or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Curious
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Curious - Page 5

post #81 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cutie Patootie View Post
MITB Not all rental property owners feel this way. Unfortunetly, it is very expensive to have lead removed which is a major issue for us with old housing. Dh looked into Section 8 but we can't afford to do the lead removal at this time. We would gladly rent to a large family and we do not base a persons moral value and compass on their lack of moolah. :
I would rent my home to a large family, just not one that was on section 8, because I could not have the control I believe is my right over my own property and who could live here. This isn't about money. We have been poor, so your assumptions about what I base my moral compass on are incorrect.
post #82 of 221
"How do you know they don't care? They have no control over the upkeep of the Section 8 homes. The govt. is meant to take care of that. And as MITB mentioned, Section 8 has incredibly strict guidelines for past history and current behavior, so the Section 8 residents are not likely the cause of most crime and drug use in a given area. That is just the kind of area our shining beacon of a government likes to place the Section 8 housing in. You know, to keep poor folks in "their place." : : "

Whatever. My husband grandmother lived in sec8 housing for nearly 20 years. Her yard was kept us, by her family. If you aren't working, you can go pull weeds, pick up trash and do things to make your home look better.


"You do know, of course, that these things could all happen just as easily happen if your neighbors are white, heterosexual, middle-aged office workers. You do, right? Because they could. Jane and Joe's son could join a gang and have his friends over. Mike the doctor could deal pain meds from his home. Fred and Marla the white supremecists could move in on any given day."

This is what I find funny, because I choose to live in a place that does not allow you to rent your home out to sec8, I am now prejudice. I explained to you why, yet you take that as prejudice. Statistically I am correct. Maybe it doesn't sound all politically correct to you, but historically and statisticly I am right. You also assume that because I have a certain type of home, or standard of living, or do not want to live in a certain area that I am prejudice. You couldn't be farther from the truth. See, in many ways that is just as bad, as accusing me of being prejudice of the poor. I live in a very diverse neighborhood (i think several posters here could vouch for that) Whites are the minority in my neighborhood for one. We choose this neighborhood, and area for its diversity. We have a mix of religions, races, and sexual orientations all around us. We actually had a neighbor whose son joined a gang, guess what happened to him? His father called the police to come arrest him and take his butt to jail for drug possession. He also was not allowed to come back home due to his criminal behavior and not willing to give up his lifestyle. Most of our neighbors are very intolerant of crime and drugs. They chose to live here for a reason, and we all want to continue to keep it that way. We police our own community in many ways, and I have no problem going to speak to someone about their child or their friends if I think for one moment they are out of line or up to no good.
post #83 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiemum View Post
Well stone the crows!

There goes the neighbourhood.

I think I'd pick my grubby little inner city location over that kind of hell any day, tbh. Even if it meant my kids had to live elsewhere or board 5 days a week. :
Thats great for you, but not for my family. Our neighborhood is pretty diverse and a great place to live. Family friendly.
post #84 of 221
Section 8 is 30% of your income. We pay more rent in our apartment than most "homeowners" do in our area. We hardly have "tons" of money left over. After other bills, there is usually less than $50.00 for the entire month. And that doesn't count gas in the tank. I honestly don't see how people think those on welfare are just raking in the big bucks. That attitude makes me wanna :Puke

I'm very grateful that my landlord didn't have that attitude towards my family of five. We were homeless and waited months to get a subsidy. When we finally got it there were not a lot of places to rent. We found this apartment and the landlords were reluctant because of the sterotype of "poor people." They had been burned in the past by people on section 8. They decided to let us move in because they couldn't let the actions of other people determine our future. That is kindness and belief in the goodness of other human beings.
post #85 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by WitchyMama2 View Post
I'm very grateful that my landlord didn't have that attitude towards my family of five. We were homeless and waited months to get a subsidy. When we finally got it there were not a lot of places to rent. We found this apartment and the landlords were reluctant because of the sterotype of "poor people." They had been burned in the past by people on section 8. They decided to let us move in because they couldn't let the actions of other people determine our future. That is kindness and belief in the goodness of other human beings.
YK, I think this is almost amusing, that because people don't want to lease to people on sec8, its discrimination because they are poor. I think historically and statistically one looks at the areas that are inhabited by those in sec8 housing, and its a decison based on reality. There are families in our neighborhood that I am quite sure would qualify as "poor". However their families provided a way for them to live here. They are not looked down upon, they are just one of us, wanting to live in a good area and send their children to good schools. There are single moms who live in the smaller cottage homes, who scrape by most months, and some are on govt. assistance. They definitely are not being labeled as criminals or devients because of this.
post #86 of 221
You said yourself the reasons why you and other didn't rent to people that are on Section 8. I didn't make up the stereotype, you put in black and white right on the screen.
post #87 of 221
1/3 of your income to pay for housing is the absolute maximum you should have to spend, it's a big chunk of change & it regressively has a greater impact the lower your income.

