space, thank you.

I wasn't aware I was "taking a crack" at Mike, merely by saying he was the front man for the Administration in this instance. I'm sure he'd be quite pleased to be called the front man; that's part of his job.

The idea that public housing is full of "bums who make decent cash" is straight Reagan "welfare queen" rhetoric. Got any evidence besides anecdote?

My point about having the potential effect of making people homeless because they can't pay the rent stands.

Direct from the AP story:

"For instance, some local officials have complained of residents who lie about their finances and pay far less than they can afford."

Admittedly, "filled with bums" was charged language, but the point is that there are people receiving government assistance in public housing who do not need it. They should either pay their fair share or be evicted so that the truly needy get that housing. There isn't an endless supply of tax dollars, and they need to be spent wisely. If hiding your true income so you can get cheap government rent isn't the definition of a bum, I don't know what is.

As to your final point, tenants who show need, the elderly, and disabled can have rent lowered or waived - that sounds plenty compasionate to me.

"They should either pay their fair share or be evicted so that the truly needy get that housing."

Well, means test, then. I've been turned down for fed and state training programs (15 years ago) because the household income was too high.

The statement that "some local officials have complained..." paints with a broad brush. And since when does raising rents improve collections? Raising prices has never fixed that problem at any place I've ever worked.

My friend, I think we both want the same outcome, but are approaching it from different directions. In your original posting you asked for someone to explain how this policy is compassionate, and I think I've done that. If this policy is implemented, let's hope that it leads to more public housing being available to the needy homeless.

"Under the proposal, present local options for charging the lowest-income residents zero to $25 a month rent would be replaced by a mandated minimum of $50, or higher in some cases. The poor will not be able to seek an exemption from local authorities as they now can when threatened by illness, job loss or eviction. Instead, in an outrageous case of federalization by an administration that preaches the virtues of state control, the poor could seek a hardship exemption only by appealing to the secretary of housing and urban development." (Emphasis added)

Coming in late to this (as usual)...

I do have to say it is a distinctly "small town" mindset that nonetheless affects all of Hawaii where any mention of a local boy in the mainstream Mainland media is considered a big deal. I think if a local guy was mentioned on CNN as a possible link to Al Qaida there'd be a brief "Woohoo!" before everyone then went, "D'oh!"

(Then again, I got more calls from that dippy note in Midweek last month than I did for my quote in Newsweek a year ago, so what do I know?)

So, well, congratulations to Michael Liu for doing his job and for getting noticed for it. Whether or not it qualifies as "doing good."

I agree a longstanding cap on rents is probably counterproductive, but I would also quite wholeheartedly assert that a change from a "maximum rent" to a "minimum rent" is a pretty substantial shift in policy. A more reasonable step would have been a higher maximum.

For all I know there are good reasons behind this, but compared to the many, many, many other domestic policy changes the Bush administration is attempting while pointing everyone's attention at Iraq - See also: environment, abortion rights, affirmative action - I'm afraid I have to be a bit skeptical.

Besides. Aggressive "welfare-to-work" programs are great... if you have a booming economy to absorb all the new labor. When you're on one hand presiding over a struggling economy riddled with accounting irregularities and massive layoffs, it seems counterintuitive to think you can also force the poor to find jobs on the other.

Post a Comment