Housing projects: what do you think?

[SpeedRacer 1]

OK, I got into this long & unproductive discussion in a bar re. housing projects.

In the late 60's & early 70's there was a movement for the government to make public housing projects. The problem was: they basically said, "Hey, lets take all the poor people and stick them in a box in a shitty section of town so they'll be far away from all the middle class/rich people!"

Anyway, that's my take on it.
Recently my town has applied for and received the Hope VI grant, which allows them to provide the SAME public housing assistance for the people living in the projects, except that they can move to about 7 different areas. Meanwhile, they will eliminate the boxy, prison-like structures they were living in , and build regular housing. And they will mix low-to -moderate income housing with government-assissted housing within the same neighborhood.

So basically you'd get privately-owned housing side -by -side with people being assissted by the government. But ultimately there'd be the same number of people helped out by the government, the difference is that many of them would be living next door to people who were of, usually, lower-to-middle-class income.

So anyway I got into a heated discussion with someone in a bar who believed that this would be a violation of the poor peoples' rights somehow. My take was that these people would get the same gov't assissted rights, except that they'd be living cheek-by-jowl with people WITHOUT gov't assissted rights, and that the whole community would be better off without so much economic segregation.

What do you all think about this??

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[RevJim 0]

Huh? Ya lost me after " the late 60's".

It's your life, live it!
Karma
RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1

[SpeedRacer 1]

oh c'mon,...someone with an intelligent perspective....the guy I talked to in the bar was probably from the local area (Frederick, MD is only about 60,000 people) and I wonder if he was someone who didn't want these "hoi polloi" moving into his backyard....That's usually what's behind this kind of shit. NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard.....god forbid some "redneck" with a mullet should move next door...LOL!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[b1jercat 0]

Three families in one house has gotta be better than three families in one apartment, and there's more room for their car's running or not. blue skies






Just a little late night post whoring
I'll spread my legs for anybody.

[skybytch 273]

Out here in California we have what's called "Section 8." Low income families can get assistance paying their rent if they qualify and then find a house/apartment who's owner will accept Section 8. It's up to the landlord if they will take it or not.

imho, spreading the lowest income residents (those who'd qualify for assistance) throughout a city would create less overall impact than putting all of them in one place/area. Seems to me they'd be less likely to get involved in criminal activities, and it might give their kids a better chance at doing better than their parents did - better areas (i.e. areas of higher property value) will have better schools right?

[RevJim 0]

Oh, I have an intelligent perspective, it just doesn't apply. I live in a town of 5,000 that hits 50,000 from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Less than 1/2 of 1% of the population in the summer is considered low income, and, living in Wisconsin, our department of workforce development and welfare system (welfare to work program) is extremely good. To receive any kind of assistance you need to be either handicapped to a point you cannot work or work in state supported training programs. It was actually sad to see our Governor, Tommy Thompson, get an appointment in D.C but seeing as it was all his hard work that has done this, he deserved it.

It's your life, live it!
Karma
RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1

[wmw999 2,534]

Ah -- just what I like, a discussion about the impact of social engineering on reality
To me, the answer, as with just about anything else, is "it depends." In Houston, one real plus of having the housing which poor people live in (whatever you call it) somewhat centralized is that our public transportation system really sucks, and the buses go where the people without cars are. So a project out closer to the suburbs, with bus service 1/2 mile away, is a whole lot harder to deal with.

Another thing about the public housing projects is that the already-established ones sometimes have a sense of community -- there was a huge fight to keep a badly run-down project here in Houston for about 10 years. It was very accessible to downtown and a particular neighborhood. It was also prime real estate for development.

We have both projects and section 8 housing here; the waiting list for each (last I checked for someone) was at least 18 months, unless you could figure out how to get expedited.

But the biggest issue I see with section 8 housing over projects is that in the section 8 housing, the section 8 tenant is likely to be seen as "the freeloader" by the rent-paying rental agent and (if known), the other tenants. In the projects, everyone is alike. Of course, projects are more likely to deteriorate physically -- they have their own downside.

Not that section 8 housing is bad; it's just not a panacea, and its inherent problems have to be addressed proactively, rather than ignored because of the problems with projects that it addresses.

