Public Housing
 

I harbor no ill will for people who live in public housing, but I absolutely hate it. Never has so much money gone to the destruction of neighborhoods, and the institutionalization of poverty.

The architecture is terrible. Le Corbusier's "tower in the park" may have some fans, but it is a terrible idea for housing projects. The park area must be maintained, at extra operational expense, or be neglected. Such neglect encourages criminal activity. The towers are way too tall. 30 story buildings are for affluent people because such buildings are more expensive to operate. 5-6 story buildings are the most cost effective. Then there is the reality that "towers in a park" break the urban grid, and isolate residents from a neighborhood.

Even if the architecture was good, housing projects usually exclude retail space. Stupid, stupid, stupid. In the private sector, first floor residential apartments are the least valuable. Retail, however, is profitable, and could help offset government subsidies. Also, retail provides goods and services. There are concentrations of public housing where the residents must travel to purchase basic goods and services. This lowers their quality of life. Retail also provides jobs, some of which would surely go to residents.

The earliest proponents of public housing, in the US, advocated the inclusion of retail space, as well as religous congregations. I understand the conflict with using public money for religion, but more thought should have gone here. Many different ethnic and racial groups have had their people in public housing, and continue to do so. However, I believe that African-Americans were hurt most by this exclusion. Black America is religous, and have traditionally relied on their churches as a support mechanism.

Then there is the warehousing of the poor. If you move into public housing, and start making a certain amount of money, you have to move out. So what happens? Those families who can get there act together move out, and you get an increasing concentration of dysfuntional families. They can't provide any effective support for each other, and provide negative examples to each other. This is institutionalizing poverty, and as I see it, its just wrong.

Some cities have addressed the terrible architecture of public housing. In the 1980s, Mayor Schmokes of Baltimore began a program of tearing down the tall, monolithic projects, and replaced them with townhouses. Townhouses fit the urban landscape much better, and are a more human scale. Newark has followed Baltimore's example, and hopefully others will follow suit.

I'd like to see this taken to the next step. Concentrating the poor is inhumane, as I see it. They should be dispersed among the general population, not isolated from it.

I agree with your points. The dispersing of the poor throughout other communities, however, even though it is slowly beginning to happen, will take a very long time because there are just far too many people who don't want these people coming into their neighborhoods.

I agree. My youngest brother lives in an apartment complex near Oklahoma U that is mostly section 8. The folks there have been kind enough to instruct him on how to get on welfare and stay on welfare for an indefinite period of time. No one there works, they mostly sit on their fat asses and apply for jobs every so often, then go screw up the interview on purpose. If they do happen to get jobs, they just don't show up.

Social workers are not encouraged to question this. They are just supposed to pass out the benefits packages and not ask questions. Our welfare system has done too much to let people get fat, dumb, happy and lazy. We've institutionalized poverty to the point that for many, being on welfare gets them a better standard of living than actually having a job and trying to pay their own bills would.

Obviously spoken by someone who has never taken a social welfare organization & policy course. I am sorry but as a Social Worker I strongly disagree with your ignorant post. We are not encouraged to "look the other way" and "not ask questions". Do you understand how stereotypical and down right disgusting your post is? Do you actually believe that most poor people are happy being on welfare and making their couple dollars per month? I am sorry but you are sadly mistaken, being on welfare and public assistance does not give anyone a "better standard of living". I encourage you to join me on any typcial day "in the field" to see the sad reality of what many poor people in our society are up against. How do you expect people to get jobs that have no skills? And how do you expect people to be able to make a decent living on low paying jobs such as working at McDonald's? Then what about the majority of people who are poor because they are disabled or have mental illness who CANNOT work. Shame on you KTSNAKE. I think you need to do some research.

I don't think it has as much to do with people not wanting people coming into their neighborhoods as it has to do with there not being AFFORDABLE housing in most neighborhoods. How can people pay for a decent apartment on SSI (which is about $500 a month in NYC)? And even for those that do end up getting a job, most likely it is not at a skilled job and they are only making minimum wage which does not cut it when it comes to paying for the basic necesities of everyday life.

Re: Public Housing
 

Russ definately gives the most educated observation.

