Who are the interest groups involved in the Charleston Arms issue? How is government involved? What do you think about this change in land use?
Academic Writing
Iconic One Theme | Powered by Wordpress
Who are the interest groups involved in the Charleston Arms issue? How is government involved? What do you think about this change in land use?
The interest groups involved are the residents at the Charleston Arms who use vouchers provided by the city to help pay the costs of rent. Other groups are the California group that recently purchased the Charleston Arms and the city. The government hands out the vouchers, and requires that residents who have them can only use the vouchers for specific rentals – one bedroom, small apartments. The government allows for property owners to turn down vouchers if they so choose, but they do not allow for owners to allow some vouchers but not others. Personally, the change appalls me. The residents who use vouchers have a hard time finding housing, especially near transportation. The people who are already living there should not be kicked out, but instead grandfathered in, or given more time to find a new home.
The interest groups involved are the Charleston Housing Authority, the California investment group, and the residents of Charleston Arms. The government is involved by providing vouchers, Section 8, to the residents. These vouchers allow low income residents to live in privately owned rental property by paying for majority of the rent for those who qualify. I believe that the tenants should have been given more time to find another place to live. It’s already a long wait to get vouchers and more time will be needed to find apartments that will accept them.
The interest groups involved in the Charleston Arms issue are a California investment group called Lattitude Management Real Estate Investors
who recently bought two apartment complexes in the West Ashley area. The other interest groups are thehousing authorities of the Charleston area and the subsidized-housing tenants, mostly low-income or disabled habitants who get help from the federal government to pay their rent in the form of vouchers. The new owners of the apartment complexes have now decided to not accept the federal vouchers anymore and therefore giving subsidized-housing tenants a notice to move out. The change in land use is therefore from a humanist incentive to help low-income people to have their own property to becoming an investment purely in the hopes of gaining a larger profit, without thinking of the consequences.
Interest groups are the Charleston Arms residents receiving vouchers, the Lattitude Management Real Estate Investors who bought Charleston Arms and Georgetown Apartments, and the Charleston Housing Authorities. The government distributes the vouchers to the tenants with specific restrictions on the usage. The Section 8 voucher requires residents “to pay thirty percent of their income in rent.” The government allows the property owner to turn down as many vouchers they want, but the property owner cannot allow certain vouchers and decline others. The insincerity encompassing the real estate investors is awful. If they are going to kick a man out of his home, the real estate investors should, at least, ask him how long he needs to move out. The increased ethical blindness money has on people is clearly demonstrated through this change of land use.
The interest groups involved are people receiving vouchers, Georgetown Apartments, Latitude Management Real Estate, and the Charleston Housing Authority. Section 8 allows a select number of people to only pay 30% of their income on rent, if any at all. This allows people with disabilities to live in private housing instead of a home or the government owned projects. The government is involved because they allow landowners to only take a certain amount of Section 8 tenants. I think that there should be more time allotted for people to find a new home, especially section 8 tenants, who have limited options and need a lot of amenities.
Section 8 voucher holders, Latitude Management Real Estate, and the Charleston Housing Authority are all interest groups in the Charleston Arms issue. The government provides vouchers for certain low-income families who could not otherwise pay their rent. These are Section 8 vouchers. The issue concerns the justice of changing a Section 8 housing complex to privately rented apartments. The California Real Estate company chose to evict its Section 8 residents because it knows that the complex will be more profitable renting to those of higher incomes. It will not have to worry about having a limit on how much a Section 8 unit will cost. It can drive up prices with demand and see large profits. Consequently, struggling, low-income families have no home. Section 8 housing is in high demand in Charleston and, landlords prefer higher income tenants over federally funded Section 8 clients. I think the city should designate certain complexes as Section 8 complexes. I find it incredibly unfair that a 51 year old disabled man discovers that he has to pick up, leave, and find a new home in a month. If a building is Section 8 housing, it should remain that way. It is unjust to the residents to execute evictions because of a change of ownership. The City must take care of its poor. Therefore I find this change in land use an egregious mistake that displaces those in need while lining the pockets of those who are not.
