In Congress, Academics Debate the Future of Public Housing
By NYHC Staff
On Wednesday, July 29, a group of distinguished educators gathered in Washington to address the House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, chaired by Rep. Maxine Waters (D.-CA). The topic: the future of public housing.
Rep. Waters opened the hearing by announcing that she will continue to support a one-year moratorium on the demolition of existing distressed and physically deteriorated public housing complexes until further study of the most effective programs and methods of providing affordable housing. She made reference to the fact that the nation lost 50,000 affordable housing units due to the HOPE VI Revitalization Plan, which seeks to replace deteriorated very low income projects with redesigned mixed-income housing.
Speaking to that point, Thomas D. Boston, professor of economics at the Georgia Institute of Technology testified, “To a great extent, the rebirth of in town neighborhoods in Atlanta has accompanied the mixed income revitalization of public housing projects. In my opinion, this rebirth would not have occurred in its absence.” He added, “My research in Atlanta has demonstrated conclusively the self sufficiency of lowincome families can improve significantly if we provide them access to quality affordable housing in neighborhoods where the opportunities for upward mobility are greater.”
He stated that – in his geographic areas of study -- the employment rates of work eligible adults increased from less than 2% in 1995, when most families lived in very low income housing projects, to 53% in 2007, when most families had moved away from housing projects – through voucher and other programs, like Hope VI. On nationally standardized test, young students whose families lived in projects scored in the 29th percentile, those whose families used vouchers scored in the 35th percentile and those whose families lived in mixed-income housing scored in the 43rd percentile.
Orlando Cabrera, former Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, observed that the implementation of national housing programs is directly influenced by policy decisions made at the local level, and by regional differences. For example, he cited that communities in the West and South focus mainly on Section 8, with little or no public housing projects. The reverse is true, he said, for the Midwest and Northeast, which focus mostly on public housing, with comparatively little Section 8.
Dr. James Fraser, associate professor, Peabody College and Vanderbilt University, has evaluated HOPE VI and other mixed-income housing initiatives across the country for the past 15 years. He lauded HOPE VI, stating that residents in the program have access to quality housing and have a decreased fear of crime. However, he said that HOPE IV programs are geared toward more “functional” low-income citizens who view the program as a stepping stone to their personal goals, and that the program does not help some of the neediest low-income citizens.
He stated that there was no evidence to suggest that HOPE VI programs help low income residence find self-sufficiency, accumulate wealth or even living-wage jobs.
Dr. Edward G. Goetz, director, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs and professor of Urban and Regional Planning at Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, also lauded the HOPE VI program and said it had succeeded in improving neighborhood conditions. “Buildings are more aesthetically appealing, communities are safer, and residential property values have increased in communities surrounding HOPE VI properties,” he said.
