One great thing about this program is the services most section 202 facilities provide for the occupants. The housing units have been constructed to cater to the frail and elderly who at times have trouble doing menial tasks such as standing up from a chair.
One problem that I have noticed from reading about Section 202 housing is it's decrease in production over the years. In the beginning, Section 202 was producing many more facilities and as the years have gone on they have decreased, but the demand has not. The population is becoming increasingly elderly and the need for more subsidized housing for elderly people is increasing. As stated in the 1999 National Survey of Section 202, "Facilities in the largest urban areas of one million or more people could not accommodate even half their applicants within two years." HUD is trying to decrease this number by working with the federal government to fund 10,000 Section 202 units over the next 10 to 15 years.
I feel that Section 202 housing should try to stay around because of the success that it has seen. There are very low rates of vacancy, continuos number of applicants, and substantial waiting lists for the subsidized units. I think it's something to think about because the elderly are faced with increased medical costs and usually have no availability to income besides social security.
I definately agree that this is a problem but I believe the major reason for the decrease of production of new units is the economic downturn we have witnessed. As the economy begins to pick up, I believe the federal government will fund new units for the lower income elderly and disabled. Section 202 housing is definately important because,as Kellie mentioned, the increased medical cost will consume for many elders, the majority of their social security, for those who do recieve it.
ReplyDeleteI have to echo Hunter's assertion that the most obvious reason for this decrease in production is predicated upon the slump in our nation's economy. However, I am hesitant to say that the federal government will be able to supplement these failings with a rise in low income housing for the elderly or disabled. In the past two years we have witnessed a gridlocked Congress, unable to break partisan leanings to agree on almost any bill that will aid the American people. A program to greatly increase our debt will likely only drudge up more of these controversial problems within the inner circle of our nation's elected representatives, and unless mid-term elections drastically alter the composition of the Congress, I foresee few large humanitarian measures being instituted.
ReplyDeleteAs John began to address, this is an interesting issue to consider in light of a changing agenda. Clearly to success of this program was not enough to keep that money from going elsewhere. Maybe it went to funding affordable housing and services for other populations or possibly it was allocated to help address a different issue altogether. It is interesting to consider questions of fairness and equity in relation to policies that affect vulnerable populations of people. How do you determine who is more vulnerable or more in need of services provided by the federal government? Given the apparent success of this program and its subsequent decline in funding I wonder about what new players might be influencing the agenda.
ReplyDelete