But anywho....


Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheFence
You also assume that because I have a certain type of home, or standard of living, or do not want to live in a certain area that I am prejudice. You couldn't be farther from the truth. See, in many ways that is just as bad, as accusing me of being prejudice of the poor. I live in a very diverse neighborhood (i think several posters here could vouch for that) Whites are the minority in my neighborhood for one. We choose this neighborhood, and area for its diversity. We have a mix of religions, races, and sexual orientations all around us. We actually had a neighbor whose son joined a gang, guess what happened to him? His father called the police to come arrest him and take his butt to jail for drug possession. He also was not allowed to come back home due to his criminal behavior and not willing to give up his lifestyle. Most of our neighbors are very intolerant of crime and drugs. They chose to live here for a reason, and we all want to continue to keep it that way. We police our own community in many ways, and I have no problem going to speak to someone about their child or their friends if I think for one moment they are out of line or up to no good.
Just so i'm clear here...

I'm not accusing you of racial bias. I'm just saying that your punitive, dobbing-in, conservative, intolerant neighbourhood just doesn't really seem like my kind of place. I don't care what colour your neighbour's skins are, nor do I care about their sexual preferences or anything else.

It's what's in the heart that counts. Sheesh.


...........

ANd yeah, my neighbourhood does give me the shits now & again. But in general I think it's good to live in a community where you are not isolated from other people's realities... :
post #88 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by primjillie View Post
I had a response all typed and they closed it! Anyway, my answer is no. I want my children to live with me and be raised by me. We moved (on purpose) when our children entered elementary school. We moved into a great school district (same city) and bought a house right down the street from the elementary school. I want to be the one to take my kids to school everyday, volunteer at the school, pick them up, go to school conferences, go to baseball after school, etc. I know it isn't always easy to move, but we planned on it as soon as we had children because we knew it was important to be in a good school district, so I think if you plan for it, there is no need for the kids to go live somewhere else. I also don't feel that is my parent's responsibility to raise my kids. They have done their duty!
I haven't gotten past the first few posts. But this response represents an economic elitist attitude of choice of neighborhoods and schools which doesn't necessarily exist for some people. Additionally, MANY children have *two* homes, among loving and devoted, but divorced parents. Grandparents, (in many cases) can most certainly represent a nurturing, safe and enriched environment. Nor does one's primary residence (or parental gene) indicate one's most attached and supportive relationships. Loving and attentive caregivers in multitude is not somehow detrimental, rather it is synergistic and exponentially beneficial, imo.

Would I want our son to live with MY mother, or MY father, not even if I were dead. But that is another bag of worms. Necessity and available alternatives alter the choices that exist for each of us.

Pat
post #89 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix the cat View Post
No. I think family is the most important thing, even more so that better schools or learning resources.

Ummmm....grandparents ARE family for most families.

Pat
post #90 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by newmommy View Post

I thought she just mean't being in a better school district, not because things were going awry in the family home.

Let's look at this:

Child awakens at oh, 6:30 am to ride bus, get ready, go to school.

AWAY from "home" (however we define it) at school until ~3:30.

Child home approximately 4pm, unless child needs afterschool care until parent able to pick up child and take them home, unless old enough to be home alone after school, until about 6pm? earliest.

Theoretically family eats family dinner, regardless of primary residence. Child has homework for 1 hour, another 1 hour of free play, tv and then it is time for bedtime routine.

Ummm...and then child goes to sleep around 8-9pm? That is what? A max. 3 hours of family time at grandparents. Wow, this is not some dire situation. Additionally, child had maximal exposure to optimal (eta: available) educational resources for about 6-8 hours of the school day. NET gain.

AND then child is at their other loving and attentive home all weekend.

Think outside the box to maximize resources FOR the child.

