Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Bills galore
Next Post: Note to readers
Posted in:
* The setup…
The Chicago Housing Authority is poised to adopt rules that would allow the agency to limit how long residents can stay in public housing. […]
If embraced by the CHA board, term limits — allowed under a set of rules recommended by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development — would mark the most dramatic effort yet to reform Chicago’s public housing.
Along with rules that will require most adult tenants to work or go to school, term limits reflect a shift in vision: a belief among both local and federal officials that public housing should be a way station for people trying to regain their footing, rather than a permanent home for society’s poorest members. […]
Critics fear the federal rules give the housing authority too much discretion with this population and will destroy hard-won legal protections for public-housing residents.
* The question: While doing your best to avoid knee-jerk, reactionary, strictly ideological responses, please explain why you think this is a good or bad idea.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 10:51 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Bills galore
Next Post: Note to readers
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
There are two significant problems.
The first is that it will make turnover increase in public housing and one thing experience has shown over time is that high turnover leads to a far less livable neighborhood. People who build social capital amongst themselves can use that capital to solve problems and reduce crime.
The second is that I’m not sure how it fits with the changes in public housing. Most public housing is designed for mixed income housing now so I’m not sure how this is parallel to Section 8 in Philadelphia.
Finally, if you move people out of public housing where they have developed relationships and such, it will make them far more vulnerable to personal financial problems. If someone loses a babysitter in a long standing community, they can likely find temporary help. If they are forced to move and have the problem, that resource is lost.
This would seem to hurt working poor people as much if not more than most people.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 11:00 am
Tough call. I’m not a big fan of public housing, but I can’t help thinking that many of these people (including children) would be rendered homeless. Maybe it’s not such a great idea.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 11:05 am
It is a bad idea. There are many, many barriers for the families currently living in public housing to move from their to the private market. Arbitrary time limits do not remove those barriers. The CHA would be much better served by focusing on improving the services provided to residents of public housing so that the various barriers they are facing, such as a lack of job skills to access living wage employment, can be removed.
Comment by montrose Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 11:07 am
I like the idea of attaching some kind of work or school requirmenet, but think term limits are a bad idea. Do we really need more homelss? Or more single parents with kids to abadon or try to house on the street?
Instead of kicking people out, create public works programs, such as picking up trash in the neighborhoods etc. Require the public houseing recepients either work or go to school. If they do not have a job or go to school for say a period of 30 days, they are required to report to work on public projects communtiy service, or work as volunteers. Provide the housing, but require that the beneficiaries work either cleaning up parks and roadways, volunteering at soup kitches etc, or have paying jobs.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 11:08 am
ArchPundit makes some good points. Although I also think that the measure may help combat the problem of generational welfare by making public housing an actual way station instead of a long-term solution.
Like I’ve said before, I’ll all for people putting ideas out there, but the execution of this one may cause more harm than good. And may metaphorically function as removing a bottom card from a house of cards…
Comment by Bill S. Preston, Esq. Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 11:14 am
It’s difficult to discuss this without coming from SOME ideological viewpoint. I think in general this is a good idea, but, as we’ve seen in cities all over America, there are varying groups of people to consider - the working poor, those who could be considered “willing” participants in generational welfare, and the mentally ill.
I’m all for giving people a very real incentive to find work and make a go of it as long as those that ARE trying to do that are not thrown out with the bathwater. I also like the idea of education efforts aimed at those struggling to get “living wage” jobs but actually do have the desire to work.
If there’s some sort of protection for those, as long as they’re genuinely trying to succeed, I think we should always be working on ways to make it more difficult to take advantage of the welfare system and, in effect, the taxpayers that fund the system.
The other group is the mentally ill. I find it difficult to believe that a large majority of the homeless that openly state that they don’t want to take advantage of shelters or other programs because they don’t want to abide by their rules are not mentally ill. Turning down food and shelter at the expense of an individual’s well-being is not logical, and should leave municipalities the option to try to get them mental help - either voluntarily or though the court system. Yes, there’s a pricetag with that, too, but everything we’re discussing here has a pricetag. The questions is what changes will make things better than they are now.
I’m no expert on public housing, but I’d like to know the actual success rates in areas where huge public housing units were torn down and replaced with single family homes offered instead at below-market rent. Undoubtedly, some residents of the public housing units could not afford the new housing. What happened then? They’ve not all become homeless. Which begs the question, were those units ever needed in the first place?
