High Income/Non Poverty Tenants Found Staying In Public Housing

This issue in public housing in Philadelphia Pennsylvania. 181 tenants with high income found to be in these publicly funded units including a dozen or so making over 100,000 per year. That on top of a 5 year waiting list of 100.000 people.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/inve...uthority-Over-Income-Families--353277881.html

The "ceo" of Philly's public housing says they make a good example and pay the market rate of an apartment or housing unit in that area of 1,000 per month. Report says the bulk of public housing money/income comes from the government.

100,000 waiting for affordable housing in Philadelphia and they hesitate to evict self sufficient people???
 
So presuming that the tenants earning this annual salary were given the housing when they were earning a much lower income ( because surely one would hope that initially they must have been given public housing if they were on the breadline) ...does anyone know if they were told there was a cap on what they could earn before they would have to forfeit their home?
 
hollydolly said:
So presuming that the tenants earning this annual salary were given the housing when they were earning a much lower income ( because surely one would hope that initially they must have been given public housing if they were on the breadline) ...does anyone know if they were told there was a cap on what they could earn before they would have to forfeit their home?
Click to expand...

How can they evict some already living there if other housing at their level may not be found. Just a question.
 
hollydolly said:
Yup I was wondering the same thing Bob...what if these high earners are now of an age where they wouldn't be accepted for a mortgage.?
Click to expand...

Age discrimination is illegal in most aspects, excusable in some others, for example, employment involving danger based on age-infirmity.

I applied for, and got, a 30-year mortgage at 70! I jokingly told the loan guy, to pay it off, I have to live to a hundred! imp
 
Sadly age discrimination for first time buyers is still alive and well in many places including the UK Imp.. for example to attempt to take out a mortgage at age 65, you'd have to be able to prove that you will have an income for the next 25 or 30 years, depending on your deposit..

[video]http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2849389/Banks-rejecting-borrowers-paying-loan-retirement-guide-beating-40s-mortgage-trap.html[/video]
 
I don't think that is true.. Many seniors are given mortgages... because when they die and the property is sold, the bank is the primary lien holder and is paid off before the balance of the equity is given to the heirs. For example.. If I bought a house and I died the next year.. my heirs would sell my house and the bank would be paid in full. Having income is important, but only in that they are able to meet the monthly mortgage payment. The bank is really taking zero risk as they own the mortgage and therefore the property. They can always foreclose.
 
QuickSilver said:
I don't think that is true.. Many seniors are given mortgages... because when they die and the property is sold, the bank is the primary lien holder and is paid off before the balance of the equity is given to the heirs. For example.. If I bought a house and I died the next year.. my heirs would sell my house and the bank would be paid in full. Having income is important, but only in that they are able to meet the monthly mortgage payment. The bank is really taking zero risk as they own the mortgage and therefore the property. They can always foreclose.
Click to expand...

I agree, QS. The death of the person who takes out the mortgage doesn't have any real effect on the bank. The mortgage is a lien against the property, not the person. It isn't like a credit card bill or some such, which may or may not be collectible after the death of the debtor.
 
Butterfly said:
I agree, QS. The death of the person who takes out the mortgage doesn't have any real effect on the bank. The mortgage is a lien against the property, not the person. It isn't like a credit card bill or some such, which may or may not be collectible after the death of the debtor.
Click to expand...

Yes.. Banks are called the Creditor of first position..a mortgage is a secured loan. Meaning that they are paid before any distribution of the remaining equity.
 
BobF said:
How can they evict some already living there if other housing at their level may not be found. Just a question.
Click to expand...

They don't necessarily have to land a house or get a mortgage. Most public housing units wind up being a medium sized apartment or condo. Public "housing" is a misnomer. It is a place to stay/live but not necessarily a house which tends to be section 8. I think they're focusing on public housing complexes, not individual homes in a regular neighborhood. Someone making 100K plus a year surely could get some kind of rental.
 
If you look into the prices of home in some areas of the US there is no stopping paying to get one. For example, my house in San Jose California cost me brand new from the site builders was just $14,750 but today now it sits in a neighbor hood selling near $400,000 and higher. Small lots, no side yards, 15' front and back yards. House was 4 small bedrooms and 2 small bath rooms. No insulation at all. I asked permission to install it myself and the office said I could over the week end. So I bought it, took it out there on Sat morn, but the dry wall'ers had already got there before I did. Back to the store with the dry wall. Never mind, with in a year I was transferred to another town and sold for near $16,000. Wish I had kept it for another few years as a rental.

Just saying that in many places I know of you can get a good house for under a $100,000 and definitely for less than 250,000. I think many of those east coast cities also have cost problems.
 
Last edited:
hollydolly said:
Sadly age discrimination for first time buyers is still alive and well in many places including the UK Imp.. for example to attempt to take out a mortgage at age 65, you'd have to be able to prove that you will have an income for the next 25 or 30 years, depending on your deposit..