Wendy W.
-- oh -- and sounds like a good bar where people talk about stuff like this, instead of "how about them Dodgers" and "boy I'd like to get in HER pants"

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[WeakMindedFool 0]

Of course that system tends to trap people in a low income job that requires spending more time out of the house. Since most of these families are single parent that leaves...well...the local gang to look after their children which of course perpetuates the problem. This is why many local law enforcement agencies are against the work for welfare program. It marginalizes the people the least capable to defend themselves. Nothing like pointing fingers at poor people for all of our social ills while businesses profit from the cheap labor. The money we save we can now give to airlines to subsidize their poor business decisions

Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves.
-Eric Hoffer -
Check out these Videos

[WeakMindedFool 0]

I'm with you...I can't see a really "good" alternative either My biggest problem with the "Projects" is while they do foster a sense of community they seem to validate certain counter-productive lifestyles. It seem's normal to be poor and uneducated when everyone you have contact with is the same way. At least with HUD housing it deversifies both sides perceptions of what is normal. Of course living across the street from some sec 8 as I do sucks!

Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves.
-Eric Hoffer -
Check out these Videos

[Gawain 0]

Unfortunately, it was not the environment, the project program or even the fact that it was government sponsored that was the problem, IMO.

Go to Greenwich CT and you'll see rolling hills, 5-15 acre estates and more populated "affluent" neighborhoods, condos, apartmets. Crime rate -- next to nothing...why? It's families living in houses. Kids going to school. Planning for the future. Money aside: Why is the crime rate lower? Why doesn't one neighbor arbitrarily cruise and extort his neighbor? Money aside: Why? It has to do with fundamental values and perception on how one treats another.

For the projects, the program accomplished, nearly perfectly what it was chartered to do: provide extremely affordable housing, put a roof over the head. Is that why they're failing? No, it is the society's inherent fundamental values, where marking territory, extorting neighbors and disrespect for others' fundamental rights to life and liberty are the norm.

Integrating housing with other development plans is a good idea, I think. The problem that may arise is which social values will flourish if they're mixed. As everything tends to pull towards chaos, I worry that those that "worked" to buy their housing will see their property values drop. In a market like much of the southeast, that would be disastrous. Markets like California can absorb and integrate the impact better I think.

If the ratio of assisted living to "established" living is realistic (say 1 in 15 or 20 ??), I would wager that the program would be very successful. Beyond that and the rest of the communities and developers will close their minds to the idea.

Does anyone have a "right" to a house. IMO, No.
Does anyone have a "right" to pursue housing within their means and current ability. IMO, Yes.
Does someone who bought their home without assistance have a "right" to pursue protection of their investment. IMO, Yes.
Does that equal a 50/50 split within certain developments. IMO, No.

That's my .02, but it's probably worth less, since I have no experience in either real estate, or social programs related to real estate...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[tb62871 0]

My opinion is housing projects serve their purpose. Which is to put a roof over the heads of the poor. Arround here if you aren't poor enough to get into a project you can probrabbly get sectoin 8. One of the problems with sectoin 8 is it is up to the owner of the property wether or not to rent to a sec. 8 or not. As a partner in some property, I have had some experience with this. The poor don't seem to have respect for anything that they don't own. So the owner can easily get screwed just by taking a chance on some guarenteed rent checks from sec. 8. Instead of a person that is actually paying their own rent.The person that is paying his own rent may run into a problem and be late with the rent, but unless he is a deadbeat he will come through eventually and he will be more likely to take care of your place. The poor on the other hand will call you every time a light bulb goes out and expect it to be fixed yesterday.
I think that a solution would be to make the people in the projects property owners. See how quickly they will work to clean up the neighborhoods that truly belong to them.

--TB
Welcome my friends to the show that never ends.

[RevJim 0]

Quote

This is why many local law enforcement agencies are against the work for welfare program.

Wow! You must be privy to some information which I am not. This statement goes directly against the comments of my boss (a 16 year veteran of the county police-now a Seargent).

Many? I hear just the opposite from those that I speak with. All have said how if has improved the quality of living, by giving those with nothing a way out, and has reduced the crime rate in those areas.

You stated just the opposite. I would really like to see some documentation of that, as my boss would love to see it also.

