User Profile
Search
Blog Viewer
My Blog
Saturday, March 06 2010 - 11:17 PM
Section 8 news item
Over at AVNews there’s a pretty good piece, check it out.
FIVE SECTION 8 CONTACTS TERMINATED IN THE ANTELOPE VALLEY IN JANUARY
Los Angeles County — Los Angeles County terminated five Section 8 contracts in January for failure to comply with rules and regulations, Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich announced.
Currently administering 3,782 Section 8 contracts in the Antelope Valley, the County’s Housing Authority, working with the cities of Palmdale and Lancaster,
continues to employ a zero-tolerance policy for participants who fail to meet Federal requirements. Another 204 participants are being currently investigated for program violations.
Anonymous callers can report suspicious activity in Section 8 households to the Housing Authority’s Section 8 fraud hotline at (877) 881-7233.
whomeye says...
’bout time the scum gets what they deserve.
( send private message )
RealSteve says...
I wonder if dbeardw is worried by this development, by this aggressive going after welfare cheats.
( send private message )
Captain Jason says...
Okay, let’s look at the facts, as presented above. There are 3,782 Seciton 8 contracts in the Antelope valley. 5 were terminated, plus there are 204 under investigation. Assuming that all of the investigations conclude against the recipient (they don’t always, but let us assume the worst), then we would have a fraud rate of 5.5%, or a 94.5% compliance rate. Tell ya what, let’s double – no – triple that rate to 16.5% to include those that we don’t know about yet. We would still have a compliance rate of 83.5%
Wow. Such ado over so little.
Now, let the personal attacks begin…
(
send private message
)
RealSteve says...
CJ
There is a problem with your figures.
You don’t factor in what the enforcement rate is, the numbers of checks of those 3,782 vouchers per year.
If I had my way, 100 percent check every year of every section 8 household to insure that they are complying with the grant and are still eligible.
You probably won’t like that approach ether, but it is my and yours and the communities money supporting these people, we should reasonably expect that those receiving assistance are complying with the rules of the program.
(
send private message
)
Captain Jason says...
Actually, RS, contrary to your assumption, I have absolutely no problem with a yearly compliance check of 100% of the recipients, so long as it is not intended as a witch hunt.
Oh, and they are not my figures, those are the ones listed above. If you have more accurate ones, with proper citations for double checking, I would be most eager to see them.
(
send private message
)
RealSteve says...
CJ
I’m all for due process, no problem at all.
First a fair trial, then a fair hanging that’s all anyone should want.
But how do you make an inspection of a Section 8 housing grant not a “witch hunt”, or maybe in your view what would make an inspection one?
(
send private message
)
Captain Jason says...
RS;
Hmmm… You might have a point there. Defining the difference between a routine compliance check and a witch hunt is likely to be a personal opinion, frequently dependent upon who is the investigator and who is the investigatee. Fair enough. How deeply that compliance check goes into the individual’s personal life would be a question that could help define that difference.
My point, however, was that I do not have a problem with basic yearly compliance checks.
(
send private message
)
Just a mom says...
It shouldn’t be hard to make those calls now that the state is releasing across the state 17,000 sexual preditors.
( send private message )
Captain Jason says...
Question, JAM: Besides “kill ’em all,” what would you recommend for managing that risk?
( send private message )
Martel says...
Point is fact is with the exception of a few disabled or old folk these are bums period.Anyone that gets used to taking advantage of his fellow citizen is worthless.
( send private message )
RealSteve says...
Martel
About old folks not being bums, how old is dbeardw?
(
send private message
)
Dionysus says...
Interesting that this dbeardw blogger seems so intent on acting the child and blasting away at so many in here.
This is one blogger,(me), who is happy to not have made her acquaintance in real life. I am confident I would want to perhaps rethink how to dispose of my last meal once we met, (I avoid the expulsion of food in that manner as often as possible).
(
send private message
)
whomeye says...
dionysus, you’re so fortunate to have not met her. lucky you…
( send private message )
Just a mom says...
Jason, do you think it’s a good thing to have released 17,000 sex offenders across California ? do you have children ? I think a better release would of been petty theft and small time offenders if they have to release at all. Sex offenders are the worst of the worst. That is why they are freaking protected ! in jail so they won’t get their just deserts from their fellow inmates. Jails know they would be done in because even the most vile inmates frown on Sexual preditors and especially ones that prey on children.
( send private message )
Captain Jason says...
JAM, first off, perhaps you should cease and desist from making assumptions about a person based solely upon their questions. You assume by your posting that I somehow agree with the release of 17,000 sex offenders (where do those figures come from, by the way?). You assume that I have no children and don’t care about others children. You make a lot of assumptions, based solely upon my asking a question of you. Are you that defensive of a simple question? Are you even aware of just what constitutes a ‘sex crime’ in the State of California these days?
( send private message )
Would you like to comment on this blog post? Login to talk back!
RealSteve says...
This is really good news, keep up the fine work folks doing this.
Remember, you too can drop a dime at any time.
( send private message )