Most reasonable people will concede that public housing projects failed. We’ve all seen the spotless new apartment complexes paid for by taxpayers to help the needy be transformed into filthy, crime-ridden slums.
Now, a new generation of leftists carps about “substandard housing” — as if those developments were built in the first place with cracked windows, urine in the stairwells and hypodermic needles on the playgrounds.
In fact, irresponsible residents and their guests destroy housing projects, and now — thanks to the federal government — they can do the same thing to your neighborhood.
The leading theory among those paid by the government to make excuses for the inexcusable is that public housing projects failed because they concentrated social pathology. Following that logic, the remedy is to disperse this population as widely as possible.
So the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development now provides “housing choice vouchers” so the promulgators of urban blight can export it to better neighborhoods. Voucher recipients pick out the property they want to rent, contribute 30 percent of their adjusted income toward the cost, and taxpayers make up the difference.
The only restricting factor is that the selected property must be available for what the local public housing authority defines as “fair market rent.” In the Washington metropolitan area, that is $1,134 for a one-bedroom unit, $1,286 for a two-bedroom, $1,659 for a three-bedroom and $2,171 for a four-bedroom.
HUD guidelines say that “in general, the [voucher-eligible] family’s income may not exceed 50 percent of the median income for the county or metropolitan area in which the family chooses to live.” For both Arlington County, Va., and Montgomery County, Md., the median household income is $94,500, so a family of four earning $47,250 could qualify for a voucher.
Technically, they are supposed to contribute 30 percent of their monthly income — about $1,181 — toward rent, with taxpayers picking up the difference. But the actual rent paid (referred to as the Total Tenant Payment) is based on the household’s gross annual income minus numerous exclusions, such as $480 for each dependent, $400 for an elderly person or a family member with a disability, unreimbursed medical expenses, “any reasonable child care expenses,” etc.
Moreover, actual household income may be much higher than what the family is required to report. Among the dozens of income exclusions HUD lists are:
» Lump-sum additions to family assets, such as inheritances, insurance payments, capitalgains and settlements for personal or property losses;
» Special pay to a family member serving in the armed forces who is exposed to hostile fire;
» Temporary, nonrecurring or sporadic income;
» Deferred periodic amounts from supplemental security benefits received in a lump-sum amount or in prospective monthly amounts;
» Earned income tax credit refund payments;
» Any amount of crime victim compensation under the Victims of Crime Act;
» Earnings to individuals participating in programs under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
Why shouldn’t income count as income? If money from the Agent Orange Settlement Fund or the Indian Claims Commission is green enough to buy beer and lottery tickets, there is no reason it can’t go toward rent.
And what about the matter of choice? A family of four with an income of $47,520 might be considered “low-income” in Arlington and Bethesda — but they wouldn’t be in other localities, where housing is more affordable. Where is the fairness in a system that allows people to move into neighborhoods they can’t afford and then demand that others pay their rent?
People who have so little regard for others do not make good neighbors. They are not interested in pulling their weight; their aim is to be carried by others. Undeniably, it is a problem when public housing projects concentrate social pathology, but enabling that contamination to spread and sicken the rest of society is no solution.
Examiner Columnist Melanie Scarborough lives in Alexandria.
