Green Township near Cincinnati is slated to receive more public housing.  However many residents and local officials are opposing such a plan.  I guess this discussion could go in many different directions, but, I'll ask a few questions to start it off.  Is it fair for HUD to place low-income housing in otherwise stable communities?  Should communities be able to say "no"?  Would you want a large mass of low-income housing in your neighborhood, even next door to you?

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110706/EDIT02/107060328/Guest-column-Green-Twp-declines-HUD-agreement-because-not-fair?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110701/EDIT02/107010344/Guest-column-Localities-do-harm-by-opposing-public-housing

I have 2 opinions on this. Every community (township, city, village, county) should have an equal percentage of affordable units in their area.

 

HOWEVER, I personally do not think the suburbs are a good place for low-income people anyway. And it has nothing to do with not living near "those people" since I live in the city. Suburbs (like Green Township) generally have poor transportation options, lack of social services, and are missing many other things that are more readily available in the city.

 

I do not think Affordable units should be clustered. This is a model that has failed. They need to be evenly distributed.

 

It is a difficult and complex issue, and the Green Twp Admin coming out like this oversimplifies this extremely complex issue.

I agree that the issue is difficult and complex.  I'm not a huge fan of the idea of public housing in the first place, but accepting that there is a need for some amount of help to keep people afloat during a rough patch or to make a life working in public service jobs like teaching or firefighting...I'm not sure what the best solution is.  I think there is definitely some merit to the idea that urban centers tend to have more services available, as well as making life without a car more feasible.  I'm open to new ideas on the topic.

I'd do away with project based public housing all together and move towards housing choice vouchers for all public housing.  But properties need to be code inspected more often and more stringently, and vouchers should be capped at a certain percent of households within a given geography.

I don't really think there have been many (if any) new project based housing projects in the last couple decades. After Reagan, the move was to move more people to the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP/Section 8). This is a better model because it allows greater choice, disperses poverty, and eliminates the government from housing ownership, leaving less costs to the government.

 

Edit: Fixed Smiley...

^The jury is still very much out on well vouchers disperse poverty.  Maybe even how much less expensive vouchers are, not sure about that question.

 

I'd do away with project based public housing all together and move towards housing choice vouchers for all public housing.  But properties need to be code inspected more often and more stringently, and vouchers should be capped at a certain percent of households within a given geography.

 

I'd add that suburbs shouldn't be able to completely zone out multi-family housing as they currently can (in Ohio, at least).  I also think that public housing has its place in high cost markets, like NYC, but that's doesn't really add much to a discussion focused on Ohio.

Section 8)

 

Ha. That's one way to market around the stigma.

Depends. Suburbs typically have fewer transportation options sans automobile, although they are less dense, higher income and safer.

 

In my neighborhood, Section 8 has been clustered to one section of Northside - the northern half, for the most part. I did a property search for the streets around me, and about 60% of the houses fall within Section 8 or are subsidized by the government for low incomed individuals. Not shockingly enough, this part of Northside also has the lowest home ownership rates, the highest crime rate and the most foreclosures of any block.

 

On my street alone, there are at least 5 Section 8 units out of around 20 properties. That's too much concentration, in my opinion, and it can drag down property values to homeowners and cause nuisances. We have one Section 8 renter next door that, despite their great kid and wonderful mom, has been dealing drugs late into the night. I've literally been tending to my flowers and saw a drug deal go down right next door in plain sight. The house adjacent to that is also Section 8 and has a wonderful pit bull that charges at me whenever I go over to complain about their lack of upkeep on their property (and mangy, barking dog). Not surprisingly, it's also a drug house.

 

That's what they fear in Green Township. Not all Section 8 renters are bad apples, but it only takes one or two on a street to make a noticeable difference. I've called HUD to complain and someone will be over "shortly" to investigate - whatever that means. I've called the police to report the drug dealings, but have yet to see any noticeable difference - and I don't want to be labeled a snitch and have crap done to my house in retaliation.

 

Housing choice vouchers would work out much better. Let them choose affordable market rate housing, test them for drugs.

