On Nov 5, 12:27 pm, Matt Ion  wrote:
> Amy Guskin wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 01:05:06 -0400, DevilsPGD wrote
> > (in article ):
>
> >> In message
 Amy Guskin
> >>  wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 14:21:06 -0400, DevilsPGD wrote
> >>> (in article ):
>
> >>>> You also have to consider that there is more going on
in many cases. For
> >>>> example, a family can be below the poverty line,
while one member makes
> >>>> a substantial amount of money.
>
> >>>> You'll see this in subsidized housing, you'll have a
single (married,
> >>>> but separated) woman, multiple children, and her new
boyfriend.  Since
> >>>> she's married, common-law rules don't apply and his
income isn't
> >>>> considered.  He then buys the big screen, food, etc,
and she "pays" the
> >>>> rent by making no money, resulting in no rent needing
to be paid.<<
> >>> So if these people have such a "substantial amount
of money," then why do
> >>> they continue to live in dirty, unsafe, vermin-infested, crappy ass
> >>> subsidized housing?
> >> Because it's free?  Because it means the actual person on the lease
> >> doesn't need a job? <<
>
> > I'm guessing you've never had to live in subsidized housing.  Most people
> > wouldn't choose that if they could afford anything better.
>
> Actually, I have - rent was a set percentage of (declared!) household
> income, and some tenants paid next to nothing (since they officially had
> next to no income), yet seemed to have no shortage of "nice toys"...
> mostly due to exactly the sorts of abuses listed above.
>
> And rest assured, "subsidized housing" does not automatically mean
> "slums".  This particular residence was a fairly new
apartment building;
> not overly large suites, but nicely appointed and very clean and
> comfortable.

Agreed. I have head some "rent controlled" places in NYC are even
breathtaking.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32