28 votes
Rank8
Idea#8
There should be a limit as to how long a person, family can stay in the projects or on Section 8.
People living there for 20 years or on voucher for 20 years is an unfair drain on the taxpayers.
Also, those people on the system that are able bodied should be required to do jobs around the developments like sweeping, cutting the grass, shoveling the snow and other maintenance as a way to reduce the costs and to acknowledge to the rest of us the debt they owe us taxpayers.
Even though the CHA was created to help families and was and(still is) a great idea, i think that there should be and end to the process. The limitation of a family receiving funding should be capped at 5 years, but during the process there should be continuous yearly training for the extended use of funding in preparation of living without CHA's assistance.
Good luck with that. From the biographies of several of the Board Members of CHA on their website, it appears that they have made a lifetime of occupancy in The Projects. So I am not anticipating any such rule to come from a board with a vested interest to maintain the status quo.
Which begs the question, why would a board have members on it who stand to benefit from the policies they would enact ? A resident being on the board, unless in an Advisory, non-voting capacity, would seem to be a glaring conflict of interest.
Nearly 38% of the CHA's proposed 25000 units are designated senior buildings. There are low income seniors who are 65 or older in CHA's senior buildings who have retired from employment and are on fixed income, limited mobility and/or disability. Their residency is by choice based on availability of affordable housing. If they are good tenants and are lease compliant why should they have to move? And if they were compelled to move, where would they go?
The argument from Paul is a red herring, intended to distract. No one is trying to put seniors on the streets, especially those that have retired from jobs, paid taxes, etc.
And if 38% are seniors, that means 62% are comprised of the "takers", living off of the "makers" - an amount that is too much to sustain.
LOL, taxpayer’s money, you got to be joking, you have working people (of all ethnic groups) that stay in public housing that are taxpayers. I have an idea, if a time limit is put on public housing don't stop there keep going. Taxpayer’s money helps pay for CTA, CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT, CITY HALL, CHICAGO SCHOOLS, GOVERNMENT JOBS and many other places. Oh and lets limit the jobs that are created from taxpayers money, to 1 time work for 2 years so people can stop retiring off the backs of taxpayers. I don't agree with putting a time limit on public housing.
