I haven't seen this in the real world yet. (and I'm not trying to be argumentative). The flip side to "sending poor people to the burbs" is that, at least in Denver, guess where all of the decent public transit is? Guess where the offices for other services - Medicaid, Social Security, Housing Authority, Food Banks, Clothing donation clearing houses, "Medicaid friendly" Hospitals are? They're all in the city. This could be a Denver phenomenon - just the DNA and evolution of the city. But all of the services that a person in crisis needs are in or near downtown. Not to mention the housing options available to them are mostly in "poor" neighborhoods. I'm working with one woman - single mom of four. Limited education and prospects. Her kids are getting bullied at the urban school they're in. I keep encouraging her to move further out of town. Her answer? It will take her an hour to get back into the city to get any of the services she now accesses with a 10 minute walk or bus ride. ugh.... yes... but MURCA. I wish more landlords would just accept it without being forced. Don't get me wrong - as I look at building a rental property - I see both sides of this. On the one side - a Landlord has a guaranteed check every month for an account that will always go through. On the other side - that lady I mentioned? She's sweet and wonderful... but holy hell - her kids destroy EVERY place the live. As the father of a brood myself, I can tell you - that's just what kids do. But you know what? When my kids piss on the carpet or vomit kool-aid, I have not only the cleaning supplies to immediately work on the problem - but when it gets too much my me and some carpet cleaner - I also have the resources to hire a pro. The same goes for broken windows, light fixtures, roof shingles, trees, lawns, and so on. I don't think forcing landlords to take housing vouchers is the best idea. Maybe some form of incentives? I don't know. There would have to be some kind of partnership or something. This is a tough one for sure.For example, housing authorities try to place section 8 tenants outside of areas of concentrated poverty, because so they have more opportunities to become self sufficient.
in some cities, need to be able to force landlords to take their tenants.
I don't know much about Denver, but it is something other cities try to do. The availability of services are also one of the criteria they use. Generally it's not moving people from the city into the suburbs, but from less affluent parts of the city to more. If all the services are also concentrated then that's tough. I don't think it's common, at least there are very few places I hear about it happening. Chicago was the first I ever heard about and it sounded really heavy handed to me too, but no one wants to take vouchers in Chicago because why take the risk, make your other tenants uncomfortable, and be rewarded with housing authority people pestering you with paperwork when you have prospective tenants lining up?I haven't seen this in the real world yet. (and I'm not trying to be argumentative). The flip side to "sending poor people to the burbs" is that, at least in Denver, guess where all of the decent public transit is? Guess where the offices for other services - Medicaid, Social Security, Housing Authority, Food Banks, Clothing donation clearing houses, "Medicaid friendly" Hospitals are? They're all in the city.
I don't think forcing landlords to take housing vouchers is the best idea. Maybe some form of incentives? I don't know. There would have to be some kind of partnership or something. This is a tough one for sure.