I did not realize the different source of funds for vouchers versus new construction. I now understand why we continue to build more apartments to solve the homeless problem � even though we already have thousands of vacant apartments around the metro area. I learned something new today.
Jason asked a few questions about section 8. The program can be burdensome for smaller landlords. Two reasons: First, PHA has their own rules that are difficult to understand without specific training. Second, they have annual inspections that are always done during normal working hours. Small landlords usually have a full time job and leaving to meet inspectors might not be an option. For the full time landlord, the section 8 program works very well. Jason asked if landlords must subscribe to section 8. No law requires a landlord to accept section 8. However, it is unclear if refusing section 8 is discrimination. Tyrone Terrill (sp?) sent a letter to many landlords informing them that refusal to accept section 8 is illegal discrimination. The Minnesota Multi-Housing Association asked Mayor Randy Kelly to clarify. Mayor Kelly wrote that refusing to accept section 8 is NOT discrimination. I am unaware of this being tested in the courts. Section 8 is no more lucrative than non-section 8 applicants. It is illegal to charge different rent because of a section 8 voucher. There are non-profits that have voucher programs. Wilder Roof project comes to mind. They have a wonderful program. Steve Meldahl stated that "good landlords are certainly not professing for more section 8." I disagree. ALL of the landlords I talk to prefer more vouchers to building new subsidized housing. I believe the example Mr. Meldahl gave is a function of screening criteria. His acquaintance likely has very low (or no) screening criteria. I have about 10% section 8 and find them to be wonderful tenants. The section 8 tenants must meet the same rental criteria as non-section 8 tenants. I encourage Mr. Meldahl to post again with his recommendation on solving the homeless problem (which is how this thread started). If it makes any difference, I am a hands-on landlord. I have been doing this since 1989 and currently own 190 apartments. I am senior VP of the St. Paul Association of Responsible Landlords, I teach classes on how to be a good tenant, I have turned around problem properties (and been featured in local newspapers for doing so). I appreciate your time. Regards, Bill Cullen. Hopkins � Landlord. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Victoria Heller Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:25 AM To: Mpls Forum Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Mpls] "No Longer the Giveaway County Board" Michael Hohmann inquires: The rent subsidies also allow renters a degree of locational flexibility. I imagine there are problems with which sources of funds are available, i.e. funds to subsidize new construction vs. direct rent subsidies, federal vs. state vs. local funds, etc. Also, I believe many landlords dislike the Section 8 program. Any comments from knowledgeable government folks (MCDA, MPHA, state/local folks, etc.) and private landlords? Craig, Vicky, Keith...? Vicky Replies: I can address the "sources of funds" issue. Section 8 vouchers require real cash, that is, out of HUD's pocket/budget. New construction financing gets FRESH MONEY (doesn't come out of any government budget.) Municipal bonds are sold to rich folks, pension funds, etc. who wish to avoid paying taxes. Government agencies (MCDA for example) get paid big fees for underwriting the bond issues. Rating agencies (Standard & Poors for example) get paid big fees for "rating" the bond issues. Brokers (Steve Yanisch, via Piper Jaffray and Dain Bosworth for example) get paid big commissions for selling the bond issues. Purchasers of the bonds (the Yanisch family for example) receive tax free interest and zero risk - 9% interest in the case of the Orpheum Theater bonds. If a developer adds a handful of "affordable" units to the development - he or she gets an extra bundle of money and other goodies, including reduced property taxes. Some of these municipal bond issues are guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the taxpayers. Others are not. The Target Store bonds were "pay as you go" (not guaranteed) in the beginning. When interest rates dropped, the bonds were re-financed and OOPS - all of a sudden the taxpayers are on the hook. Sneaky little devils. Vicky Heller Cedar-Riverside and North Oaks TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
