Atlanta On Track to Demolish All Its Public Housing
Published June 22, 2009 @ 12:00PM PT
To be rebuilt, of course, as mixed-income communities.
The nation's first public housing project, Techwood Homes, was built in Atlanta in 1936. Atlanta has long had the highest percentage of its residents living in public housing, though that # was still less than 4% (at least through the 1970s). Within a year, it will have demolished all of its old projects. This article laying out ATL's plans is full of interesting, valid and opposing views.
There's the standard chestnut about the exponential problems of concentrated poverty, without any acknowledgment that the reason warehousing poor people has become so problematic is because we stopped sufficiently investing in their housing and social service needs a long time ago. There's the true statement that most residents support "relocation" - but this reality is distanced from the equal realities that only about 20% of public housing residents qualify for the new units, and the rest end up living in the poorest neighborhoods of Atlanta, where opportunities are not much better. The correlation between the ability to pick up and relocate successfully and the outcomes - that "those who move are more likely to find work, their children were likely to perform better in school and they report higher satisfaction with their living conditions" - is not clarified.
Deconcentrating poverty is a skimming strategy that worsens inequality. If you can weather relocation and stringent eligibility requirements, then you should really benefit from a new unit in a refurbished neighborhood with more amenities. If a disability, age, language barriers, economic hardship, or any other issue should disqualify you from the new place or make multiple moves hard on you, then you're likely to be cast out on your own into the market, with only a voucher in hand. This may be the freedom of choice we Americans so cherish, but it also leaves the most vulnerable among the poorest of poor people of color worse off in an insecure, overcrowded, unaffordable housing market.
Cheer all you want for fancier neighborhoods closer to your job with some poor neighbors beside you to keep it real, neighbors who may benefit in real, substantial ways. But don't forget all those displaced by the concentration of government subsidy and developer money for a mere two in ten poor Atlanta residents.
(Photo of Centennial Park North, built on the former Techwood Homes site, by Steven T. Moga, used with permission)
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
25% NOLA Public Housing Residents Lost
-
UN to Investigate Forced Evictions in Post-Katrina NOLA
-
"We were poor and we're still poor"
Comments (15)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Leigh is a PhD candidate in urban planning at MIT, and a consultant on U.S. Gulf Coast recovery. She sits on the Board of the Allston-Brighton Community Development Corporation in Boston, and has worked with non-profits, foundations and local governments on policies and programs aimed at reducing urban poverty and inequality.
I'm totally with ya on this one. Federally sponsored relocation/mobility programs (read: voucher programs) never really sat well with me for a number of reasons, most of which I won't go into here. But, I think you accurately capture my main objection--the fact that mobility programs do nothing towards a more equitable distribution of resources and social services. The best they can do is scatter a handful of folks and let them fend for themselves in new neighborhoods. At best, this is an individual level intervention that neglects change where we really need it: the very structure of urban (and increasingly, suburban) neighborhoods. This is a fundamental, critical problem with these issues.
And don't even get me started on what happens when these folks actually make it into mixed-income housing development; segregation is pervasive, and this utopian vision of shared resources proves to be a myth.
Posted by Jeremy Levine on 06/22/2009 @ 12:54PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Herding the poor into government run housing sounds pretty cruel to Me. Segregating the poor into their own neighborhoods sound elitist. I would rather look at each case and ask "why are you poor?" and see in what way a person can be helped. Every story is different. Some need medical care, some need a little boost up, some need education. Some parents may not think it wise to raise children in the projects. These people are not cattle. We need to listen to Them rather than attempt to plan their lives for them.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 06/22/2009 @ 02:05PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Charlie:
"I would rather look at each case and ask "why are you poor?" and see in what way a person can be helped. Every story is different. Some need medical care, some need a little boost up, some need education. Some parents may not think it wise to raise children in the projects. These people are not cattle. We need to listen to Them rather than attempt to plan their lives for them."
I agree with you; it's not being done here.
Posted by Leigh Graham on 06/22/2009 @ 05:33PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I saw the same principles of relocation policies applied to the residents of Central Park Housing Projects in Tampa, Fla.. The Residents were relocated all over Florida so that developers could move in and REGENTRIFY the downtown area..It wasn't a pretty sight..
Posted by leatrice brantley on 06/22/2009 @ 05:23PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I clearly am the one with less knowledge on this subject here, however, it still leaves a bad taste in My mouth.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 06/23/2009 @ 04:20AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Gentrification is the name of getting rid of housing for the poor. Believe it or not some northern colleges has courses on poverty. I would like to so those in the low rent apartments be able to buy the condos for the same price as their apt.
There is a basic human right to housing, as stated 61 years ago by Eleanor Roosevelt in the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights," it was accepted by the united nation on Dec 10, 1948. It is past time to put those rights into practice.