Comment by Frustrated Republican Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 11:30 am
Against, unless we can also agree that some groups will always require public housing and leave them alone: I’m thinking particularly of seniors or the many people with disabilities who will always be underemployed. Also, it’s a horrible idea to turn out families with pre-schoolers and school-aged children.
The turnover-liveability issues and the barrier issues are very good points as well.
Comment by yinn Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 11:32 am
I don’t think the reforms go far enough. Rather than worrying about their hard-won legal protections, extended-stay tenants ought to reflect on the generosity of a population that, in the most productive cases, pays most of its production in taxes. In return, we ought to be able to ask for their effort.
Comment by Greg Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 11:35 am
In the abstract, it seems like a reasonable idea as a way to break the generation-to-generation dependence cycle. But many good points been raised about how it would play out in practice. I like the work and school requirements, but am leery about requiring people to move at an arbitrary date. Perhaps some flexibility based on striving toward a goal. So many factors go into this issue — income, education, family structure, behavior.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 11:35 am
I disagree with the proposal. People in CHA already face great barriers and have very weak advocacy for their positions. This policy would be the ultimate definition of “piling on.”
From my work as Board member of the Chicago Low-Income Housing Trust Fund I know there is very little rental housing in the city. Secondly private landlords are often more difficult to deal with than the CHA.
There are problems with either way this could go - leaving as is or the term limits concept. The problems leaving it as is I think are less then trying to create artifical limits of staying at CHA.
Doug Dobmeyer
Comment by Doug Dobmeyer Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 11:35 am
That rule is a great idea. It would encourage the residents to get jobs and decrease wellfare spending.
In 1993, the U.S. Senate debated a bill which would have required HUD residents to work at their building, which would have included sweeping, raking, picking up litter, and painting. Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun said that requiring the residents to work would be similar to slavery and that she was offended, since she was the only black senator, at the time. The Senate didn’t vote on the bill.
Comment by PhilCollins Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 11:36 am
Why do we have to have low-income housing projects at all. And why must the current CHA projects be continued as low-income housing.
Given current housing prices in the Chicago area, a lot of non-high-rise public housing would likely
be attractive to middle income families of many ethnic backgrounds if adequately managed and maintained. Instead, they seem to be predominantly African American in many cases. Is that by choice? Reverse disciminattion by the CHA?. Custom?
Of course, low income families should have access to decent housing they can afford, with whatever financial support academics and pols deem to be fair and not too disruptive to the market. But the middle class of all races should have access to
public housing—and currently, they don’t.
As in so many ways in 21st century America, social goodies need to be extended not only to the so-called poor but also well into the middle class. Medicaid. Decent public housing. Free university. Food stamps. Free CTA passes. We don’t have to take advantage. But, in the interests of financial security and a comfortable retirement, we should, instead of giving all our tax monies to
Emil’s Earmarks and to sleazy pols, insist that
it come back to us in ways we can use.
Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 11:36 am
What about our senior citizens? Will they be forced to abide by the same rules - work, time limits, etc? My mother lived in a senior high rise in my hometown in Southern Illinois from 1977 until her death in 2002. That was and is the only option for seniors who can no longer afford to keep their homes. I would hope this would be senior exempt statewide.
Comment by Little Egypt Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 11:41 am
Arch Pundit, Montrose, Esq and others all make very good points. Pulling the plug without a plan for “What next?” can only lead to disaster.
Just look at all the displaced folks given vouchers in Chicago and even Rockford IL where the new CHA director came from—-many have not improved their lives.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 12:06 pm
Just plain stupid.
Where’s the affordable housing for people to move into?
Where are the jobs that we expect people to get?
Where’s the affordable child care?
You can’t blame people for being unemployed when companies just cut 63,000 jobs.
Chrysler’s in such bad shape, they just announced that they’re shutting down the entire company for two weeks this summer.
Last time i checked, the breadwinner for a family of four would has to work 90 hours per week to pay the rent for a typical apartment in Chicago. We still haven’t passed legislation prohibiting landlords from discriminating against Section 8 recipients.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 12:15 pm
Reducing long-term dependency makes sense, just as welfare reform in the 90’s has started to address generational apathy.