The interest groups include the Charleston Housing Authority, residents at Charleston Arms who receive the vouchers, and Lattitude Management Real Estate Investors who bought Charleston Arms and Georgetown Apartments. The government is involved in distributing the vouchers to the disabled or needy (Section 8 renters), helping to aid them in paying their 30% of income in rent due each month. Also, the government issued federal rules where the complexes have the choice to accept the vouchers or not, but they do not have the authority to limit the number of voucher clients. I believe that this change in land use is extremely unfair to the residents at Charleston Arms who receive the vouchers because it barely gives them enough time to find other housing arrangements. Many of these residents are not physically able to uproot themselves and their lives to a new location in a small amount of time, especially given the small number of residences that actually accept vouchers in the Charleston area. Given the circumstances, I believe that the voucher participants should at least be given a greater period of time to find new homes that are safe and fitting to their needs.
The interest groups involved in the Charleston Arms issue are Latitude Management Real Estate, Charleston Housing Authority, and the Charleston Arms Section 8 voucher holding residents. The government is involved in this issue through federally funded vouchers that pay the rent, or most of it, for qualifying people. They also allow property owners to allow or turn down voucher holders, but if the choose to allow them, they may not pick and choose which voucher holders they accept. This change in land use seriously affects these people because unlike tenants who can afford rent on their own, these people can only live in apartment complexes that allow section 8 vouchers. Over 6,000 people in the Charleston area alone are on waiting lists for 5 complexes that will accept them and thousands more who have yet to even make it onto the waiting list. Kicking these people out of their homes on such short notice is extremely unfair to them because they have waited for an extremely long just to get a voucher and now are told they can no longer live in their home. I believe that these tenants should either be grandfathered in and allowed to stay, or given assistance to find a new home as well as more time to do so.
There are three interest groups involved: Charleston Arms residents, who use vouchers to pay their rent, Latitude Management Real Estate, who purchased Charleston Arms, and the government, who distributes the vouchers. The government places restrictions on the vouchers requiring holders to only use them for certain rentals; as well as allowing property owners to refuse vouchers if they so choose. The government does not allow for property owners to accept some vouchers while refusing others. I know most people won’t agree with me, but I agree with this change of land use. The company that bought Charleston Arms, Latitude Management Real Estate, has the right to say who stays and who moves out. This company, based out of Beverly Hills, is in the real estate business to make money, and they cannot do that when the majority of their renters are using vouchers to pay their rent. I do think that they should give the renters enough time to move out and find a new place to live, but they have the right to say who can live in their apartment complex.
Well, you need to be aware that only about 14 families, including myself, in this 96-unit complex, plus 40 units in the Annex Building, are Voucher holders. As this is a conventional apartment complex, rest are full-paying tenants.
The interest groups in this issue are the Charleston Housing Authority, the Charleston Arms Complex and its tenants, California-based Lattitude Management Real Estate Investors, and the federal government who subsidize Section 8 vouchers for the program in question. Section 8 vouchers are given to low-income families to help them pay for housing. With the voucher, these families only have to pay 30% of their income in rent and the voucher pays the rest. This system is in place to allow these families to live in privately owned complexes instead of housing projects, but there are not a great deal of options within the city of Charleston. Federal rules in this Section 8 program let complexes decide whether they want to accept vouchers or not, but are not allowed to limit the number of client vouchers. The issue here is that the California group who bought the Charleston Arms building has demanded that its subsidized tenants move out without giving them much notice. While I think that the company is in fact following federal laws and exercising its rights by not accepting vouchers, the quick turn-around they are requiring from tenants to move out is extreme, especially considering the long waiting lists these voucher families must get on in order to find another place to live.
The people involved are those who live in Charleston arms, and the Los-Angeles based real estate group that purchased the apartment complex. The reason why the government is involved is because the new owners of the building are making it so that lower income citizens have to leave. The higher rent that the land lord is trying to get will force these tenants out. There is a struggle when trying to find an apartment with federally subsided properties for people who need to get a 1 bedroom place.