Pat
post #91 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post
YK, I think this is almost amusing, that because people don't want to lease to people on sec8, its discrimination because they are poor. I think historically and statistically one looks at the areas that are inhabited by those in sec8 housing, and its a decison based on reality. There are families in our neighborhood that I am quite sure would qualify as "poor". However their families provided a way for them to live here. They are not looked down upon, they are just one of us, wanting to live in a good area and send their children to good schools. There are single moms who live in the smaller cottage homes, who scrape by most months, and some are on govt. assistance. They definitely are not being labeled as criminals or devients because of this.
The reason that many Section 8 housing neighborhoods are higher-crime, higher-drug use areas is NOT because Section 8 housing is there.

Its because when a landlord decides to jump through HUD's hoops to allow Section 8 tenants, its usually because they were having trouble renting their property in the first place. No one wanted to live there. So the landlord decides to try Section 8, because there's always poor people and they will always have renters that way.

Section 8 housing doesn't CAUSE bad neighborhoods. Section 8 housing is offered in bad neighborhoods because elitist peckerheads who want to "protect their neighborhoods" from the scummy low income poor people would never offer their housing to such lowlifes.

Wouldn't it be great if there were safe housing opportunities for poor people, too? Then they wouldn't have to fear for their children and their belongings and their lives because they have no where else to live but in the places no one wants to live.

Also, its true that Section 8 programs require a clean background and people in Section 8 are subjected to annual (if not more often) inspections. They actually are required to be "cleaner" and take better care of their property than the other people in the neighborhood. There are other HUD programs (Shelter Plus Care) that are similar to Section 8. The difference with these programs is that the landlord, or the sponsor, determines who lives in the Shelter Plus house. Many sponsors (I am one) choose a population to work with, such as people who are recovering from addictions, and place them in Shelter Plus housing. Yes, that population is more risky in terms of crime and drugs. But the sponsor should be on top of what is going on, and working with that family/individual.

So, in a neighborhood like OntheFence's (although I cannot imagine anyone CHOOSING to live in such a place - it reminds me of the planet Meg Murray goes to in A Wrinkle in Time where she is trying to rescue Charles Wallace from It, and the neighborhoods are ubiquitous homogenized pasteurized prisons) they could safely allow Section 8 housing without fear, and set their rules and covenants to guide the sponsor-based housing tenants.
post #92 of 221
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WuWei View Post
Let's look at this:

Child awakens at oh, 6:30 am to ride bus, get ready, go to school.

AWAY from "home" (however we define it) at school until ~3:30.

Child home approximately 4pm, unless child needs afterschool care until parent able to pick up child and take them home, unless old enough to be home alone after school, until about 6pm? earliest.

Theoretically family eats family dinner, regardless of primary residence. Child has homework for 1 hour, another 1 hour of free play, tv and then it is time for bedtime routine.

Ummm...and then child goes to sleep around 8-9pm? That is what? A max. 3 hours of family time at grandparents. Wow, this is not some dire situation. Additionally, child had maximal exposure to optimal educational resources for about 6-8 hours of the school day. NET gain.

AND then child is at their other loving and attentive home all weekend.

Think outside the box to maximize resources FOR the child.

Pat

Honestly, I am not seeing anything gainful about a child being gone for 6-8 hours in a school setting.

I think it would be hard to teach and guide your child if the bulk of their daily time is spent away from home.

And yes, I understand things can change or occur which make it very difficult to keep kids out of the school environment as described.
post #93 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by primjillie View Post
I think watching your grandchild now and then, even a few days a week, is a lot different than pretty much raising them. If you have a child all week, you are going to have make some decisions and provide for that child. There are a lot of day to day decisions to make with a child, and should the grandparent have to call the parent every time a decision has to be made? Also, the grandparent would be responsible for food, school items, entertainment, and maybe even school clothes. If the child is living with the grandparent due to dire straits of the parents, I wouldn't think the parent could afford this. Also, it requires time - providing for the child's transportation, laundry, cooking, helping with homework and just being there with the child, instead of maybe enjoying each other or their retirement years. So after raising their own children, grandparents should raise the grandchildren? Unless it is an extreme circumstance - death of parents, drugs, mental illness - that is a lot to ask. My mom is 74 and even though my kids are grown, my brother has a two year old and I can't imagine my mom having to take this child, even just during the week.
What if a single parent were living with the grandparents while working evenings for optimal financial support of her children? Again, the grandparents would be doing all the afterschool "parenting". This is perhaps not preferable to working while the children are IN school, but most off-shift jobs pay better than day hours.

