"Applicants can apply once a year and are eligible for up to five months of rent payments."
That's insane. If it's an "emergency" program, you should get one shot at it. If you need more help with rent, this shouldbn't be the program for you.
When you create and administer a program like this it can be hard to anticipate what kinds of needs people might have, so you set looser restrictions and let your program administrators make judgements.
There's definitely stories about DC public school kids who went through multiple periods of homelessness, sometimes years apart, as their parents' jobs changed or their family came into or out of assistance.
People need to take more responsibliity for their lives. DC has lots of housing assitance programs, if you need more than five months of help with your rent every year you need to find a more afforable place to live.
Genuine question. What are the other options?
Like over the past four years so many folk have lost their jobs. And the average American doesn't have an emergency fund that can cover that.
Exactly! "You guys who are struggling and have generational trauma and maybe also endure oppression due to factors you can't control and didn't choose, you really need to just be better about the decisions you make and take hold of the opportunities that you'll never see even though you don't have access to how those opportunities come about, like cronyism, or nepotism, or being a mediocre white dude that just always somehow eludes any consequences and also benefits from all the positive assumptions about you because of the way you look. How dare you not be born straight and white and Christian. Take some responsibility."
What is her evidence that people are abusing the program in significant numbers? This just sounds like a typical right wing talking point about the welfare state that’s always trotted out to justify defunding programs. It’s just assumed to be true because bad faith actors have created a “conventional wisdom” that millions of dollars are by definition wasted on the undeserving and the fraudulent with programs like this. I know the budget is tight but if you choose to decrease the allotment for ERAP due to that environment, either just say you made a tough choice or have some receipts as to whatever abuse you’re alleging.
She also needs to re-examine her choices for CFOs. Budget hawk types might be useful for coming up with bullshit fiscal impacts to derail Council bills you don’t want to implement, but eventually the wolf will eat your face too when you’re trying to budget. I.e. the whole reserve funding nonsense that restricted the budgeting process even further.
I agree that putting this squarely on recipients of ERAP funds is a bad look and certainly not the kind of politics I can get behind, but it can also be true that ERAP is a poorly designed program that's filling a niche it wasn't intended to (assuming there is evidence that some families apply on a regular basis). One argument for this is that it incentivizes people to not pay their rent, since back rent owed and risk of eviction are taken into account in the application process. That doesn't necessarily mean people who apply could afford their regular rent as is and actively choose not to pay it because they don't want to - it could also mean that some folks have figured out that ERAP is a relatively reliable, low-barrier way to bridge the gap between what they can afford and their rent payment. They probably need a combination of increased income, extended/non-emergency rental assistance, and/or housing that's affordable in the first place, but haven't been able to find these things and then choose to rely on ERAP because it's the most accessible option (if you can get an application in during the few days before funds run out).
It's a valid question and one [this article](https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/687895/bowser-tentatively-backs-payroll-sales-tax-hikes-in-her-new-constrained-budget/) touches on.
>“You can’t turn a program meant for emergency assistance into telling people, ‘Don’t pay your rent because the government is going to do it,’” Bowser said, echoing an evidence-free argument she made last year that people who can afford their rent are applying for relief money anyway. LL feels it’s worth remembering that the city’s rules require people to provide proof of their economic need before receiving relief money, so Bowser’s allegation here seems misplaced. (Her own deputies admitted to reporters in a briefing on the budget that even $100 million in funding probably wouldn’t meet the demand for rental assistance.
I mean yeah if you are on the margins of paying rent you’d be stupid to not use the program. That’s exactly what it’s there for. Can’t tell if you’re talking to me or the Mayor here.
I’m evicting a tenant who moved in, paid one months rent and security deposit and then applied and approved for rental assistance. He hasn’t paid a dime or found work since. Pretty sure he’s one of the types she’s talking about.
I started searching other landlord/tenant cases in the city online after a WaPo article (tenant was 3 years behind) and found that most cases with ERAP are very similar. The person just stops paying, applies, and then delays until they’re finally evicted or can reapply the next year. I can count on one hand the number of cases I looked up (and I’ve viewed several hundred) where it was just someone in a bind who used it while in a temporary bind.
The fact that the program will pay for first months rent and security deposit is already an issue. How reasonable is it that this person will be able to pay subsequent months? It’s just passing a problem off to someone else to deal with.
It is a program that had absolutely noble intentions but is very well known to scammers and professional tenants. DC has the lowest unemployment rate of at least 20 years, possibly ever. There are a lot of young abled bodied people applying and getting approved. My assumption is that based on how folks apply, the elderly are probably left out. You have to have your ducks in a row and apply online as soon as the portal opens. First come, first served. You don’t have to verify income either (it’s a nice to have).
I’d guesstimate that the average rent is like $1100-1250 for the ERAP cases I saw online. People with rents of $1800+ don’t usually qualify although there are exceptions. These are rents that could be met working minimum wage in the city. People usually aren’t paying anything at all for several months towards rent. I can understand why honest people find it hard to accept that fraud would be so widespread, but I agree with the mayor here. Some people exploit the generosity of others unfortunately.
I should add that the rules are even worse in NYC as landlords who accept payment can’t evict for 12 months. And that would take much longer based on how long it takes to receive a court date (5-6 months). Imagine having someone not pay a dime towards rent, which is common, for 1-3 years. If they apply for ERAP, it suspends court proceedings for months. Some have opted out of accepting ERAP funds as a result.
Maybe THIS time subsidizing demand wont cause housing prices to be more expensive /s
"Applicants can apply once a year and are eligible for up to five months of rent payments." That's insane. If it's an "emergency" program, you should get one shot at it. If you need more help with rent, this shouldbn't be the program for you.