However, there needs to be a more secure safety net for those that fail if public housing is reformed. Better funding to provide safe shelters, especially for families, should be part of the deal. While a shelter isn’t a home, it’s still a roof and heating, and might help inspire more individuals to work harder.
For those who wonder why someone would chose homelessness instead of in poorly run or supervised shelters, consider that humans survived just fine in the wild for millions of years. Anyone who has enjoyed camping can appreciate the pleasure of sleeping and waking in nature, especially compared to a noisy, crowded shelter. Unfortunately, some people would rather force conformity down their throats than let them live safer and more free. If you want to help these free spirits, offer a winter sleeping bag or perhaps a remote campground with basic facilities. It really helps if you try thinking from someone else’s perspective instead of your own.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 12:32 pm
EXCELLENT IDEA - Welfare is not a right but temporary help during tough times. Public housing should be the same. When limits were put on how long someone could collect welfare, the hand wringers said that children were going to starve in the streets. In reality, it has generally worked well in that it is forcing people to take responsiblility for their own lives. Public housing limits will further this. Senior citizens and those with disabilities should be exempt. Those with very young children should be able to petition for an extension if they are in job training, in school or have a job.
Comment by Silent Majority Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 12:35 pm
Bad idea. I find it interesting that there is always a push to limit assistance to the poor and requirements to “make them more responsible members of society.”
The same people complain about all the “burdens” placed on the wealthy and seek to relieve them of any societal responsibility (like paying a living wage, providing a safe work place, keeping the environment around their businesses clean, paying taxes to support the system that protects their interests and provides an educated workforce).
Why are the people who call this a “Christian” nation so unwilling to feed and house the poor? There is a very clear directive in the Gospel to provide these services and no strings are attached.
If we want to move people out of public housing, we need to improve the educational system DRAMATICALLY (Bill Gates was in Washington yesterday begging for this, he claims he need to go outside the country to attract qualified workers). AND we need to figure out a way to encourage businesses to distribute pay more equitably. The gap between highest and lowest paid has been increasing dramatically, and this inequity is, in part, reflected in people’s inability to afford unsubsidized housing.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 12:39 pm
The value of housing stock couldn’t be less tied to wage “inequality.”
Comment by Greg Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 12:45 pm
Yellow Dog,
There’s lots of affordable and empty housing in poor rural areas, where many from Chicago have moved. However, there are few jobs other than becoming an entreprenuer, but that needs a microloan system to help establish success. Banks desperate for continued business and profits should consider this new opportunity, especially as we slide into recession. At least in rural areas, finding a fellow poor neighbor to help with childcare is fairly easy.
Chicago needs to stop dumping its poor on Danville, Galesburg, and other poor rural areas, which further crushes local education in these poor rust belt cities. At least provide some help with education funding and microloans to help prevent poverty from expanding and taking even more of the next generation into dependency.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 12:46 pm
Pot,
Look at welfare reform in the 90’s. Not only did it reduce dependency, but it also encouraged more churches and communities to establish food pantries and offer meal programs to supplement food stamp programs.
Obviously, a roof and heat are bigger, more expensive issues than food, but it would not only reduce dependency among the poor, but also the rich who have also become dependent on government to take care of housing problems. The likely result is we’ll actually establish and support more safe, quality shelters.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 12:59 pm
Pot– I want to get this straight, because I’m trying to solve America’s housing problem. Bear with me. What you’re saying is that the gap between rich and poor is widening dramatically, and that means less people can afford housing. So, you want to encourage companies to pay people more equitably, and then more people can afford housing.
Are you talking intra-company encouragment? Like, I own a company, and I am to be encouraged to pay my best employees worse and my worst employees more? Or are you talking inter-company encouragement? Like, I own a company, and you own a company, and even though my products are better, my workers and your workers should be paid evenly?
Either way, let’s hear it, because, like I said, I want to solve this housing problem.
Comment by mpkomara Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 1:05 pm
MIXED BAG. It is excellent to tie it to work. As much as I hate public housing, kicking people out may be disasterous for some unlucky children.
I am all for people working to stay in their home..whether it is picking up litter to whatever.
“Why are the people who call this a “Christian” nation so unwilling to feed and house the poor? There is a very clear directive in the Gospel to provide these services and no strings are attached.”