Sadly, I do agree with the fact that our free market economy allows these investors to take control of this property legally. It is sad that the lower income families are unable to stay on the peninsula. However, it is easy for to move a bit outside the city limits so that you can live within your means. This sends a message and if you get another people there, your circle of friends gets closer every payoff the time you spend of the beach.
Disregard my last sentence. Thanks
The interest groups involved in the Charleston Arm issue are the tenants at the Charleston Arms apartment complex using federally funded vouchers for rent, Don Cameron (executive director of the Charleston Housing Authority), and the new owners of Charleston Arms (Lattitude Management Real Estate Investors). The government is involved because they are the ones who set the rules for apartment vouchers and apartment owners. Since the federal law they created states that apartment owners can decide whether to accept the vouchers or not, but cannot limit the number of voucher tenants, it makes it less appealing for an apartment owner to accept the vouchers. The owner may sympathize with the tenants’ needs, but may not want an overwhelming amount of low-income tenants. Personally, I think the change is unfair. Obviously, when a company buys out another company, they can make whatever changes to the property and company that is legally allowed. However, i think it unfair that people like Reynoldo Acosta have to pick up and move in a limited set of time because of a change in ownership. This policy is strikingly similar to the eminent domain law we discussed.
The interest groups involved with the Charleston Arms issue are low income citizens who are in possession of Section 8 vouchers and the Real Estate Investors who are purchasing property that houses Section 8 voucher holders. The Real estate investors do not want low income tenants in their apartments, because they would be making less money. With the case of Charleston Arms, the investors cannot raise the prices of rent on people who have low incomes. On the other hand, the low income tenants are being forced out of their apartments rather immorally. The government says that landlords who accept the vouchers at all must accept all of the people that present them, which is causing landlords to reject the Section 8 voucher entirely, because they do not want becoming for the people with lower income, which makes sense to me from a business standpoint. This change in land usage revolves around investors desire to make money, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, there is something very wrong with kicking people out of their residency with very little notice, considering how hard it is for low income tenants with Section 8 vouchers to find a place to live anyway.
The interest groups involved in Charleston Arms include a California investment group, the Charleston Housing Authority, tenants of the two West Ashley apartment complexes, and Beverly Hills-based Lattitude Management Investors. The voucher system (Section 8) is provided by the government in order to give housing options, to the disabled or severely impoverished, other than governmental housing. The current system has a large waiting list, especially since new owners are forcing all tenants at Charleston Arms to move out. Not only do these people have to leave their residence, they have about a month to do it. Though other options are available, many are not preferable, due to crime and direct violence, especially for families. Thus, I am very against this development in land use. Forcing more people into turmoil or onto the streets will only cause more problems down the road-for everyone.
The interest groups are the people who get vouchers for section 8 housing, the North Charleston Housing Authority, the Latitude Management Real Estate Investors, the government, and the Charleston Arms apartment complex. The government gives the vouchers to low-income candidates. These vouchers allow people to pay a portion of their income towards small apartment housing, while the voucher makes up for the rest of their rent. The restrictions on the eligible apartments make it extremely difficult for people to find these houses. The fact that the other company is coming in and asking people to leave with little notice is understandable from a business perspective, but is extremely harsh. As seen in Mr. Acosta’s case, some residents cannot successfully move out in only a month. The land was being used to help the community, and now it will go to increase the wealth of a successful real-estate company. Charleston Arms was not the nicest or safest place to live, but it gave several families a home.
The interest groups in the Charleston Arms issue are the low-income tenants, Latitude Management Real Estate Investors, and the government. The government is involved by giving the low-income tenants vouchers to help pay for their rent, so they do not have to stay at government-owned subsidized housing. I think that although the change in land use is sad, it is a free system and the company that now owns the property is allowed to do what it wants. I can not tell from the article whether or not the company receives any less money in their pockets from the renters that use the voucher, because it seems as if the government does pay the difference. If it doesn’t effect how much money the owners of the property are making, I think it is unethical to kick people using the vouchers out. However, if it does make the owners receive less money, then it is their right as a business orientated group to ask that renters do not use the vouchers.
