Thursday, October 19, 2006

"Chabot, Cranley swap barbs" at first OH-01 Debate

Chabot, Cranley swap barbs
The issue's Section 8 on the West Side

DELHI TOWNSHIP - Here on the West Side of the 1st Congressional District, Wednesday night's debate between Republican incumbent Steve Chabot and Democratic challenger John Cranley started not with international politics or economics, but with an issue close to home - Section 8 housing.

The two candidates, locked in one of the most hotly contested House races in the country, argued about a scenario that has concerned many West Side residents - the potential for the spread of government-subsidized housing in their neighborhoods.

In the hour-long debate at the Delhi Senior Center, Chabot told the crowd of about 200 - almost all of them residents of the West Side - that Cranley, a Cincinnati city councilman, is the architect of a plan called the "impaction ordinance," which would cut city funding for any project that would lead to an increase in public housing in city neighborhoods saturated with it.

The real aim of the "impaction ordinance," Chabot said, is to put more low-income housing in the suburbs, where, he said, it would likely lead to an increase in crime.

"My opponent's plan is to push it out into Delhi Township and Green Township and our other communities," said Chabot. He said he voted for legislation stripping $800 million out of the budget for Section 8 low-income housing.

Many in the crowd cheered Chabot's remark, even though moderator Dave Wagner, the WLWT channel 5 news anchor, had warned the crowd not to cheer, boo or make any other remarks.

Cranley responded by saying that it was "ridiculous" to blame a city councilman for a program that is the responsibility of the federal government.

"All of the problems with Section 8 have happened on your watch," Cranley said.

"They are exclusively the responsibility of the federal government."

Cranley said that the owners of apartment buildings and other properties who accept Section 8 housing vouchers have a political action committee, which he claimed has given $10,000 to Chabot's re-election campaign.

"I don't know what he's talking about," Chabot said after the debate. Chabot said he might have received contributions from the apartment building owners, "some of whom do Section 8 housing and some of whom don't."

After the debate, Chabot's chief of staff, Gary Lindgren, also claimed that Cranley's campaign has received contributions from owners of low-income housing in Cincinnati.

The debate - a mix of questions from a media panel and several submitted by the audience - was a contentious affair, with each candidate claiming the other is lying about him in television ads.

Cranley told Chabot that "your allies" in the Republican party are running TV ads claiming that Cranley supports giving Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants.

"Absolutely untrue," said Cranley. "I have never said anything like that. It is not true."

Chabot said he supported House legislation that authorized a fence to be built on the U.S.-Mexico border. Chabot pointed out that Cranley voted for a council resolution supporting Senate legislation that would give some illegal immigrants a chance to become U.S. citizens.

"Listening to you, you'd think Cincinnati City Council controls the Mexican-U.S. border," Cranley said.

Chabot had his own beef with a Democratic TV ad criticizing him for voting against bonuses for service men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Chabot said the truth is he voted, instead, for legislation giving all service men and women a 4 to 6 percent raise.

The two congressional candidates will meet for a final time Monday night in a debate at the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center.



At 10:41 PM EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, Chabot is retarded. He doesn't know anything about Cincinnati issues. He seems to blame everything wrong with the city on Cranley.

A Cincinnati Congressman is blaming the bad things of Cincinnati on a Cincinnati City Councilman. (Also ironic is Chabot seems to only notice the bad things when he has tough re-election bids.)

That could make sense, if the issues are issues fully controlled by City Council. Even then, the responsibility for the issues may or may not rest with all members of council.

In a nutshell, Chabot doesn't understand how the City of Cincinnati runs. You would think he does, after all, he did used to serve in Council and the County Commission. Therefore, if you think about it, Chabot knows exactly what responsibilities Cranley DOES have. So when he falsely accuses Cranley of "letting crime get out of control", he is lying to himself.

Chabot is lying to himself, he is lying to Councilman Cranley, and worst of all, he is lying to his Cincinnati constituents.

Chabot is a creep. His ads are filthy, full of lies, tv stations are pulling them, people are getting disgusted, polls are showing him way behind, his campaign totals for the whole year are well under what was planned....

Chabot is a lying creep that is about to have his bags packing.

At 6:29 PM EST, Blogger ShayShay said...

I am sick to my stomach. I am 90% likely to be living on section 8 sometime soon, and 'my' congressman, Steve Chabot, is disgusted with me. He runs ads implying that I, and others in my socioeconomic bracket, turn peaceful neighborhoods into crime-ridden, blighted dumpsters, when the truth is, there are many factors that contrubute. The problem is not that landlords take money from one source or another, but that they see section 8 as easy money that they don't have to earn. I toured an apartment on Euclid in Clifton, which was very nice. I did not ask, but I am pretty sure they would not take a section 8 voucher. Very few landlords do. The landlords who do, know that we (section 8 customers) have our backs up against a real estate wall, designed to keep poor people out. I have never heard a section 8 customer say she looked through a bunch of apartments before she picked one. You pick the first one available. Knowing this, landlords have little incentive to keep apartments nice, or respond to tenant complaints about criminal activity in the hallways or in other units of the apartment. We have nowhere else to go. This is why crime runs high in section 8 apartments, from my experience and that of my family members. Instead of punishing the poor, the popular election-time move, HUD should require landlords to stay involved with the properties that they accept section 8 monies for. Just like New York was considered avant-garde to require indoor apartments and decent ventilation back in 1910, HUD could take a big step to improve the lives of lower-income tenants by requiring landlords to be involved with the properties they collect money off of.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home