I am still a little heated from this topic. Our society has a history of placing blame on poor people for their situations. I think everyone needs to put themselves in other people's shoes before making ignorant statements about people. I work with extremely vulnerable clients: homeless, mentally ill, substance abusers. For the most part people blame the clients for their conditions but I can't believe anyone truly would want to be poor, homeless, mentally ill or a substance abuser. And by all means, I don't see how these conditions are their faults in the majority of the cases. I respect and admire my clients for what they have SURVIVED in their fragile lives. It makes me appreciate my comfy lifestyle that I live and I am very thankful that I have had a supportive family and resources to help me get to where I am today. Many people don't have these things and it is not their fault. It is interesting because I also observe many people of affluence to be "more screwed up" and "heartless" then many of the poorest "craziest" clients and "druggies" I have dealt with in my past 6 years in the field.

All I know are what the people in my brother's section 8 apartment complex tell him. It's actually a fairly nice place and they're happy the way things are.

Maybe things in Oklahoma are different? I work in family law, so I have plenty of contact with social workers. I can tell you that they really don't ask too many questions when someone applies for benefits. I've seen some f'd up abuses of the system here.

I'm not talking about the "majority" of people, just what I've observed first-hand.

Somehow I doubt things are that much different for poorer people in OK then they are in NY. And do you believe everything "people tell you or your brother"? For someone in "family law" I would hope that you would do some research yourself and make your OWN decisions. Also there are some abuses of the system, however, as I said earlier, it has to do with the fact that the only jobs available for people with no skills are minimum wage with NO benefits. How do people pay for rent and food on that salary? Also how do they pay for their very expensive psychotropic medication and hefty healthcare fees. If you are living in poverty you are under a lot of stress which any person with common sense would understand causes a great deal more of mental health issues and health problems. I still think it sounds pretty off that the people "are happy with the way things are."

I'm not talking about people with mental health problems. I've been to my little brother's apt. complex. I've run into a few of these folks. You wouldn't know that they were social services leaches. I agree that welfare gives a better life than many low-wage jobs. For someone in "family law", I've seen how damned easy it is to get DHS to give out benefits packages -- often in situations where they SHOULD ask questions, they don't (in fact, I've never heard of them rejecting an application). You're bringing a bunch of crap into this that I didn't even bring up. Sure, crazy people need drugs.. when was I saying that we should take away their lithium??

I think you sound very ignorant. It is not easy to get benefits, and how do YOU know what the people living in your brother's apt. complex situations are? What makes them "social services leaches"? And for your information people who SHOULD be getting benefits packages are getting rejected every day. Take a look at the news this evening regarding the homeless situation in NYC.
www.ny1news.com

I am not bringing up "a bunch of crap" I am only proving how people like you make an awful lot of ASSUMPTIONS and you know what they say about people who make ASSumptions.............

Okay, when they brag about how easy it is to work the system and collect a check, yeah, I tend to think of them as leaches. When they're living at home with their kids and sitting on their butts all day, yeah.. I tend to think that's abusing the system. When they say that all they have to do is show they they were turned down for a job in order to continue benefits... Yup. Abusing the system. Some situations may be complex, some may be as simple as not wanting to work and seeing this as a pleasant alternative. The apartment complex is a pretty decent place in the middle of a college town. Not a bad place to raise a kid. It has decent schools. Now, I do know that there is a lot of crime in that particular complex (seems to come with the territory when we're talking Section 8).

I don't think I'd have to be going out on a limb to say that things in New York and Oklahoma are VERY different. We've represented plenty of people who have had dealings with DHS -- I can say that in my DIRECT dealings with DHS, they were pretty clueless and overwhelmed. They are more likely to just hand out the packages than to ask questions. Could do with the fact that unlike in NY, as far as I know to be a social worker in Oklahoma, you just need a Bachelor's Degree (in any field). I understand that y'all are required to have Masters Degrees.