I am in hopes that the conference billed as taking up the civil rights fights for Whites, reds, blacks and browns Latino' and Asian will be the starting volley of a new movement.Check out the upper left hand corner for www.PPEHRC.org national
Building the Unsettling Force: A National Conference to Abolish Poverty
Social Welfare Action Alliance (SWAA) and the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign (PPEHRC)invite your participation in our joint 2009 conference, "Building the Unsettling Force: A National Conference to Abolish Poverty." The conference will be held at Spalding University in Louisville, Kentucky from Thursday July 16- 19
At the same site is news that
6/18/2009
Congressman Frank and Congresswomen Waters request that HUD issue a 1 year moratorium on the demolition of HUD Housing
This would affect Atlanta GA.
Posted by jan Lightfootlane on 06/23/2009 @ 07:39AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I just hope the new housing is energy efficient so it helps the city/state save money.
Posted by Courtney C............ on 06/23/2009 @ 07:40AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Jan is right. Housing is one of the rights listed in the Declaration of Human Rights and we're supposed to be following that. It's just that our nation seems to pick and choose which parts we follow and to as a result totally ignore the parts like Article 25 which talks about making sure the basic needs of our nation's people are met without waiting until they're about to die or suffer permanent damages from the results of dire poverty or judging why they're poor and deciding from that if they're worthy of assistance or not and if they are worthy then which assistance and how much of it. Article 25 states quite clearly that certain things - like housing, food and medical care, are rights without regard to ability to pay or why the person is unable to pay. Which technically makes how many of our programs operate rather questionable as far as human rights.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 06/23/2009 @ 09:41AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Danetta, I'm not sure if You refer to My comment. But I want to assure you that what I meant was I wanted government to listen to people to see what help They needed, not "judge" them. I was just saying that I would hope We as a society would keep several options open. I can also think of a few more I would like to see happen. I would really like to see Government help people buy their apartments as condos with no interest loans.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 06/23/2009 @ 12:10PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I have no idea why you'd think I was talking about your comment, Charlie. I was talking about generic societal attitudes like the idea that poverty is "always" an issue of "fraud or laziness" or that "everyone on assistance is a welfare queen". Or stuff like the myths that there "are always plenty of opportunities for everyone, it's just a matter of wanting them badly enough to do whatever is necessary to take advantage of the opportunities" (never mind that may mean stuff like moving across country with money the individual doesn't have and can't raise and then committing flat out fraud to get the job - or that jobs for the disabled are sorely lacking due to poor enforcement of the ADA and how many loopholes are in the ADA). Then too, there's the matter of how our nation's various assistance program guidelines are written (including the Federal Poverty Line itself) down to the level of dire poverty required to get help and how few resources you're allowed to keep along with the amount of judgment thrown at you as they figure out what if any help you're eligible to get. Plus the programs aren't adequately funded or fairly written so those who need help can't get it because the programs don't have enough funds and/or because the program guidelines are discriminatory (such as the rule that prevents childless adults from getting any cash aid - despite the fact that, contrary to the assertion of a social worker at San Joaquin County Human Services or whatever they called their welfare dept., adults DO still need need stuff like dish soap and toilet paper whether or not children are present in their home as dependents...this rule is incredibly discriminatory against the disabled and senior citizens). Plus there's the fact many recent housing help is for home owners - yet most of the poor are of the level of income that even if they have sort of payment record to warrant a loan their debt ratio would rule out a mortgage so they're stuck as renters and there's been NO help for renters (not help for what a huge portion of our income rents have become and only recently have governments at various locations and levels begun to consider the impact of foreclosures upon renters when landlords are the ones defaulting).
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 06/23/2009 @ 01:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Sorry Danetta, I guess I have angered You enough times that I am a little gun shy. I think this time though We have no argument! Ah well, maybe next time?
Posted by Charlie Reed on 06/23/2009 @ 03:48PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
No worries, Charlie. I'll admit I'm a little touchy and passionate about the subject of poverty and a few related topics and it's largely because of how closed minded society at large can often be and by how our "assistance" programs are in many ways anything but helpful (as explained - I hope - by my posts above). But I wasn't talking to or about anyone on this thread at all, just about attitudes I've encountered on various forums or in my travels through real life.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 06/23/2009 @ 03:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks for writing this Leigh. I would add, as some comments have insinuated, that this is standard policy across the country now. Atlanta is an important place to look because it was one of the places where it got the earliest start. We can certainly see where things are headed...
Posted by Kate Scott on 06/23/2009 @ 09:27PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It is standard policy now. It's good to view this in detail because it is necessary to speak up against crazy developers and public officials. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta
Posted by Rev Bookburn on 06/26/2009 @ 03:38PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
People in poverty need housing, food, and good jobs. Maybe we should be using this stimulus money to create green companies with on site living units, daycares and schools.
Posted by Turk Fowler on 07/05/2009 @ 10:34AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.