Should There Be a Time Limit on Federally Funded Housing?

            This issue feels almost strange to address since traditionally the focus has always been on the struggle impoverished people have in just getting into section 8 housing. For those who do not know, "The Housing Choice Vouchers Program (often referred to as “Section 8”) is the federal government’s primary program to provide housing for Americans who are living in poverty, as well as the elderly and disabled. It provides qualifying families with assistance in paying the monthly rental fee for homes and apartments that are located anywhere, not just in subsidized housing projects. In every major market in the country it is administered locally by municipal public housing agencies, which certify the tenants and residences for participation in the program" (http://www.gosection8.com/what-is-section8.aspx).  The statistics are not very comforting; there is a 3-5 year wait to get into section 8 housing. Obviously there is a great need for the housing and an incredibly high demand, but what is the policy for when poor people do get the housing they need? In order to discuss these pressing questions I think it’s important to address some antecedent concerns such as: what is the primary purpose of section 8 housing? Based off those purposes for section 8 housing does there need to be accountability of the occupants?

            Focusing on the antecedent concerns of federally funded housing we must initially examine the purpose of offering the housing to the poor (this may sound like a cold question, but I think it’s a necessary one when considering what is the best and most effective use of resources). Is the purpose mainly to provide impoverished people with a permanent and secure form of shelter or a temporary residence in the hopes of putting them back on their feet? If the purpose is providing a semi-permanent form of shelter then I think there should be a time limit, the reasons why I think this way are: others also have a great need for the housing, it only makes sense to create a rotation cycle in order to share the resources so that all can at least have that shelter for some time.
           Furthermore, if the selection process is not based on providing a resource for those most likely to pull themselves out of their situation, then it logically must mean that the selection is more focused on giving the worst off the resource. Therefore the selection is based on a “first come, first serve” process because many meet the “worst off” criteria, which some may argue is a mere application of a band-aid on a much bigger crises. The alternative use for federally funded housing would be for the purpose of those with the desire and best possible chance for pulling themselves out of their situations. If this were the case then there would be no need for a time limit, the emphasis should then be on accountability with goals for employment, bolstering of savings account or the paying off of certain outstanding bills and so on.