It isn't so much that Section 8 isn't good at deconcentrating poverty, its more that zoning regulations in most areas limit multi-family dwelling to such a degree that they are concentrated in certain areas within a community. Since MF dwellings are cheaper for voucher holders, they get concentrated as well.

 

And my point about the costs were more so directed at how cheaply the public housing was built post-WWII. This caused maintenance costs to skyrocket year after year. If HUD did public housing more like in the Netherlands, where the public housing is higher quality (with a higher up front cost, but lower maintenance over time) there would be less costs. But we know that won't happen here...

 

Also the Housing Choice Voucher Program = Section 8.

 

Sherman, it sounds to me like a case of a really bad landlord that can't manage his tenants. Which is unfortunate. Its cases like those that give section 8 a bad name.

^^Since we don't test citizens for drugs just for the hell of it, I am assuming that the rationale to test is because they are receiving a government benefit (Section 8 vouchers or what ever the program is now called).  I would have no problem with that if ALL government benefits came with the stipulation for drug testing...so that corporation that just received numerous tax benefits and other incentives to keep their headquarters in town...drug test the executive suite just to play fair....and by the way....I can guarantee you that many many of those suits will fail the test.

Housing choice vouchers would work out much better. Let them choose affordable market rate housing, test them for drugs.

 

I sort of see where you're going with this, but that's basically what the Section 8 program is now, isn't it?  It's just that we don't require that landlords accept those vouchers.  (This is with respect to tenant-based assistance programs under Section 8, of course, not project-based assistance, in which a landlord reserves a given number of units in a given development as low-income and gets a subsidy check from the government to do so.)

 

Personally, I'm against all such programs, so of course I'm on the side of the suburbs trying to keep such developments out (and I'd be on the side of the cities trying to do likewise).  It's a significant expense to the federal government, and I don't particularly think it's deserved, given the inventory of dirt cheap rentals in many areas as things stand.

Section 8 = Vouchers

 

Most project based subsidies are done through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) for developers.

 

So Section 8 is tenant based and LIHTC is project based (and allows developers to profit).

It isn't so much that Section 8 isn't good at deconcentrating poverty, its more that zoning regulations in most areas limit multi-family dwelling to such a degree that they are concentrated in certain areas within a community. Since MF dwellings are cheaper for voucher holders, they get concentrated as well.

 

Meh, I think that's just semantics.  Whether the mechanism is the program design or the context it operates in, either way, there's a growing consensus that vouchers have not lived up to their promise for deconcentrating poverty.  I totally agree land use regulation is a big part of the problem, but there is still a lot of research ongoing about how voucher holders search for units and the other mechanisms that explain the clustering.  None of this is a per se indictment of the program, just a recognition that it hasn't had all of the hoped-for effects.

 

Interestingly some of the more recent work on the topic comes out of UC and focuses on Cinci: http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv2/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__academics__colloquia__law_economics_and_politics_of_urban_affairs/documents/documents/ecm_pro_061352.pdf

 

Section 8 = Vouchers

 

Most project based subsidies are done through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) for developers.

 

So Section 8 is tenant based and LIHTC is project based (and allows developers to profit).

 

There is still a lot of project-based Section 8 out there though, not all of which uses LIHTC.  We're actually discussing some project-based Section 8 projects in Cleveland in another thread right now.

Yeah.. I've taken classes with David Varady at UC, and we have actually discussed the issue we are all debating here. The HCVP has not lived up to its potential. You're right. But it is better than the public housing projects it replaces. It provides for better quality housing, greater mobility for tenants, etc, but it does still result in concentrations (or hotspots) of poverty.

 

If the suburbs (and cities really...) did a better job of integrating the tenants in to the community, required/provided career counseling rather than limiting them via zoning and creating pockets of poverty, while supporting landlords through rental management programs (perhaps HUD should do this) that would improve screening and eviction processes... I think many of these problems would be reduced.

Not all Section 8 is Housing Choice Vouchers.  There are still a number of "Project-Based Section 8" developments.