[video]http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2849389/Banks-rejecting-borrowers-paying-loan-retirement-guide-beating-40s-mortgage-trap.html[/video]
Click to expand...

Another way of considering and viewing circumstance pertaining to "safety of investment". Banks cannot "take chances'. Oh, well! imp
 
imp said:
Another way of considering and viewing circumstance pertaining to "safety of investment". Banks cannot "take chances'. Oh, well! imp
Click to expand...

Banks never take chances... Can't pay your mortgage?... they take your home sell it and take the proceeds..... Die before the mortgage is paid off? They sell the house and get their money.. No matter what... they get their money..
 
When I was busy working to pay for my home I found that there was some loan lending going on. More than once I would get a note from a lender that says they now own my note. Please send to such and so from now on. Those papers were apparently in bundles that were being sold from one to another.
 
The mortgage meltdown/housing bubble burst was caused in part by bundles or traunches of high risk poor credit loans being sold and/or bet on. Throw in some merger mania-new debt owner.

Those bundles wound up being the core of many funds that were invested in and eventually returned nothing.

Should note it was fannie mae/fredie mac or government backed loans of higher risk borrowers that was intended to get more people into their own house and out of a rental.
 
Back in th 80's I remember my mortgage being sold regularly... The one I have now has not been sold and stayed with the original lender for the last 13 years.
 
WhatInThe said:
The mortgage meltdown/housing bubble burst was caused in part by bundles or traunches of high risk poor credit loans being sold and/or bet on. Throw in some merger mania-new debt owner.

Those bundles wound up being the core of many funds that were invested in and eventually returned nothing.

Should note it was fannie mae/fredie mac or government backed loans of higher risk borrowers that was intended to get more people into their own house and out of a rental.
Click to expand...
A rather lengthy study was done and if I am correct, what you write of were CRA loans. (Community Reinvestment Act) Those loans totaled less than 3% of all non-performing loans or loans that went into foreclosure. We far too often look to blame govt. (too often for partisan purposes) for every problem, it is not. The problem was heavy leveraging (borrowing) to buy MBS (Mortgage-Backed Securities-a paper creation) that very fortuitously received a AAA rating from (bribed) credit rating firms...and the game was on.

Freddie and Fannie did not go outside their lending criteria. They violated there tradition of using their implicit govt. backing to go outside the normal markets for cash, borrowed heavily to join that game and thus also failed when the underlying (risky) mortgages (MBS loans) failed. Servicers had no financial incentive to combine CRA loans into MBS-packaged loans.
 
I live in a Section 8 building and I know several people who have inherited money. The medium cap is $34,750 for a single person and $35,450 for a couple. Very low income cap is $20,000 per annum. My income is around $12,000 per annum and I have no other resources, so I am one of the genuine cases and believe me, I am deeply grateful to have my place. One third of your total income is deducted for rent.
The income is calculated on all amounts you receive, therefore if you have money invested, the return from the investments would be counted as income. I think what people do with their money is deed it to their children. No, it isn't right that people with money can live in these places because there are so many people "on the breadline" who need a home, but hey! what is fair in this world??? People say "as long as you have a place, why bitch about the people who have real money, brand new cars, etc"...............
 
WhatInThe said:
The mortgage meltdown/housing bubble burst was caused in part by bundles or traunches of high risk poor credit loans being sold and/or bet on. Throw in some merger mania-new debt owner.

Those bundles wound up being the core of many funds that were invested in and eventually returned nothing.

Should note it was fannie mae/fredie mac or government backed loans of higher risk borrowers that was intended to get more people into their own house and out of a rental.
Click to expand...

Not meaning to hijack the thread, but the recently released movie "The Big Short" (which is getting rave reviews) is all about the economic collapse and mortgage crisis. IMDB synopsis: "Four denizens of the world of high-finance predict the credit and housing bubble collapse of the mid-2000s, and decide to take on the big banks for their greed and lack of foresight." I haven't seen it yet but am really looking forward to it, as I've heard it gives an interesting peek into the "how" of the whole mess. I wasn't personally affected but know many who were. So anyone here who enjoy good movies and is interested in this subject may want to check it out. /end semi-hijack :eek:
 
QuickSilver said:
Banks never take chances... Can't pay your mortgage?... they take your home sell it and take the proceeds..... Die before the mortgage is paid off? They sell the house and get their money.. No matter what... they get their money..
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, they may not get ALL their money. The house next door has been sitting empty for almost two years and is now bank-owned. It doesn't look bad on the outside but the inside is a disaster. I know what is still owed on the house and what other better-maintained houses are selling for in this area and there's no way they're getting ALL their money out of that house. My understanding is that the tenant didn't pay the mortgage for almost a year before he left and the house has done nothing but sit there and deteriorate since then. We had considered buying it and putting the Spousal Equivalent's mother in there so we could assist her, but the house was in too bad shape for our plans. Of course, it's also bringing OUR property value down.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top