Could do with the fact that unlike in NY, as far as I know to be a social worker in Oklahoma, you just need a Bachelor's Degree (in any field). I understand that y'all are required to have Masters Degrees. [/B][/QUOTE]

That is definately a problem right there. Not to pat myself on my back but I notice that a lot of people that work in the social work field really are clueless themselves. Many people working in this field do not have the education or experience to work with the complex cases they work with. I am the only person in my program with a Master's in Social Work and again, not to pat myself on the back, but I really can see the difference in the way of thinking amongst myself and my co-workers. But until people who are providing social work services educate themselves, there are going to continue to be problems. I belong to several Social Work listservs and many people in the mid-Western states and the South justify their not going on to educate themselves because the system in those states doesn't give you any difference in pay or title for having the extra priceless education and experience. This is the problem with our society~~our society continues to look at professions other then Social Work (ie. business, law) as being more "worthy" then the helping professions, and that is why my field continues also to be so low-paying. This post is not meant to be a personal attack because you are not the only person who thinks this way about a lot of people in our society. Until there is a universal health care system and more affordable housing is created problems are going to continue. Oh yeah, one more thing, be careful about calling people that take medication crazy, I re-read that in your earlier post. Just because people take meds does not make them crazy and I know with recent posts on the topic of mental illness that is going to bring up a lot of unneccessary problems that we can just avoid by ceasing the debate right now.

Can I call 'em nutjobs instead?:D

Sorry, my un-pcness doth offend.;)

But please believe me when I tell you that from our conversation here, our DHS programs in Oklahoma are VASTLY different from NY. And they should be. Y'all have more people and more serious problems. Our social services folks have their B.A.'s in underwater basketweaving, etc. They're not bad people, but they are grossly understaffed, undercompensated and underqualified. And yes, that does lead to abuses of the system.

ok thanks for clarifying. i actually was asked to not speak on a listserv anymore because of my views that everyone in the social work field who calls themselves a social worker should have their master's because of the disservice they provide to their clients and the system in general. i decided to leave the listserv because i wasn't going to "not speak" because some unqualified people were offended by my posts. oh well. this is a whole other discussion in itself.

Agreed.

r u a lawyer ktsnake? just curious. because my belief is a lawyer would not tell his client he is a lawyer without getting the proper education and passing the bar, why should a social worker call themselves a social worker without getting the proper education and passing a test either? that is why i am super excited NYS is passing a law in sept. that all SW's need to be licensed. i think the reason many clients hate SW's as well is due to having worked with the unqualified ones.

I do think it is a matter of the NIMBY principle: Not in My Back Yard. I don't know anyone, who is, in theory, against Habitat for Humanity. But if you say you are going to put a Habitat house in certain neighborhoods, people are up in arms about their property value going down. MN had (maybe still has) a policy that gave tax incentives to builders who set aside a certain percentage of their apartments for section 8-type housing. A single mother at my job when I was there lived in a very nice 2 bedroom apartment in a swank complex (avg rent in late 80s in that complex was probably $900 for a 2 bedroom) for next to nothing because of her income.

There is no benefit to housing all poor people together, like there was no benefit to housing all Native Americans on "reservations".

Unfortunately, some mixed use housing as they have called them here in Atlanta have not been successful because people got greedy. Techwood homes (a notoriously bad public housing complex near GA Tech) was torn down recently and "mixed use" housing was built instead. A certain % was supposed to go for market rate (over $1,000 I'm sure), acertain % for low income/working poor and a certain % for people on public assistance. The big complaint is that they have not reached the correct % for the public assistace or working poor numbers because so many yuppies want to live there. Same thing with another Atlanta area called East Lake.

that happens in ny too. there is something called 80/20 housing (i think that's the term) where like 20% of the apartments in a "luxury" apartment building are to go to "low income" people. i had a colleague tell me though that the building owners get around letting "anyone" into the building by holding interviews with prospective renters. then everyone ends up going on a "wait list" or in a "lottery system" for apartments. bottom line, not too many people end up getting these apartments who should and a lot of people are "weeded out" that should be eligible.

In those 80/20 splits, the low income is often up to $125,000 which is not exactly low income if you ask me.

Is that income dependent on family size?

I was about to post that I'm not really sure if family size is a factor. I became curious so I did a search and discovered that family size is a factor. Here is the family size and income range for the Middle Income New Housing Opportunities Program or New HOP. I think that New HOP is another name for the 80/20 Program, but this might be a completely different housing program. Anyway, here are some figures from the New York City Housing Development website.

Family Size: Income Range:
1 $30,000-$117,180
2 $40,000-$152,040
3 or 4 $48,000-$157,000

The rents range from $745 for a studio to $2,110 for a three bedroom.

As an aside. It really ruins a discussion for me when someone calls another person, or their argument "ignorant." There are better words, aren't there?

no because i think a lot of people in our country are really ignorant. it is a fact of life and i don't think it ruins the discussion, especially if people can learn from it in such an important matter to our society.