The interest groups are the Charleston Arms residents that were using vouchers to pay for their rent and the Latitude Management Real Estate Investors. The government gives these housing vouchers to families and residents to help pay for their rent; however, landlords are not required to accept them. In this article, the past landlords accepted the vouchers and the new ones are not going to. Therefore, the residents that have used the vouchers for years are being forced to leave. While, I think these residents should be given more time (they are only being given one month) to find a new place to live, I don’t think the new owners should be forced to accept the vouchers.
Essentially, investors are taking over cheaper apartments in the Charleston area and evicting the current residents. Charleston Arms has recently been acquired by Lattitude Management and Real Estate Investors. These residents were using government funded vouchers to cover the rent that they could not afford to pay. The residents who are being evicted are having a difficult time finding apartments because of the demand in Charleston – specifically, there are few places left that are below the maximum price line for vouchers. While it is devastating to see families have to move homes and struggle to find places to live, real estate is a large business. We live in a free-market economy and in order for us to thrive business have to continue to work and grow.
The interest groups involved in Charleston Arms are Latitude Management Real Estate Investors, the people who had taken up residence at Charleston Arms, and anyone in the Charleston Area depending on Section 8 to afford housing. The government is involved because the government provides section 8 vouchers and offers the tax incentives to newly established apartment complexes dictating that they have to be affordably priced for the first 10 years, two incentives of which help the poor afford housing when they might not be able to otherwise. This change in land use is somewhat of a double-edged sword. What’s good about it is that the new apartments will likely generate more tax revenue with can help improve the community and bolster the economy, but on the negative side, it is forcing poor residents out of their homes knowing it will difficult for them to find somewhere affordable to live and will likely increase the effects of gentrification on the peninsula. Despite there being a few benefits to replacing Charleston Arms, I think that the hard far outweighs the good.
The interest groups involved are the Charleston Housing Authority, the Latitude Management Real Estate Investors, and the residents of Charleston Arms and people in Charleston that depend on Section 8 to afford housing. The government provides vouchers and incentives to new apartment complexes to ensure that they are affordable for 10 years this allowed lower income residents to find housing. this change will force these low income families out of their homes and some on to the streets or off the peninsula altogether making their already difficult situation much worse. Although it will help the business it will hurt these tenants and likely hurt the community as a whole, homeless numbers will likely rise and the crime rate may rise as well. This is solely a power move for the invading company who cares little for the residents occupying their space.
Hello to all Students who wrote on this blog:
A more detailed, separate letter will be sent to your Professor regarding this blog. Right now I want to take my time to show great appreciation for the blogs you have all written in this forum. I hope that in your coming years as a future business or political leader this controversy has in impact on your important decisions you make.
Okay, here’s the latest update– almost a year later:
Since the first Post and Courier article was written about my plight and that of several families on Section 8 who resided at Charleston Arms and Georgetown Apartments, now known as Monument Square and the Carlyle Apartments, respectively, concession was given to both the families that were affected (are on Section 8) and myself by the Management and Ownership of these properties, wherein we were given an extension of time to look for another rental home from a landlord that takes the vouchers. This extension has expired: it was until May 31, 2016, or when the leases expire, whichever came later. Within three months I found a home on Johns Island, which has one, two, and three bedroom units (I obtained a three-bedroom unit). The one-bedroom units, of which there is a very limited quantity in this brand-new, tax credit apartment complex, have one bathroom, while the two’s and three’s have two bathrooms. As of this day, there were some holdover tenants who were either asked to leave by a certain date (and time), or face eviction proceedings; or were given some extension of time to leave by about a month or two, the latter in the case with Veterans Affairs-Supported Housing, or VASH, which is administered by the same housing authorities that administer the Section 8 program for non vets (the Housing Choice Voucher Program). Before leaving Charleston Arms I gave anyone I knew who was on the Voucher Program plenty of warning and notice that they needed to find a home right away, but a few families chose to remain and roll the dice. Most weren’t so lucky.
The complexes both underwent major remodeling and renovation of the units (still the same sizes, however), and now attract a higher-paying clientele (though not too high, given the nearby luxury apartments that have higher rents and more sq. footage). Many non-Voucher holders moved from the properties to more affordable homes, but many renters are still there.