It's your life, live it!
Karma
RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1

[TheAnvil 0]

Jim I'm with you on this. I have never heard ANYONE in any police force say anything bad about the work for welfare program - and quite a few of my buddies are in law enforcement and the military. Tommy Thompson's program was outstanding in Wisconsin - too bad it's not instituted nationally.

IRT to the public housing/section 8 thing, I've got a really complex opinion that would take several websites to fill. I believe both programs are broken, and some good points have been made on this thread.

However I'd be VERY interested in seeing some documentation/sources on the folks who have problems with the welfare/work programs that have been implemented. I've heard no complaints from anyone credible up until now.

Yours in suds,

THE ANVIL

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

I worry that those that "worked" to buy their housing will see their property values drop.

hmmm, I wonder if this is what that guy in the bar was really worried about.

Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist, but I don't think that will happen in the case of Frederick.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[konradptr 0]

I can't believe that there are this many people on one forum, who are willing to work and work, just to give money to lazy, lowlife, criminals. I haven't seen a TacoBell that doesn't have a now hiring sign in front. Yes, although it isn't PC, if people don't have cash to pay rent like I do, they need to move to Mexico or something, but they shouldn't get my money. And why are these people who are on welfare for 20+ years having kids 10-15 times??? F-them...

------------------------------------------
Getting banned isn't that bad......

[Snowwhite 0]

I'm finding this to be a very interesting thread, since I was appointed to be the Chairman of the Board of the Rock Island Housing Authority about 8 years ago.
At that time we were a 'troubled' authority (HUD's grading system)
We fired low lifes, we evicted low lifes, we were sued by bunches of them ( and won ) and now we are on the rebound.
On Tuesday I have the extreme pleasure of announcing our foray into the Hope VI theatre. Understand that Hope VI is neither section 8 or project. One other thing that has been changed in recent years is this. There is NO free housing in our Authority. Everyone pays, some don't pay alot, some pay more than I ever would have imagined. We have people who are paying $450.00 a month for section 8 that would go for $550. on the open market. The government picks up the difference. They are inspected regularly, and they are part of the tenant organization that reports to the Housing Authority, so there are a lot more controls on the overall product.
Why did we do these things? Partly because HUD is requiring change, partly because when I was held hostage by the Chicago Black Panthers for wanting to tear down our most blighted, least used, highest crime projects, I GOT PISSED OFF!
We had a 336 unit project which had only had 144 families living in it for at least 15 years. We were paying $17,000. a year for LOCKS! from boyfriends kicking in doors! WHY IN THE HECK AM I PAYING FOR THAT??! We had a waiting list that was three years long, and a staff that couldn't produce ONE new tenant a month! And the worst part was, this was only one of SEVEN projects in our town.
We have hired a new EX. Dir, who takes direction well from the Board, we have a board who makes their meetings! (couldn't believe the old board rarely met!) We have staff who are accountable to the Ex. Dir. and we have tenants who know that they live by the rules or they live somewhere else. If your kids bring drugs, or guns, you lose your house.
Hope VI will not be offered to everyone, the houses that are built will be maintained by our staff, will be built one or two to a neighborhood, will have front porches, garages and 'look like' the rest of the neighborhood.
When the neighbors get up and go to work and school, the housing tenants will see ethics that haven't existed in HUD projects for years. They will be isolated from gang type activity, they will have neighbors who will patrol their activity more. The 'uneducated poor' will be spread over several schools and not concentrated all in one place.
If anyone has any questions for me, I welcome them, as I have to hone my skills for the press conference that I am heading next week.
Wish me luck, and hope that the Black Panthers aren't there......

skydiveTaylorville.org
freefallbeth@yahoo.com

[Snowwhite 0]

Oh yea, our new rating is 'high performer'...

skydiveTaylorville.org
freefallbeth@yahoo.com

[SpeedRacer 1]

re. to Snowwhite:

Yeah this is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm glad Frederick got the HOPE IV grant, it seems to me that the project will work out better for all parties involved.

The guy in the bar never really articulated (to my understanding) exactly how and why he believed that the people's rights in the projects were being violated simply by integrating their housing with the rest of the community. Maybe he thought they'd feel more comfortable with "their own kind" or some other kind of patronizing elitist BS like that.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------