SF is suing people who buy BMR units and then rent them out for market rate! _ sanfrancisco housing benefit and council tax

Today we have a means-tested safety net, which means society helps you out if you’re low-income, and then stops once you earn more. BMR is unlike other safety net programs like food stamps in that it’s a lottery, where supply meets a very small share of qualifying demand. The value of this benefit is therefore already overconcentrated, and BMR ownership (as a much larger benefit than shorter-term BMR rentals) only worsens this concentration. Another way of saying it: BMR as a program creates inequality between those lucky enough to get selected, and BMR ownership worsens this inequality by extending the benefit beyond the period where recipients would normally qualify for BMR rents.

Personally I’d prefer more universal benefits to avoid welfare traps from means tests, and cash instead of demeaning, heavy-overhead in-kind benefits like housing assistance and food stamps ( r/basicincome).Housing benefit and council tax

but if we’re using the system we have, we should make it as minimally lottery-like as possible to minimize the inequality within low-income people who would qualify.

When I first moved to the city many years ago, I rented one of a BMR unit for a couple months. The owner was a teacher that got the unit before she met her partner, who was a highly paid professional. She later moved in with her partner. She said that she could not sell the unit without taking a loss because the sales price that she would have been allowed to charge was based on an average income metric that had declined since she first bought. In addition, while the unit was bmr, the HOA fees were not reduced at all – she paid the same large monthly fee as the luxury units in the same building. This left her with the choice of either selling at a large loss, leaving it empty and paying hefty hoas each month, or illegally subletting.Housing benefit and council tax what would you do?

Today we have a means-tested safety net, which means society helps you out if you’re low-income, and then stops once you earn more. BMR is unlike other safety net programs like food stamps in that it’s a lottery, where supply meets a very small share of qualifying demand. The value of this benefit is therefore already overconcentrated, and BMR ownership (as a much larger benefit than shorter-term BMR rentals) only worsens this concentration. Another way of saying it: BMR as a program creates inequality between those lucky enough to get selected, and BMR ownership worsens this inequality by extending the benefit beyond the period where recipients would normally qualify for BMR rents.

Personally I’d prefer more universal benefits to avoid welfare traps from means tests, and cash instead of demeaning, heavy-overhead in-kind benefits like housing assistance and food stamps ( r/basicincome).Housing benefit and council tax but if we’re using the system we have, we should make it as minimally lottery-like as possible to minimize the inequality within low-income people who would qualify.

When I first moved to the city many years ago, I rented one of a BMR unit for a couple months. The owner was a teacher that got the unit before she met her partner, who was a highly paid professional. She later moved in with her partner. She said that she could not sell the unit without taking a loss because the sales price that she would have been allowed to charge was based on an average income metric that had declined since she first bought. In addition, while the unit was bmr, the HOA fees were not reduced at all – she paid the same large monthly fee as the luxury units in the same building. This left her with the choice of either selling at a large loss, leaving it empty and paying hefty hoas each month, or illegally subletting.Housing benefit and council tax what would you do?

Today we have a means-tested safety net, which means society helps you out if you’re low-income, and then stops once you earn more. BMR is unlike other safety net programs like food stamps in that it’s a lottery, where supply meets a very small share of qualifying demand. The value of this benefit is therefore already overconcentrated, and BMR ownership (as a much larger benefit than shorter-term BMR rentals) only worsens this concentration. Another way of saying it: BMR as a program creates inequality between those lucky enough to get selected, and BMR ownership worsens this inequality by extending the benefit beyond the period where recipients would normally qualify for BMR rents.

Personally I’d prefer more universal benefits to avoid welfare traps from means tests, and cash instead of demeaning, heavy-overhead in-kind benefits like housing assistance and food stamps ( r/basicincome).Housing benefit and council tax but if we’re using the system we have, we should make it as minimally lottery-like as possible to minimize the inequality within low-income people who would qualify.

When I first moved to the city many years ago, I rented one of a BMR unit for a couple months. The owner was a teacher that got the unit before she met her partner, who was a highly paid professional. She later moved in with her partner. She said that she could not sell the unit without taking a loss because the sales price that she would have been allowed to charge was based on an average income metric that had declined since she first bought. In addition, while the unit was bmr, the HOA fees were not reduced at all – she paid the same large monthly fee as the luxury units in the same building. This left her with the choice of either selling at a large loss, leaving it empty and paying hefty hoas each month, or illegally subletting.Housing benefit and council tax what would you do?

Today we have a means-tested safety net, which means society helps you out if you’re low-income, and then stops once you earn more. BMR is unlike other safety net programs like food stamps in that it’s a lottery, where supply meets a very small share of qualifying demand. The value of this benefit is therefore already overconcentrated, and BMR ownership (as a much larger benefit than shorter-term BMR rentals) only worsens this concentration. Another way of saying it: BMR as a program creates inequality between those lucky enough to get selected, and BMR ownership worsens this inequality by extending the benefit beyond the period where recipients would normally qualify for BMR rents.

Personally I’d prefer more universal benefits to avoid welfare traps from means tests, and cash instead of demeaning, heavy-overhead in-kind benefits like housing assistance and food stamps ( r/basicincome).Housing benefit and council tax but if we’re using the system we have, we should make it as minimally lottery-like as possible to minimize the inequality within low-income people who would qualify.

When I first moved to the city many years ago, I rented one of a BMR unit for a couple months. The owner was a teacher that got the unit before she met her partner, who was a highly paid professional. She later moved in with her partner. She said that she could not sell the unit without taking a loss because the sales price that she would have been allowed to charge was based on an average income metric that had declined since she first bought. In addition, while the unit was bmr, the HOA fees were not reduced at all – she paid the same large monthly fee as the luxury units in the same building. This left her with the choice of either selling at a large loss, leaving it empty and paying hefty hoas each month, or illegally subletting.Housing benefit and council tax what would you do?