Its proven that when you deconcentrate poverty crime goes down but should it be pushed by agencies such as CMHA? Are people entitled to the protection of their property value and quality of life in the community they contribute to and help to sustain? Is it only justified with a certain level of incentives? Is this an effective way to fix a failure in the local free market economy that would otherwise benefit a smaller percentage of people? Does it depend on whether the area is practical for the empoverished demographic in terms of available social services in close proximity as well as having public transportation that is a necessity for many low income people? Would the demographic shift cause banks and developers to look at the inner city in a new light and allocate investment where it's truely needed? Would this idea cause miniature ghettos to form in the more affluent areas and still result in a huge social barrier even though it's less of a geographical one? Do the pros outweigh the cons?

 

Discuss.

I don't like the way the question is framed. How about if it was right in the first place for suburbs to keep all the poor the city? Is it OK to dump all the poor people there? Mixed income neighborhoods do work and property values can remain static and even increase with a small amount of dispersed low income housing.

 

Something for a little reading:

http://www.uli.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search&section=Policy_Papers2&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=7319

I don't like the way YOUR question is framed. When I think of "dumping people" i think of gas chambers and giant ditches in Poland. I thought I was being pretty neutral even though I would definitely support this kind of integration under most circumstances.

You're right, it sounds like there were garbage trucks full of poor people.  :lol: But seriously, I just think prefacing it with a little history would help, granted on this forum that would already be known by most here. So considering the current situation and the history of the matter, I would say they should have a required quota, though small, of poor people in their neighborhoods. Small enough that property values would at least see no decrease and it would be done incrementally. And it would be a good idea to inform them that putting them all in one corner of their neighborhood is not a good idea, this is something that has to be done carefully to be done right.

Oh, and under what circumstances would you not support integration of low income housing?

I would see little benefit of putting low income residents in an area like Indian Hill for example, even though it's a great public school. I'm trying to think of a good comparison in Columbus but Dublin and New Albany aren't entirely residential and sprawled the way Indian Hill is. There's barely any bus service there, and to live that far out would require a reliable car. It's extremely far from the centrally located social services. Integrating with Oakley, Hyde Park, Mariemont...or in Columbus, say...Bexley...Clintonville...Upper Arlington? I think parts of Upper Arlington may be pretty low income anyway though, not too sure about that. Those are some good examples I can think of at the top of my head.

 

It already seems to be pervading... but there's definitely a lot of people opposing it.

Upper Arlington...low...income?  Even the shitty looking apartments are quite pricey.

I don't know...my old history teacher said he was from the poor part of Upper Arlington, not the nice part. It probably changed a lot since he lived there.

Poor is probably relative in that case.

You guys crack me up.  Tell me again why I want this in my neighborhood? 

 

Because you care about the greater good?

 

 

 

*Crickets chirping*

 

 

 

 

 

*Tumbleweed blows by*

You guys crack me up.  Tell me again why I want this in my neighborhood? 

 

Because you care about the greater good?

 

Republicans caring about the greater good?!?!

That would be a first!

Tear down all public housing.

And do what with the current residents? Or do you even care?

^If you read all of this guy's (or gals) posts on this board it is clear that he does not. 

I don't mind the low income...I do, however, mind the obvious behavioral associations with it which might stem from too many freebies to the point the help becomes not a tool to get someone out of a tough life situation....but a lifestyle instead, that often leads to an 'entitlement' attitude that disrespects rights of others. 

 

It  is just that for decades we've been conditioned to accept and maybe even pacify or excuse the inappropriate elements that often accompany low income projects/inhabitants/and guests of inhabitants. Just because you're "low-income" does not mean you have to also have to be filthy, loud, disrespectful to neighbors...invite friends over who do not know how to behave in a civil community...and who impose their behavior on others in the name of 'rights', 'entitlements'...'freedom'

 

If you're financially challenged... you can still be clean, respectful, humble...Most low income people generally are...But it takes a few hot sparks to create a fire. Too bad that too often, the former accompanies the low income housing scenario. I have lived by it too many times to not be so naive to ignore the obvious associations/links. But it does NOT have to be like this.