 

As for HCV not deconcentrating poverty, well, as I've stated, they should put a cap on the number that can be issued to properties in any given geography, preferably a very small geography like Census Blocks.

^^Since we don't test citizens for drugs just for the hell of it, I am assuming that the rationale to test is because they are receiving a government benefit (Section 8 vouchers or what ever the program is now called).  I would have no problem with that if ALL government benefits came with the stipulation for drug testing...so that corporation that just received numerous tax benefits and other incentives to keep their headquarters in town...drug test the executive suite just to play fair....and by the way....I can guarantee you that many many of those suits will fail the test.

 

This makes no sense whatsoever.  We're talking about individuals, not corporations.  Whatever you think of corporate welfare, your analogy is faulty.

 

I think your knee-jerk, defensive reaction is unwarranted.  There are correlations between those who are the beneficiaries of Section 8 and a lot of undesirable/illegal behavior.  In fact, (just to spice up the conversation) I truly believe that a lot of the problems that Cleveland Heights (yes, the city as a whole) is facing is because of the problems directly associated with taking on such a large number of Section 8 residents, and in such large concentrations.  When I read the story of what the Green Township residents were doing, I immediately thought of the possibilities for the Heights area.  I think it's time for CH, SH, and UH to not only say "no more," but also do everything within their power to scale back on the current Section 8 housing situations within their respective borders.

This is an interesting question to me because I spent a good number of hours this spring reading about communities (including several in Ohio) being sued by the federal government for trying various methods to stop subsidized housing from being built in their communities. Usually, the government wins, because there's a presumption that the Fair Housing Act is more important than whatever excuse the local community puts forth (zoning, aesthetics, whatever) to stop the project. It is not easy, and sometimes not even remotely possible, for a community to absolutely reject such projects, and sometimes there are rules stating that new projects need to be spread out and not all clustered together in high-poverty areas.

 

Clearly there are several cases where large projects or Section 8 heavy areas create problems for the surrounding community, though I wonder how direct the relationship really is. It's too simple to say 'Section 8 causes problems'. It's more that these problems are over-represented among the population that needs/uses Section 8, and it becomes a tremendous 'Not In My Backyard' (NIMBY) problem where nobody wants to be the one who has to deal with it. I think that mindset is partly responsible for the failure of cities like Cleveland to deal with poverty; but the current system doesn't work too well either, and regardless of whose 'fault' any of this is, it remains unfair to suddenly drop a big project on a small community, though the situation in Green seems a bit more complicated than that. If the Housing Authority isn't doing its job correctly, I'd jump on them too. But the solution isn't to kick the can down the road; it's to fund these projects well, and in turn demand more from the people who benefit from them, including both landlords and residents, and kick out problem residents who fail to get their act together in a certain amount of time.

 

The simple reality is nobody wants a project in their backyard unless it's a well-managed and safe one. I live near W. 25th and there's a constant parade of sirens proceeding from south-to-north, and guess where they're headed? Lakeside. All the time. I've had very few problems in OC, but I know someone who did community service in the projects, and he said it was awful. They are becoming what they replaced decades ago - low quality housing with a neglected and unmanageable population.

 

The question is, what happens if we were to just slam the door and build a bunch of condos instead? Where would these people go? Would the associated problems really go away? I have trouble believing that.

 

It is unquestionable that public housing coorelates with lots of social problems. The usual disclaimer, of course, is that not all public housing tenants are bad, but there are more bad ones in public housing than in the general population.

 

The distinction has to be made whether one is trying to help people, or trying to help a place.

 

If you want to help a person, your best chance might be to get him out of the failed neighborhood that he is currently in and move him to a community that will give him some support. Kids growing up in broken families in failed school districts don't have much of a chance, and moving those kids to a successful school district might just give him a better chance at life. Young men living in a neighborhood with no jobs don't have much of a chance of improvement, and moving them to a more successful neighborhood might give him more opportunities.