I would say "uninformed." You really don't know if someone is ignorant -- what he/she has studied or how far in school they have gotten. He or she may simply disagree with your point of view.

It's a loaded word that puts people on the defensive and isn't condusive to quality discussion.

But that's just my ignorant opinion.

Working on it :D

Legal assistant actually. I'd agree, except our social workers aren't paid enough to really even satisfy someone with a Bachelor's degree. Oklahoma really manages its finances horribly. A good example are the school *DISTRICTS* that have 40 kids, a principle and his staff and a superintendant and their staff as well -- then another school 5 miles down the road with the same situation (I'm not exaggerating at all) Oklahoma has around 500 school districts.

But our SW's in this state MIGHT get paid 25K. That kind of pay doesn't attract the best people, bless their little hearts.

Ad hominen attacks is the "formal" name for them, DA.

Anyway, Wisconsin has made great strides in this area with our Welfare-to-Work program. I'm surprised more states haven't adopted it.

I didn’t even know this conversation was going on over here.

I worked for the San Antonio housing Authority (SAHA) for 4 years so I have a lot of knowledge on the subjects of both public housing and Section 8.

There were couple of things brought up that are factually incorrect and for the purposes of debate or discussion we should clear these up.

First we need to understand the structure of public housing. All public housing is managed locally, by public housing authorities (PHA). PHA’s are public, not-for-profit entities authorized by state law and usually governed by a board of directors appointed by the city or county government. All PHA’s are completely beholden to HUD. HUD is the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD makes rules and makes PHA’s follow those rules by withholding funds from PHA’s if they don’t. PHA’s receive approx 95% of their revenue from HUD. The remaining comes in from rent and grants.

Section 8 vs. Public Housing: Public Housing is actual physical buildings owned by the PHA in a given city. Since the demand FAR out paces the supply, the government realized that it would be cheaper to give people rental vouchers to go out and find suitable housing on their own and have the govmt pay a % of rent based upon need and family size. Also important to note here: Most apartment complexes have SOME section 8 tenants. IT IS FEDERAL LAW that an owner of an apartment complex has to accept section 8 vouchers if the money they used to purchase or build the complex came from a FDIC insured bank. A huge chunk of Section 8 vouchers go to rent homes and the owners love it because its GURANTEED rent as long as the owners keep it up to standards and it can pass the PHA’s yearly inspection for health and safety. There is a long waiting list for the Section 8 vouchers. In San Antonio, its approximately 5 years. So people in a bad situation will stay in public housing till their spot opens up for Section 8.

Topics raised here & misconceptions

1. Public Housing towers are bad. Agreed. They are bad. HUD recognized this in the early to mid 80’s. That’s why one hasn’t been built in the US since. HUD doesn’t say that you cant build towers, they just have density requirements. Can only have x # of people per acre. Densities are lower than many regular apartment complexes.

2. Section 8 Complexes. There’s no such thing. A regular apartment complex might be owned by a PHA. SAHA owns several. They were a steal in the S&L days of the 80’s. It was a great way for PHA’s to increase their housing stock at minimal cost. So a PHA could buy a complex and do several things with it: just own it and rent it at market rate for a profit, or turn it into a public housing complex. Most would choose the former. Makes way more $ that way.

3. Welfare to work is federal law. People in public housing have to either volunteer in the community 24 hours a month or have a job to live there. (unless they are over 65 or disabled) Same goes for Section 8. Clinton put it to the congress in ’99 and it passed as law.

4. Most people in public housing aren’t lazy. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of residents are either disabled or senior citizens. They probably make up at least 60% of all PH residents.

5. Deconcentration is what PHA’s are now directed to do. They are all about having ‘developments’ (people in the biz NEVER call them projects) all over town. That way its easier to meet HUD’s mandate of racial deconcentration. Plus, its now a mandate from HUD. PHA’s are very excited about this.

6. HOPE VI Program: The govmt & Congress is dishing out cash left and right to replace the old public housing developments as we know and hate them. For the developments that don’t meet code and regulations and are way out of date for density requirements, HUD no longer pays for people to live there. Eventually the complex will be empty and it can be torn down. Doesn’t mean there is cash readily available to replace those units, but no one is living in those squalor conditions.