There are a myriad of reasons that extended family are loving caregivers of children, electively.

Pat
post #94 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post
There is a reason we moved to this area and not to the inner city ghetto. I'm sure there are wonderful nice people in the ghetto (WE have family friends that do), however when you have a home that is section 8 you don't get to choose who your neighbors are -- you could get some gangsters or drug dealers or some other folks you really wouldnt want to live next door to because they are a threat to your family or bring crime to your neighborhood.
Would you agree that this might be a reason for children to live with grandparents and electively have educational opportunities optimized for their children?


Pat
post #95 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houdini View Post
I personally am a SAHM/Full-time student who also homeschools using a virtual academy.
This is an economic privilege that I also enjoy; however, I am not so myopic to believe that others have the same privileges of health, economic security and community resource access as I; thus the answer to the OP.

Pat
post #96 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by WitchyMama2 View Post
You said yourself the reasons why you and other didn't rent to people that are on Section 8. I didn't make up the stereotype, you put in black and white right on the screen.
I dont believe it is a stereotype, I believe the reasons are based on historical evidence and statistics.
post #97 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by WuWei View Post
Would you agree that this might be a reason for children to live with grandparents and electively have educational opportunities optimized for their children?


Pat
I personally wouldnt have a problem with people letting their children live with grandparents for educational opportunities. Its their children, not mine.
post #98 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Houdini View Post
Honestly, I am not seeing anything gainful about a child being gone for 6-8 hours in a school setting.

I think it would be hard to teach and guide your child if the bulk of their daily time is spent away from home.

And yes, I understand things can change or occur which make it very difficult to keep kids out of the school environment as described.
I edited to add "available" educational resources to my prior post, because homeschooling isn't an available option for some folks who are sole financial providers for their family.

I agree that an enriched and nurturing environment facilitated by responsive loving parents is probably most beneficial IF one has the ability to provide that environment. There are many barriers to this option however: financial, emotional, health, resource access, etc.

Pat
post #99 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiemum View Post

I'm not accusing you of racial bias. I'm just saying that your punitive, dobbing-in, conservative, intolerant neighbourhood just doesn't really seem like my kind of place. I don't care what colour your neighbour's skins are, nor do I care about their sexual preferences or anything else.

ANd yeah, my neighbourhood does give me the shits now & again. But in general I think it's good to live in a community where you are not isolated from other people's realities... :
Let's see, do you know my neighbors? Do you think I live in an intolerant neighborhood? I think that is far from what you will see in my neighborhood. I also don't see where you get that its a conservative neighborhood -- we are a mixture of people, but I will be sure to share this bit of news at the next neighborhood party for a few laughs. Yes, we are intolerant of crimes, drugs and criminals in our neighborhood. Absolutely -- everyone should be, maybe that would help clean our communities up! I also don't think its punitive to not allow govt. access to our property, that can put whomever they chose to live in our homes.
post #100 of 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheFence
I've driven too, and been in neighborhoods that had a number of secton 8 housing. Sadly, these areas are riddled with crime, unkept homes, drugs, and people who just don't care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheFence
however when you have a home that is section 8 you don't get to choose who your neighbors are -- you could get some gangsters or drug dealers or some other folks you really wouldnt want to live next door to because they are a threat to your family or bring crime to your neighborhood.
I am also quite sure that our homes would meet HUD inspection since they are newer homes and were built to meet strict guidelines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post
I also don't think its punitive to not allow govt. access to our property, that can put whomever they chose to live in our homes.
Ummm.....money can also "put whomever chooses" to live in your neighborhood. But, money doesn't equate to "better" neighbors. I do understand your desire for authority over the choice of tenents for your property, based upon whatever criteria the property owner deems appropriate, rather than whatever criteria a governmental agency deems acceptable. This is one of the privileges of property ownership and implies an effort to protect the value of your capital investment. However, the point being made is that limited income does not equate to drug use, criminal inclination, criminal records, crime escalation, or poor property maintence as you are implying a correllation. Nor does a government check list of 'Section 8 housing' credentials equate to "good" (responsible, safe, etc.) or "bad" neighbors. I believe the issue that some posters in this thread have is that the suggestion that Section 8 neighbors are somehow "less than" neighbors with more income is stereotypical, prejudicial and unflattering about people without money, especially in light of your definition of "Section 8" people being associated with those negative activities that were listed.

It is the dismissive stereotyping of 'those Section 8 people' that is the rub.


Pat
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Curious