 

 

Ok, now here is a laugh....and some may call it a bit extreme...But it just might work....If I were "King" I would require a mandatory test, both on paper and in action....that before an individual is allowed to live with the rest of society in a reasonably peaceful communal and civil setting...that they show they grasp the basic common sense concepts such as not throwing trash down in your neighborhood...not carrying on with excessive noise at totally inappropriate hours when the rest of the world is usually needing their rest..... That they can speak more words than just the four letter one that so conveniently serves as a verb, gerund, pro-noun, adjective, etc..etc... They would demonstrate that they will respect their neighbors right to reasonable peace in their own home.... Even more...would demonstrate that when you invite friends over, that YOU are responsible for their actions in YOUR home...  That you do not use your car horn as a door bell...that you do not park in the middle of the busy street for mere chit chat... and expect the entire world to adapt to you and swerve around you....  You would demonstrate that your personal conversation between friends is YOURS...not something you invite the whole neighborhood into by talking/shouting so loudly that you can be heard in Cairo!

 

You would learn/respect that living in a good neighborhood is a privilege, something that was worked hard for to achieve and maintain...and is not an entitlement...Good neighborhoods become bad in a big way because of simple BAD behavior. You would demonstrate that you recognize absolute ownership and property lines by not walking up and casually playing, fighting, or swearing in someone else's yard or sitting on their front porch to have a smoke...

 

You would learn to not impose illegal excessive/unnecessary noise on everyone else... or use your car window as a trash dispenser for your McDonald's meal, alcohol containers, cigarette/cigar butts, condoms... or Cheetos bags.. And last...a good test to pass would be that you understand that just because you have a challenged income does not mean you have to like act an idiot... or will it be bought as an excuse for really bad behavior... Oh..and also... that your humble abode does not have to look like a hole.

 

Basically, you would have to show you can grasp the concepts of what it means to behave appropriately and respectfully with thy neighbors in a civil communal setting... Good caring neighbors go a long way to keep a neighborhood strong... Bad ones are a big part of tearing them down. All this is nothing really extreme..  It is just basics and common sense that is not so common anymore.

 

Now, how can we teach a new way...a new game to nurture a new more productive and healthy generation of neighbors...  Well...

 

Instead of throwing money around for years treating a symptom....why not use it to establish a school and more institutions that will teach future generations ALL the things of basic getting along in society and the meaning of the word 'neighborhood'... that they never learned from dysfunctional parenting...no parenting...and to not to buy into the things that are self destructive...even when mass marketing, for the sake of millions in profit, makes it look like what you're buying into is about your 'self expression'

 

So, do I think we can de-concentrate public housing by infusing affluence... Sure...but they in public housing will need to live somewhere... and  this will not do anything to address the behavior many think has to be, and often IS associated with public housing----that usually is the pervasive belief in the USA---that just even a small dose of, is the seed that contributes to the broken window theory which sends neighborhoods into a downward spiral creating crummy neighborhoods again. It is a bad cycle.

 

Bottom line...is reasonable and respectful behavior in a communal setting.  I could care less how much you make, what walk of life you come from, your name, color, ethnicity, etc... If you or your friends you invite over act like uncivil, or disrespectful idiots... I don't want to live like that. I hope no one says me expecting what SHOULD be expected from neighbors behavior...is about being in the suburbs. There are idiots there too. Since when did expecting  people to respect laws become about living in a particular area..  I thought such logic needs be strived to be applied everywhere.

I'm totally against it.  No, not because they're poor, but because there is an overwhelmingly negative culture that is associated with these people.  Spreading them around does very little in improving their actual situation, and all it does it allow the negative culture to spread to relatively safer areas, forcing people with decent values, both black and white, to flee. 

 

I don't recall any programs for the prior immigrants, and they successfully removed themselves from the situation. 

 

Busing was a bad enough experiment.  The minimal (possibly non-existent) social gain is not worth destroying once pleasant neighborhoods. 

I'm totally against it. No, not because they're poor, but because there is an overwhelmingly negative culture that is associated with these people. Spreading them around does very little in improving their actual situation, and all it does it allow the negative culture to spread to relatively safer areas, forcing people with decent values, both black and white, to flee.

 

I don't recall any programs for the prior immigrants, and they successfully removed themselves from the situation.

 

Busing was a bad enough experiment. The minimal (possibly nonexistent) social gain is not worth destroying once pleasant neighborhoods.  

 

I wrote my capstone paper on it.  If anyone is interested, shoot me a pm.  It basically focuses on Cleveland and its inner-ring suburbs.

There should be (if there aren't already) established standards for those on public housing, and if they violate such standards, then these people should be forced out. 

 

And I really don't understand what social gain there is for pushing public housing into wealthy areas.  It seems we've been doing variations of that for years with very little social benefit.

 

 

^ agreed.

I don't recall any programs for the prior immigrants, and they successfully removed themselves from the situation.