This is simply teaching them to fish. Most people don’t feel sympathy for people who continually make horrendous decisions.
Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 1:07 pm
To the people who think public housing residents should “work harder.” That’s a stereotype that does not hold up under scrutiny in these days when un- and underemployment is so common, and people have really long commutes, and there’s a lack of affordable housing, and “tough times” are the norm–and even in the case where someone apparently could be “working harder,” there is often an underlying case of depression or other invisible illness.
I’d be mighty, mighty wary of generally classifying welfare/public housing users as parasites looking for that free lunch.
And about the “free spirits” who reject shelters: some of them ARE rejecting the structure, but others just get tired of having their shoes and other precious possessions stolen, being sexually abused, etc.
Comment by yinn Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 1:11 pm
I think everyone should be careful about speaking to the “success” of welfare reform as an argument for public housing time limits. Whether or not you consider welfare reform a success depends on the metrics you are using. Case load reduction is not a success. I can easily see those that are pro-time limits for public housing saying, “It is a smashing success! Look how many fewer families are living in public housing!” without an honest conversation about whether or not things are actually better for those families.
I am not saying that there were not changes needed to what was once welfare, nor am I saying that there should be no changes to public housing. What I am saying is that reducing these issues to families “refusing to take responsiblity” is ignoring the reality of what families living in poverty are facing.
YDD - Great point on the lack of protection against discrimination for housing choice voucher holders.
Comment by montrose Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 1:20 pm
Public housing was originally designed to house people in need. But it was not designed to house those people for an entire lifetime. This is why the waiting lists for most public housing entities is over one year long (or more).
Large public housing complexes were vastly ignored and drug-ridden almost immediately after they were built. This is clearly evident in the Pruhidigo, Hay Homes and Mother Cabrini Green “experiments”. All were failures. HUD also neglects a decent portion of current housing complexes. However, their move towards more Section 8 vouchers and actual homes for rent are great ideas that are much more significant (and intelligent) than the large, sprawling and often dangerous complexes built in the 1950s.
Obviously, you cannot tell senior citizens to leave. That is impractical. But what about the rest of the housing population? Therein lies the problem. A move toward nearly 100% Section 8 vouchers to cover housing expenses is a much better initiative than merely kicking people out of housing complexes and telling them they have to find a place to live. And let’s face it: HUD is the type of agency to actually pull such a stunt.
It’s not unfair to switch people over to a voucher-only system. You can keep the public units for seniors and the disabled - after all, they will have a much more difficult time finding housing than others currently in HUD’s system - but all others could be told they will get “x” amount of housing allowances per month and “y” amount of months to find a new place.
This would also serve as a shot to the bow of county and city housing directors, many or all of whom are political appointees. County housing authorities are excessively bureaucratic and not very helpful to the people living in the complexes. By taking away some of the directors’ influence, you would actually improve the quality of local housing authorities and improve the overall service given to tenants.
Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 1:21 pm
It would help if those in support of continuing endless housing welfare would disclose whether or not they are dependent on government, especially jobs in government welfare programs.
One factor left out is the addicted, who have more serious, difficult, and expensive problems to resolve. Unfortunately, our very expensive jail system seems to be their safety net.
Why can’t local communities or counties use a non-profit private foundation to fundraise and grow an endowment to help establish safe shelters?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 1:42 pm
Finally, an attempt to put an end to the welfare society. This lifestyle becomes generational with no end in sight. Welfare is the new chains of slavery imposed on the impoverished by the democrats, who buy their votes with programs funded by taxpayers dollars. Liberals would HATE to see these individuals accomplish anything that would improve their self worth and self actulaization. Without the votes of the impoverished, who are indebted to the democrats for all the welfare programs, the democratic party would cease to exist. It is in the liberals interest to keep the downtrodden down, rather than help them up. Nice try, libs, at trying to feign concern about thier plight, but it is more of your self serving banter I hear. Death to the welfare state, up with self determination, and self reliance. This country was made with hard work, not college degrees and welfare checks.
Comment by Dago Red Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 1:54 pm
CHA was built on rules that were only applied when convenient. That’s why it is what it is today. Unless this rule can be enforced, it will be worthless-just like all the others.
Comment by Stacker of Wheat Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 1:54 pm
This discussion of longevity in low-income housing and success of changes to welfare dubbed “reform” by some is ridicules. Talk about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic!