 

The flip side is that crime, poverty, drugs, etc. are bad for communities. If you want to increase the average health, income, and prosperity of a community, one way to do it is to exclude the lowest percentile. I know of a school that is having trouble meeting the state proficiency test standards just because the kids from a single section 8 apartment complex are scoring so low on the test that it brings the average down significantly, to the point of the school acquiring a bad reputation. So, a strategy for improvement is to exclude those members from the community, or, prevent them from joining the community in the first place.

 

The feds are trying to help people, or at least that's their stated goal. The locals in Green Township are trying to help a place. 

 

Well, the correlation that adding in Section 8 units lowers property values and raises crime rates over a period of 10 years is -true-. That case has been established and is now moot. The goal is to lessen the concentration of the Section 8 units so that the problem is not exaggerated in the sense of the tragedies that occurred when public housing blocks were concentrating hundreds and thousands of people together.

 

It's a NIMBY issue. No one wants Section 8 in their neighborhood, because it does lower property values - a direct result of the stigma that is behind Section 8 and the increased crime that does follow it. One of the things that I asked my realtor (and researched on my own) was the number of Section 8 units around the property I was looking to purchase. For the number of Section 8 units that were within a block of the property, I would ask for a certain amount off of the asking price as an example.

 

If you want to see what Section 8 has done to a community in as little as 20 years, take a look at Price Hill, West Price Hill and Westwood in Cincinnati. Once stable, middle-income neighborhoods have literally become depressed areas with drastically lower property values, a sharp increase in crime rates and a decline in wealth due to a huge influx of Section 8. Part of this trend is blamed on the demolition of the public projects in the West End - concentrating poverty, but all it did was shift most of it to a specific area.

 

  The answer isn't spreading out the poverty, concentrating the poverty, or moving the poverty to a different community. The answer is <b>reducing</b> the poverty. Of course, the best strategy for reducing poverty is debatable, but it is fairly clear that subsidizing poverty is a step in the wrong direction.

I support Green Townships desire to limit public housing.  I am SO FREAKING SICK of hearing from some "equal choice/fair housing" types that  everyone deserves "housing choice". Even those on public assistance.  I have worked my A$$ off my entire life to be able to afford where I live.  I wish I could "choose" to live in a more tony nabe, but this is what I can afford.  The point is, we all are limited in where we can afford to live in some way or another, and I don't think just because one is on public assistance they should necessarily have a great deal of choice as well.  I'm fine with the projects actually.  If you need to be on assistance, and you don't like your publicly provided space, then move out on your own.

 

Don't people who choose to live in a particular place also deserve the "choice" to not be near public housing?  The choice that some want to give those on public assistance actually negates the choice that those who pay their own way have made.  I think that sucks!

I completely agree with you, Eighth and State, but how do you help people who are not interested in the help, not interested in helping themselves, help children who have learned that selling drugs makes you rich and envied and going to school is boring and stupid and won't get you anywhere? There are unfortunately a large cache of people who receive public assistance who aren't interested in it being a temporary stop gap until they get back on their feet, but a way of getting out of work long-term, and their "work" becomes a contest to keep the support going through whatever lies are necessary. When I was on public assistance, it was a temporary thing, and I worked hard to improve my situation, receiving less and less aid as I made more money. yes, things were much more fun when I could be handed $250 to go to the grocery with and buy steaks and whatever I pleased, and not as fun when I only got $40, and then really tough when I stopped being eligible at all, but I had a desire to better my situation and not lean on the system for support long-term. Many other people do not see it this way.

pretty much everything has been said, but one point I'll add is that often times, leaders of cities & municipalities will try and attract low income housing to their area as a last straw, since many forms of government funding are based on population, all you gotta do is put people in the district.  Without that, they lose even more.

Back in the 80's my town in NJ was up in arms about being forced to provide low income housing....housing which would undoubtedly attract *gasp* minorities!

 

They worked out some kind of shady deal where the town would provide housing, but it could be limited to senior citizens.

 

Stereotypically enough, they are 96 percent white and do have the reputation as being "the safest city in America" .

 

http://www.morganquitno.com/safecity.htm

 

 

It is not easy, and sometimes not even remotely possible, for a community to absolutely reject such projects, and sometimes there are rules stating that new projects need to be spread out and not all clustered together in high-poverty areas.