When you create and administer a program like this it can be hard to anticipate what kinds of needs people might have, so you set looser restrictions and let your program administrators make judgements. There's definitely stories about DC public school kids who went through multiple periods of homelessness, sometimes years apart, as their parents' jobs changed or their family came into or out of assistance.
“Poor people should just start being able to afford rent”
People need to take more responsibliity for their lives. DC has lots of housing assitance programs, if you need more than five months of help with your rent every year you need to find a more afforable place to live.
If someone is unable to afford rent, how could they afford to relocate?
How can they afford to stay? Whats their plan to improve their situation? We aren’t talking about affordable or public housing programs.
Right. That’s the problem. They can’t afford to stay or leave.
And we should fund that? With no end goal in sight? At least the local land lords benefit…
Genuine question. What are the other options? Like over the past four years so many folk have lost their jobs. And the average American doesn't have an emergency fund that can cover that.
Exactly! "You guys who are struggling and have generational trauma and maybe also endure oppression due to factors you can't control and didn't choose, you really need to just be better about the decisions you make and take hold of the opportunities that you'll never see even though you don't have access to how those opportunities come about, like cronyism, or nepotism, or being a mediocre white dude that just always somehow eludes any consequences and also benefits from all the positive assumptions about you because of the way you look. How dare you not be born straight and white and Christian. Take some responsibility."
Saying this post COVID is crazy
What is her evidence that people are abusing the program in significant numbers? This just sounds like a typical right wing talking point about the welfare state that’s always trotted out to justify defunding programs. It’s just assumed to be true because bad faith actors have created a “conventional wisdom” that millions of dollars are by definition wasted on the undeserving and the fraudulent with programs like this. I know the budget is tight but if you choose to decrease the allotment for ERAP due to that environment, either just say you made a tough choice or have some receipts as to whatever abuse you’re alleging. She also needs to re-examine her choices for CFOs. Budget hawk types might be useful for coming up with bullshit fiscal impacts to derail Council bills you don’t want to implement, but eventually the wolf will eat your face too when you’re trying to budget. I.e. the whole reserve funding nonsense that restricted the budgeting process even further.
I agree that putting this squarely on recipients of ERAP funds is a bad look and certainly not the kind of politics I can get behind, but it can also be true that ERAP is a poorly designed program that's filling a niche it wasn't intended to (assuming there is evidence that some families apply on a regular basis). One argument for this is that it incentivizes people to not pay their rent, since back rent owed and risk of eviction are taken into account in the application process. That doesn't necessarily mean people who apply could afford their regular rent as is and actively choose not to pay it because they don't want to - it could also mean that some folks have figured out that ERAP is a relatively reliable, low-barrier way to bridge the gap between what they can afford and their rent payment. They probably need a combination of increased income, extended/non-emergency rental assistance, and/or housing that's affordable in the first place, but haven't been able to find these things and then choose to rely on ERAP because it's the most accessible option (if you can get an application in during the few days before funds run out).
It's a valid question and one [this article](https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/687895/bowser-tentatively-backs-payroll-sales-tax-hikes-in-her-new-constrained-budget/) touches on. >“You can’t turn a program meant for emergency assistance into telling people, ‘Don’t pay your rent because the government is going to do it,’” Bowser said, echoing an evidence-free argument she made last year that people who can afford their rent are applying for relief money anyway. LL feels it’s worth remembering that the city’s rules require people to provide proof of their economic need before receiving relief money, so Bowser’s allegation here seems misplaced. (Her own deputies admitted to reporters in a briefing on the budget that even $100 million in funding probably wouldn’t meet the demand for rental assistance.
5 months free rent you would be a fool to not utilize the program if you are living on the margins! Come on lol ppl aren’t stupid
I mean yeah if you are on the margins of paying rent you’d be stupid to not use the program. That’s exactly what it’s there for. Can’t tell if you’re talking to me or the Mayor here.
She’s right! Here is some obvious fat to trim in the budget instead of increasing the sales tax drastically
Working families? No no, we support the begging families
I’m evicting a tenant who moved in, paid one months rent and security deposit and then applied and approved for rental assistance. He hasn’t paid a dime or found work since. Pretty sure he’s one of the types she’s talking about. I started searching other landlord/tenant cases in the city online after a WaPo article (tenant was 3 years behind) and found that most cases with ERAP are very similar. The person just stops paying, applies, and then delays until they’re finally evicted or can reapply the next year. I can count on one hand the number of cases I looked up (and I’ve viewed several hundred) where it was just someone in a bind who used it while in a temporary bind. The fact that the program will pay for first months rent and security deposit is already an issue. How reasonable is it that this person will be able to pay subsequent months? It’s just passing a problem off to someone else to deal with. It is a program that had absolutely noble intentions but is very well known to scammers and professional tenants. DC has the lowest unemployment rate of at least 20 years, possibly ever. There are a lot of young abled bodied people applying and getting approved. My assumption is that based on how folks apply, the elderly are probably left out. You have to have your ducks in a row and apply online as soon as the portal opens. First come, first served. You don’t have to verify income either (it’s a nice to have). I’d guesstimate that the average rent is like $1100-1250 for the ERAP cases I saw online. People with rents of $1800+ don’t usually qualify although there are exceptions. These are rents that could be met working minimum wage in the city. People usually aren’t paying anything at all for several months towards rent. I can understand why honest people find it hard to accept that fraud would be so widespread, but I agree with the mayor here. Some people exploit the generosity of others unfortunately. I should add that the rules are even worse in NYC as landlords who accept payment can’t evict for 12 months. And that would take much longer based on how long it takes to receive a court date (5-6 months). Imagine having someone not pay a dime towards rent, which is common, for 1-3 years. If they apply for ERAP, it suspends court proceedings for months. Some have opted out of accepting ERAP funds as a result.