The issue here is simply politics. The poor in public housing are becoming a deficit to Mayor Daley increasingly a Republican. The old political arrangements of the poor being an assets to Dems is fast fading and thus the need to get rid of these folks.
Last night I went to see the Black Hawks play and the changes from Greektown west to Damen are incredible! The poor are mostly gone - replaced by condo owners. But, where did the poor go? Hard to tellm but the old projects are mostly gone.
Is Chgo better off now - hard to tell. But, the majority of the poor are not.
Doug Dobmeyer
Comment by Doug Dobmeyer Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 1:56 pm
This is a good idea implementing it will be the real challenge. public housing is supposed to be a safety net and a helping hand,not a permanent housing situation. Generation after generation should not be living there endlessly. Go to school,learn a skill get a job. The economy was great in the last 7 years I bet everyone using the economy as an excuse had a differnt reason for not being able to get there own place then. If you refuse to get a job and contribute to society there is a lovely heating grate on lower wacker waiting for you.
Comment by fed up Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 1:59 pm
Yinn,
Work harder includes working smarter by taking advantage of job training programs. It also means microloans to ecnourage entreprenuers, rather than dependency on government or even an employer.
Anyone who has ever lived with the poor knows that some are exemplery, most are reasonable, some have chronic issues, but some will remain dependent as long as possible.
The bottom line is most people, who are not parasites, only need a few years of help to get skills and get back on their feet, not a lifetime subsidy.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 2:02 pm
The criticisms of the proposed rules are well stated, and valid.
The bigger problem is this: while the best outcome is to increase the ability of the poor to become independent of entitlements, this kind of program costs much, much more than entitltements. A real program to help poor people earn a middle class wage — to work their way out of poverty — requires significant investment in social services like worker training programs, jobs services, health care, day care . . . you name it.
I don’t see the US making that kind of investment. All too often proposals like work requirements or time limits for entitlements are just an excuse to sweep the problem under the rug. “We’re helping them become independent” means nothing without a commitment of resources to help address the underlying reasons for poverty; and those resources are rarely made available.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 2:12 pm
–“We’re helping them become independent” means nothing without a commitment of resources to help address the underlying reasons for poverty; and those resources are rarely made available.–
Well said.
Comment by montrose Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 2:14 pm
Section 8 residents are discriminated against because most people don’t want them living next to them. There, I said it and that was easy to figure out. Habits are hard to break and with Section 8 residents come the section 8 habits. The parent may be trying to improve their lot in life, but the kids too often, don’t recognize that.
Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 2:20 pm
Fed,
Simple minded extremism doesn’t help the effort to make reasonable changes to the system, such as making public housing temporary.
Such a cut needs to be tempered with improving training opportunities, microloans, safer and more secure shelters, and survival necessities for the voluntarily homeless.
Obviously, government would be wise to leverage tax dollars shifted from public housing programs by encouraging non-profits to match any funding to support such basic improvements.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 2:22 pm
When we sweep the problem under the rug, what we really mean is the young poor often have to return to living with their family or friends and share expenses, childcare, and housework.
Wouldn’t that make more sense than government paying for their so-called “independence,” which often may be worse for the kids, as they would rarely see their single parent who needs to work and go to school, and may still be growing up themselves?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 2:33 pm
Public housing has gone from being a temporary place for struggling families, to a warehouse for the poor. It takes hundreds of thousands of citizens and makes a government their landlord. So, we don’t empower them, we infantize them. We become their masters, and when things go wrong, we end up playing the role of victimizer instead of helper. This is a disaster, especially for those living in them.
Public housing harms real estate values. Instead of allowing for a market of low-income families to keep rent prices down, these people are off the market which allows prices to escalate, making housing even LESS affordable. A cycle of decay takes over the neighborhood which ends up costs us millions more. We see this everyday, what exactly are you guys not understanding?
Stability? When you are living in the dregs of government housing in a decaying neighborhood, the last thing you want is stability. You are as low as you can get, you want stability?
The political abuse government housing promotes is inexcusable. Government housing is fought over by politicians who want a captive voter base empowering politicians, not residents.
The sooner we can get a struggling family through public housing, the better it is for the family. Life is not about living in a rut. Life is change itself, and when you are on the bottom of the heap, change is exactly what you want.