7. PHA’s now recognize the value in ‘mixed use development’ Market rate housing units, subsidized units, and retail. All in one development. This is being constructed in San Antonio at the former Victoria Courts site. Should be an interesting development.

8. PHA’s cant win. If its not NIMBY (Which dosent really matter to PHA’s, except on a public relations level, because as a governmental entity, they can exercise eminent domain, and regularly do.), its residents not wanting to leave bad developments. When the former Victoria Courts was being torn down, most residents of this dangerous, dated, ugly, broken down development with no A/C didn’t want to leave. Even knowing the PHA & HUD gives them a $2,000 moving allowance CASH and they automatically get section 8 vouchers.

9. The developments aren’t as dangerous as they once were. As a reciepient of a section 8 voucher OR a public housing resident you are subject to HUD’s 3 strikes rule. 3 misdemeanor convictions of anybody in the unit (TOTAL) results in eviction and removal from the program. A drug offense is automatic eviction and expulsion from the programs.

10. The social support netowrk for residents is amazing. Medical and Dental clinics, Eduational centers in developments, and every resident meets with a FSS (Family Self Sufficiency) officer that works out a plan to get these families or individuals off the public rolls. PHA's even have an escrow program that if an indivdual creates a contract to get post secondary education (college, trade school, junior college w/ an associates degree), and completes it (usually over a 5 year period) the PHA will give them the money back they paid in rent over that period towards the purchase of a new or used home and they are off the public assistance. Its a great program.


Public Housing is not a perfect system, but theres a LOT more to it than what people see on the surface. It was a great experience, and I’d do it again in a minute. I learned tons about the side of society I’d never have gotten a chance to see, and was deeply humbled for it.

lifesaver - It sounds like you learned a lot from your experience...thanks for some very enlightening information!

Thanks for your information lifesaver. It was quite interesting. Some of it I was aware of, some of it is new information. I have an aunt that used to manage a "public housing development" and my sister and parents each own property that is rented via section 8. Questions for ya....

What consequences, if any, does an apartment owner have if they do not have a certain % of section 8 housing. How are the %s determined? How are section 8 levels monitored? Do individual homeowers who rent their houses have to accept section 8 if they have a FDIC insured morgage on the property?

MAN it feels good to be right! ktsnake knows what I'm talking about :D

So they attempt to get a job and do some small amount of volunteer work. 24 hours? That's about 3 days of actual work.
Big effin' deal.

What lifesaver and whinney were talking about are social services in New York and Texas. Those are two states that have VASTLY more resources than Oklahoma -- not to mention higher-quality, better educated, better paid Social Workers.

I didn't say the program is bad. My argument is that it IS abused. I don't see anyone disagreeing with me on the point that abuses happen. I was never arguing in absolute terms -- and I hope that y'all aren't either.

No no no no no. Lifesaver said...and the law states, that these people (those who have to utilize public services) HAVE to be working in order to maintain their benefits. If they are not or if something happens, other arrangements can be made, but in the end, if they aren't working, they get kicked off the system.

I hope you learn to speak in more absolute terms if you plan to be an attorney. The generalization and inadequate paraphrasing that you have done to my statements and those of others are going to cause you a lot of problems and makes your arguments less credible. (imo)

It depends on what you think I'm arguing for. If you think I'm arguing that ALL people in public housing are abusers of the system and "welfare queens" and such, that's an incorrect assessment of what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that it's rampant, that it's prevelant, etc. I'm arguing that it DOES HAPPEN. Are you going to try and differ with me on that?

How many hours must they work? What happens if they are fired? I found what lifesaver said to be ambiguous on those points. And I can say, from what I have observed directly that there is abuse in the system.

I thought this story in the Chicago Sun-Times could add perspective on how public housing is being handled here.


http://www.suntimes.com/output/lifes...insight17.html

My issue with public housing is often that it's abused by relatives, friends, etc. who come in and take over and use it for cheap rent. In NYC there were problems with gang members and drug dealers coming in and using these types of places as their offices.

-Rudey

Interesting article. I remember seeing a Chicago housing project on that recent Skip Gates BBC/PBS documentary on Black America. Scary place, and the residents didn't seem too thrilled with it. It was slated for destruction. I wonder if its the same project mentioned in that article.