 

I really wish I could believe this, but somehow certain suburbs, even those with decent apartment/rental stocks, seem to have found themselves in situations where they're not taking on as much low-income/section 8 housing as their neighbors.  I don't think this is a coincidence, either.  Specifically, I'm thinking of cities like Beachwood or Solon, and I think it has at least something to do with willfully losing out on certain types of federal funds.

 

Generally-speaking though, even though I don't think the above situation is fair, I'd still be opposed to forcing anything on those cities.  I look at government-imposed housing as something that spreads exponentially once it's introduced into a community.  The cycle begins harmlessly enough, but as the problems associated with the program become community issues, it depresses housing prices in the area, making such homes less-desirable and more susceptible to becoming section 8 themselves.  The whole practice leads to the downfall of communities and hastens sprawl.

 

If you want to help a person, your best chance might be to get him out of the failed neighborhood that he is currently in and move him to a community that will give him some support. Kids growing up in broken families in failed school districts don't have much of a chance, and moving those kids to a successful school district might just give him a better chance at life. Young men living in a neighborhood with no jobs don't have much of a chance of improvement, and moving them to a more successful neighborhood might give him more opportunities.

 

The issue at hand however is that when you're simply moving large concentrations from one community to another, you're not improving anything, and in fact, making once-viable communities worse for.

I support Green Townships desire to limit public housing.  I am SO FREAKING SICK of hearing from some "equal choice/fair housing" types that  everyone deserves "housing choice". Even those on public assistance.  I have worked my A$$ off my entire life to be able to afford where I live.  I wish I could "choose" to live in a more tony nabe, but this is what I can afford.  The point is, we all are limited in where we can afford to live in some way or another, and I don't think just because one is on public assistance they should necessarily have a great deal of choice as well.  I'm fine with the projects actually.  If you need to be on assistance, and you don't like your publicly provided space, then move out on your own.

 

Don't people who choose to live in a particular place also deserve the "choice" to not be near public housing?  The choice that some want to give those on public assistance actually negates the choice that those who pay their own way have made.  I think that sucks!

 

So do you feel this way about low (possibly minority) income seniors?  Many whom have worked hard and are now of fixed incomes and are in need of public assistances to get by.

It is not easy, and sometimes not even remotely possible, for a community to absolutely reject such projects, and sometimes there are rules stating that new projects need to be spread out and not all clustered together in high-poverty areas.

 

I really wish I could believe this, but somehow certain suburbs, even those with decent apartment/rental stocks, seem to have found themselves in situations where they're not taking on as much low-income/section 8 housing as their neighbors.  I don't think this is a coincidence, either.  Specifically, I'm thinking of cities like Beachwood or Solon, and I think it has at least something to do with willfully losing out on certain types of federal funds.

 

A quick point of clarification here about things being "forced" on cities.  Cities can regulate land use, but they can't regulate who lives in a permitted land use.  So if a housing authority purchases or leases land in any suburb, they can put anyone they want there as long as the physical development meets local requirements.

 

Some suburbs simply zone out all multi family housing or use subdivision requirements in an effort to keep out anyone, subsidized or not, or can't afford to own or rent a sf home on a quarter acre.  Other suburbs don't have public housing because the applicable housing authority hasn't chosen to site anything there.  That's more of a black box, but not something suburbs have any legal control over.

If you want to help a person, your best chance might be to get him out of the failed neighborhood that he is currently in and move him to a community that will give him some support. Kids growing up in broken families in failed school districts don't have much of a chance, and moving those kids to a successful school district might just give him a better chance at life. Young men living in a neighborhood with no jobs don't have much of a chance of improvement, and moving them to a more successful neighborhood might give him more opportunities.

 

The issue at hand however is that when you're simply moving large concentrations from one community to another, you're not improving anything, and in fact, making once-viable communities worse for.

 

Maybe, but if the population of the poor is static or shrinking, then if a large concentration moves *into* one neighborhood, then by definition, it moved *out* of another.