It is so insulting to read bloggers who imagine that those living in government housing are utterly helpless babies incapable of growing up. Once again we hear from people who believe that taking money from working families in order to give that money to those we deem as poor and helpless is somehow noble. Charity is good, and it is voluntary. Taxes are bad, and if you don’t pay them, you go to jail. I promise you people that St. Peter isn’t giving Swedes, French or other high tax peoples better places in heaven because they paid more taxes. Taking more from working families threatens their survival, doesn’t it? Why would we want to do this?
We have generations of weaklings we have allowed to be created under the guise of government assistance. We’ve been doing this for 45 years, and it obviously doesn’t work anymore. Lets start treating citizens as adults, expect them to become responsible citizens, assist them temporarily, and push them out of these nests.
It is a great idea, and we have nothing to lose.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 2:52 pm
There are a lot of good ideas in the proposal, encourage work and education are both winners. Hell I know that in some down state government subsidized housing it is against the rules for all of the adult residents to be attending school full time. I see no reason why if you are living in public housing and are unemployed that you should not be required to either look for a job or work on bettering your education. Public Housing should be a temporary thing to help people get back on their feet not a permanent residency. Along with that state and local government should look at the factors that are driving housing and rental prices and see if their are any government policies, zoning rules, etc, that are artificially driving up prices, which is often the case.
Along with this the residents of public housing have to be made aware of the opportunities and forms of help that are available to them and they have to be willing to put in the effort and work to better their lives.
Comment by RMW Stanford Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 3:12 pm
VanillaMan-you couldn’t of said it better.
Comment by little one Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 3:22 pm
I haven’t had the time to read all the comments, but I saw many referring to my post. My point was to get people a bit riled up, and I did. I do agree that public housing could be much better than it is. However, it is very easy for us to sit at our computers and insist upon changes in programs we do not utilize. I would rather see people examine that from which they benefit and make plans for how that can be improved (or eliminated).
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 4:03 pm
POT What is wrong with being responsible?
Comment by Hickory Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 4:05 pm
Props, VM. Props.
It’s not insensitive or uncaring to promote an expansion of Section 8 vouchers. Section 8 requires recipients to pay more of a rent share while giving them more and better opportunities. Plus, it is against the law for a landlord or management company that accepts vouchers to turn people down or discriminate based on race, gender, religion, etc.
An even better solution would be for HUD to have a “deposit + 1″ program that gives prospective rentors money for their security deposit charge and the first month’s rent. Imagine how much money and effort that would save HUD.
Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 4:14 pm
“There are a lot of good ideas in the proposal, encourage work and education are both winners.”
Now why should anyone have to encourage someone to look for a job and get educated to better their condition?
Because the do gooders are here to help them.
If the do gooders weren’t mucking it up, they’d figure it out themselves.
For example, what is wrong with multi-generational households?
In fact they are probably one of the most stabilizing influences that can be imagined.
Imagine grandparents looking after the grand kids and keeping them out of trouble while the parents were out working and everyone contributing to family expenses.
How does everyone think America became what it did.
No, the Italians and the Irish all had to have separate households.
How else could they face the dem/libs and preserve self-esteem?
Comment by True Observer Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 4:19 pm
The goal is very worthy. We should never believe
that people will stay poor. But, it is difficult to see how this works in reality. There is a similar
approach going on in Chicago Public Schools….the work to match the rhetoric that every child can succeed. That has some thorny realities also.
If every child can be taught to read, the problems of both the schools and public housing will be easier. But they will not go away. What then?
Some of the people who need the least costly housing will move elsewhere. Perhaps this is part of the goal.
That said, I have always disagreed with the “poverty vultures” whose not for profit lives seem to depend on those who stay poor. The goal is to move people out of poverty.
Supportive services will be a huge key to any changes in CHA policies.
Comment by Amy Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 4:19 pm
I am suggesting that the responsibility does not lie exclusively with those who live in public housing. If the residents work, can they earn a living wage? If they cannot find work, are they place bound (no way to afford a car/no access to public transportation)? Is their education lacking (bad schools, no way to pay for higher ed)?
