Council weighs options for response to HUD

I expect this to be settled constructively, and not in a punitive manner.
Will we lose the program? Maybe
Will we lose the vouchers? Doubtful but hopeful
They are looking for agreeable resolution instead of confrontation.
Don't expect any pound of flesh!

Doug's misguided and utterly wasteful actions of the past five years has already further harmed the city.  Anything that HUD may do (not do) will only be icing on the cake.  In other words, so many lost opportunities and poor stewardship of our federal tax dollars.  Remember the famous quote of Doug when asked about financial management of the HUD Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP), "we can lose up to $75,000 per each housing acquisition, rehabilitation and resale project."  Urban Renewal is alive and well in Middletown.  In my opinion, he can take it to Mason where he lives.

Could Aj have seen the writing on the wall and bail before the feds put the hammer down?

Vet I think you were right in your message to council that is the warning they need to heed. I think they are in such denial and so arrogant that if penalties come down it's going to come as a shock. What are the other attorneys on council doing,sitting on their hands? Will this help Judy on down the road? Take Dougie with you.

Three way trades are always fun in sports. So let's agree to transfer control to BMHA who will then hire Dougie from us, HUD agrees that BMHA will be allowed to reduce from 1600 vouchers to around 800 over an agreed upon period of time, and HUD agress not to fine or prosecute city officials. Done.

Just a few years ago most on this forum were citing Sec. 8 as a huge problem in Middletown.  They called on council to change direction.  If my memory serves me correctly several council candidates in 2009 had Sec. 8 reduction as a major platform of their campaign.  Now just a few years later this forum seems to sit back a laugh has HUD has begun to fight back.  It seems to me council listened to the community, and many on this forum, and is trying to change course.  Genuine question....why did opinions on here change so quickly?

As I understand the issue of reducing the vouchers has not been fought by landlords. The real issue has be the vilifying and criminalizing of the landlords and the participants in the program. The illegal tracking of water bills, the asking by police "is this a Sec 8 house"when they respond to a call. It's the illegal procedures being instated from Doug Adkins office. He was asked point blank at a council meeting about that and he admitted you are not allowed to do that. Some landlords have had this happen I'm told. There are violations through his office..If you want to believe what he is telling everyone you may be surprised at the out come also. IMO

Observer wrote: Just a few years ago most on this forum were citing Sec. 8 as a huge problem in Middletown.  They called on council to change direction.  If my memory serves me correctly several council candidates in 2009 had Sec. 8 reduction as a major platform of their campaign.  Now just a few years later this forum seems to sit back a laugh has HUD has begun to fight back.  It seems to me council listened to the community, and many on this forum, and is trying to change course.  Genuine question....why did opinions on here change so quickly?

Well, let's see Observer. You cite a 2009 date as a Section 8 reducing platform for the candidates. This is now 2013 and the council and city leaders just started talking about cutting the voucher levels in 2012/2013 didn't they? If so, that would make it three years with no talk on voucher reductions. Did they really listen to the community and this forum as you state? Why did they wait so long?

Don't know about others on this forum but I've never changed my tune on Section 8 from the beginning. I didn't want it in town when it started and I stand by that thinking as of today. If it was my decision, I would still be unhappy with the correct amount of around 700 or so. He--, 30 would be too much for me. IN GENERAL AND TO STEREOTYPE....I have always said that Sec. 8 (and the drug issues) are associated with bringing a ghetto mentality/ increased crime to town, it contributes in destroying a town's reputation/image as a decent middle class city and does nothing positive in helping this city out of the mess it is in and both issues usually attract low income, handout type individuals who bring their friends from out of town to help with the crime. It is all PERCEPTION by non-residents that if there is an overabundance of this segment of society in a town, the town is considered the bottom of the barrel. That is what I believe many surrounding towns now think of us. It is sad seeing the city going from a hard-working blue collar industrial town with some dignity in the mix to one of low income, crime-ridden, lower echelon clientele creating a breeding ground for every unwanted activity most cities wouldn't tolerate nor want. If Sec. 8 had any advantages, wouldn't Mason, Springboro, West Chester, Fairfield and others done what Middletown did? Middletown officials were the only fools who bit on the excessive vouchers, right?

Vet

Bill wrote: The city let more poor people in and then are prohibited from reducing vouchers because, lo & behold, there are too many poor in town.  These voucher residents came from somewhere -- so why can't some of them move away?  Amazing how many of us have to transfer for our jobs or drive long distances to them but these people getting free rent can't possibly be inconvenienced by taking their TAXPAYER funded voucher and go to nearby town.

Bill.

Ya gotta love the government's logic here. THEY acknowledge that this community is poverty stricken. SO, to add to the misery, they insist on saturating the city with even more poverty. Yep, the folks running HUD are the poster children for the overall thinking of the lousy government, be it city, state or the feds. No wonder we are in such bad shape in this country. No one running the show at any level, that has a clue how to make decisions based on any common sense.

Observer wrote: Vet, I thought it started much earlier than Feb. 2013.  I'll trust Vivian's date of 2010 which would be just after those running in 2009 were sworn in.  I'll give this current Council credit for fighting this battle and those that have been advocating a reduction in numbers should as well.  If we are going to point out the failures we need to also be able to give credit where it is due.

AGREE OBSERVER. CREDIT GOES OUT TO THE CURRENT COUNCIL FOR TRYING TO CORRECT THE MISTAKES OF PREVIOUS COUNCILS AND CITY ADMIN. JUST SEEMS LIKE IT WAS MORE RECENT THAN 2010 THAT THEY STARTED AN ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE VOUCHERS. MY MISTAKE. WHEN DID OLSEN LEAVE? HOW LONG HAS GILLELAND AND COMPANY BEEN IN CHARGE? WASN'T SHE AROUND WHEN THE ESCALATION OF VOUCHERS WERE HAPPENING AND IF SO, WHY DID SHE NOT ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THEM THEN?

July 2, 2012
Monday

Gentlemen
    In 2010 Mr. Adkins sent a 96 page report to HUD requesting a reduction in the Section 8 Housing Vouchers which HUD refused. Here is the link to the complete response from HUD . http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ohcmiddl/2010-HUDResponse.htm
    Records now show that almost 3 million dollars are now sitting in several HUD accounts while the areas of greatest need have received no funding. It is against HUD rules for these funds to be stockpiled while Mr. Adkins states that he does not have funding to solve the many problems in our neighborhoods.
    Why do we now need the Land Banking Program when we have not utilized these HUD funds over the past three years to demolish more blighted properties?