 

Maybe that abandoned neighborhood really is truly abandoned now (and becomes fodder for a shrinking cities initiative later).  That could occur if the people fleeing the neighborhood with all the new Section 8 housing have the inclination and ability to move even farther out--contributing to sprawl, as you noted.  However, there may be a limited number of times that dynamic can repeat itself, particularly now that new suburban housing is so much less affordable for so many people, particularly given the upward spike in gas prices.

I completely agree with you, Eighth and State, but how do you help people who are not interested in the help, not interested in helping themselves, help children who have learned that selling drugs makes you rich and envied and going to school is boring and stupid and won't get you anywhere?

 

I don't have the answer to that. If anyone did, we would be able to solve the problems of the world!

If you want to help a person, your best chance might be to get him out of the failed neighborhood that he is currently in and move him to a community that will give him some support. Kids growing up in broken families in failed school districts don't have much of a chance, and moving those kids to a successful school district might just give him a better chance at life. Young men living in a neighborhood with no jobs don't have much of a chance of improvement, and moving them to a more successful neighborhood might give him more opportunities.

 

The issue at hand however is that when you're simply moving large concentrations from one community to another, you're not improving anything, and in fact, making once-viable communities worse for.

 

Maybe, but if the population of the poor is static or shrinking, then if a large concentration moves *into* one neighborhood, then by definition, it moved *out* of another.

 

Maybe that abandoned neighborhood really is truly abandoned now (and becomes fodder for a shrinking cities initiative later).  That could occur if the people fleeing the neighborhood with all the new Section 8 housing have the inclination and ability to move even farther out--contributing to sprawl, as you noted.  However, there may be a limited number of times that dynamic can repeat itself, particularly now that new suburban housing is so much less affordable for so many people, particularly given the upward spike in gas prices.

 

Well, I'm not talking about completely relocated the population.  I'm talking about relocating just enough (and really, it doesn't take that much), that in the short term both neighborhoods are ruined.  Maybe in the long-term the "old" neighborhood will eventually become mostly abandoned, but that's not a good thing, either. 

The feds are trying to help people, or at least that's their stated goal. The locals in Green Township are trying to help a place. 

 

It's way more complicated than that. What is the scope of "place", for one? If you think regionally, putting X units of public housing in one area vs. another is zero-sum. Scattering them, however, is better for the regional community as a whole (e.g. so there are no pockets in a region where crime can fester without witnesses willing to come forward). On a federal level, spreading public housing as thinly as possible is best for a place: the country.

 

IMO, if in any given place there are enough eyes on the streets to keep crime risky and therefore limited, that is the ideal situation. If we allow pockets of lawlessness, a criminal population sprouts up and has an impact far beyond the concentrated area of those afraid to "snitch" on those within their midst. As an added bonus, there is an argument to be made that this policy which is best for the greater good (the most safety for the most people) is also the most humane treatment of individuals who are the neediest among us -- i.e. they get safety and exposure to a culture in which they are more likely to be upwardly mobile.

 

Furthermore, you provide a helping hand for the poor while reducing the need for police. Public safety, as we all know, is the largest expenditure for local governments. Why be reactionary when you can nip the problem in the bud?

^The scope of place is local, as is the title of this thread. Local communities are fighting public housing, with the example being Green Township.

 

In medieval times, most towns of any size had some kind of wall, or at least some defense against the rest of the world. This is true of all cultures, whether they be European, Asian, or Native American.

 

Nowadays, physical walls are uncommon, but there are all kinds of cultural and legal barriers. The Green Township Trustees are not shy about keeping the riff-raff out, and are agressively purchasing problem properties, tearing them down, and making parks of them. They are purposely hindering public transportation. I can even tell of one instance where a public official argued specifically against a traffic improvement that would have connected an existing apartment complex with mostly "low income" people to a commercial corridor.

 

Clearly, the residents are trying to protect their property. It's a blatant "not in my backyard, not in my school district, and not in my neighborhood" issue. Quite frankly, local politics is not about the greater good.