This is not to say that there are not personal reasons for which we can hold them responsible (unwilling to take a job they do not like, unwilling to seek further education). It is to say that there are societal and structural barriers that prevent many people from working and that some employers take advantage of the poor. To suggest that we need ONLY hold the poor responsible for their plight is false. As a society, we are responsible as well.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 4:19 pm
But we do pay for them. Perhaps we have seen what does not work and want to improve their lots in life
Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 4:47 pm
When talking of the American middle class vs. the poor, there is no them vs. us. Many people in public housing work, for starters, or collect Social Security benefits. They are us. We are they, or a job loss or a serious illness away from being they, even if we don’t living in a public housing project.
That is why, in an American where the chasm between the well-off and the rest of us is rapidly widening, we all need access to public housing, not to mention Medicaid, food stamps, etc.
Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 5:06 pm
Oddly this discussion sounds more like a discussion of public housing in the 1960s and not in 2008. Facts are very stubborn indeed.
What’s funny are the lectures about the people in public housing given few have ever posting here even seem to understand HOPE VI.
One of the striking results of HOPE VI and mixed income public housing is that overall it lowers the rate of public assistance to families–not only within the development,but outside of the development as well. The integrated programming has significant effects beyond just those living there and this goes to the point I made in the very first comment in this thread.
Part of the new strategy in Public Housing is that you build units and market them to mixed income levels with significant programmatic support within the development, but that extends into the larger community.
Forcing those in such a neighborhood to move is a significant problem that warehousing the poor in large crappy buildings created. You broke down the traditional methods of coping by the working poor and created even more non-working poor by moving people around. The great thing about HOPE VI and similar programs is that by having mixed income requirements, you can keep people in the units after they start to make too much for the maximum subsidy and they continue to receive the benefit of the formal support systems and the informal systems the concept is designed to recreate.
====It is so insulting to read bloggers who imagine that those living in government housing are utterly helpless babies incapable of growing up. Once again we hear from people who believe that taking money from working families in order to give that money to those we deem as poor and helpless is somehow noble. C
Once again we hear from one person who seems to be completely clueless on what public housing developments are now built around and instead tries to use some story from 1975 to prove he never has to learn, never has to think, he can just explain the world despite what reality demonstrates.
HOPE VI is born out of lessons learned from a variety of approaches over time and has provided incredible success in many cases. The point of HOPE VI is reaching out to families and helping them to become self-sufficient.
The problem of the plan above is that it seems to continue the very essence of parternalism that the CHA has practiced for decades instead of building upon residents ability to be self-sufficient within a thriving community.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 5:31 pm
The fundamental question is: who is public housing, or rent subsidy, for? Is it for those who have it now — so that they can have it in perpetuity? Or is it for the larger public? I believe this is a HUGE benefit that could and should be spread around, particularly with such an affordable housing crisis. Families would be able to get back on their feet in a few years, and then transition back into the market. Public housing was never intended to be permanent.
I believe that term limits would also strengthen the communities and not weaken them. Most renters move within four years, anyway. The quality of tenant would improve, the work ethic would be stronger, the motivation would be great. And I discount the homelessness issue entirely. Everyone thought that taking the buildings down would create homelessness, but even the advocates now recognize it has done nothing of the sort. (See Sue Popkin’s report at the Urban Institute.)
For those who truly can not make it in the real world and need real help — the CHA is not the answer. They’ve never been able to provide good services. People who need support will need supportive housing, and the CHA isn’t it. Let’s use a perfectly good resource for what it is intended (low-income housing) and not misuse it on a problem it can not solve (supportive housing.)
Comment by PuttForDough Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 5:45 pm
I believe the initiation of a strict time limit is painting with way to broad a brush. The disabled, mentally ill, elderly and chronically unemployable in many, if not most, cases simply have NO options. Kicking them out would be simply inhumane. We are better than that. Individualized review of those “cases” wherein ineligibility is being considered is an obligation of our caring society. Removal from the programs should or must be coupled with a safety net transition process that is considerate and humane. We did not become a “civilization” to be uncaring and cold and treat our fellow citizens as disposable people.
Comment by A Citizen Thursday, Mar 13, 08 @ 6:08 pm
I think it is a good idea. This may be the motivation that is needed in order to break the cycle of generations living in public housing. A time limit of 10-15 years should be sufficient combined with college funding or job training in order to provide a stable base.
Comment by anon A Friday, Mar 14, 08 @ 5:47 am