 

You didn't run across the terms "settlement house" in your capstone?

I do agree that public housing - if we are forced to provide it - should be decentralized.

 

However, I strongly oppose the idea of putting it in affluent neighborhoods. We shouldn't put public housing in the richest city neighborhoods for the same reason we shouldn't have it in downtowns - it reduces the value of your most lucrative tax-generating property!!

 

In most cities, the very rich neighborhoods are the only residential properties that are a net tax-gain for the city. So these neighborhoods should be protected from devaluation as much as possible. The wealthier the neighborhood, the more tax revenue for everyone in the city. If you start to compromise the luxury image of the affluent neighborhood, you're going to lose a ton of wealthy people (i.e. tax generating people) to the suburbs.

 

Anyway, from a social standpoint, there's also very little reason to put public housing in the richest neighborhoods. Public housing is SUPPOSED to be a temporary transitional housing option for people who will eventually shift into market-rate rental housing. In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to shove poor people into a neighborhood they can't afford and will be forced to leave once they get back on their feet.

 

I suppose the best situation - again presuming we have to have it - is to spread public housing as thinly and decentralized as possible in working class and middle class neighborhoods. Another extremely important component is to have responsible apartment management and absolutely zero drug tolerance.

 

    Public housing is a losing proposition no matter where it is located.

 

    Instead of warehousing the poor people in centralized public housing or dispersing it among functioning neighborhoods, why not work toward the goal of ELIMINATING public housing? Anything less is just going to shift problems from one area to another.

I do agree that public housing - if we are forced to provide it - should be decentralized.

 

However, I strongly oppose the idea of putting it in affluent neighborhoods. We shouldn't put public housing in the richest city neighborhoods for the same reason we shouldn't have it in downtowns - it reduces the value of your most lucrative tax-generating property!!

 

Agreed. And it's something that Cincinnati is unfortunately pushing Section 8 into some of the more wealthier areas of Cincinnati.

In Warren, Ohio...once section 8 was allowed....most of its older neighborhoods closest to the center of town...went to hell. Now it is spreading all over out there. Its wrong. People who get all the freebies and make it a lifestyle, instead of a tool to better themselves.... couldn't care less about the health of the neighborhood. Having more kids...to get more freebies...a rotten cycle...it becomes a lifestyle...and too often, along goes with it... an attitude of entitlement and carelessness about keeping something nice...that others have worked hard to keep that way. Then, the property value takes a poop. We cannot deny these links.

I don't recall any programs for the prior immigrants, and they successfully removed themselves from the situation. 

 

You didn't run across the terms "settlement house" in your capstone?

 

No bc actual "public housing" did not commence until the depression.  Furthermore, it was only seen as a temporary fix for the time.  Then public housing hit full swing with the returning vets from WWII (once again, only temporary).  I think it was not until the 60's that public housing began to resemble what it is today.

 

Plus, I wasn't writing a history on it.  I was focusing on the impact the housing choice voucher program has had on 5 of Cleveland's inner-ring suburbs.  No way was the research earth-shattering, but it certainly shed light on something many public officials are terrified to talk about. 

The way foreclosures are trending in the "desirable" growth areas, I think you're going to see suburbia welcoming Section 8's with open arms.

^Agree, although I'm not sure if ALL of them will do it with open arms.

I should have asked about about public housing vs. section 8 before answering this question years ago (literally). I still say mixing low-income residents into neighborhoods is fine and much preferable to public housing quarters. In my neighborhood you have low income residents here and there vs. all being relegated to one area.

 

Then in Harrison West on 3rd Ave you have some low income housing which I think might be section 8. It's a small development surrounded by nice homes and is adjacent to the little business district here.

 

Another successful example would be the New Village development in Italian Village which was one form of public housing (projects KOOW?) which kept qualified low-income residents who are subsidized while others pay market value. The qualifications are what need to be overhauled. There are quite a few projects like those in neighborhoods like Franklinton and King-Lincoln that are listed as being for a "family", but how is the CMHA (the C-bus one) providing a good family environment when they allow drug dealing thugs, who are likely repeat offfenders, to live in the same section 8 development, maybe even next door to a family with kids?

 

I agree with putting an end to any more "project"-style or similar developments and the subsidization of ghetto thugs. Just because people are low-income doesn't mean they should be subjected to social experimentation and forced to live with scum.

The way foreclosures are trending in the "desirable" growth areas, I think you're going to see suburbia welcoming Section 8's with open arms.

 

I would say most suburbs would prefer a vacant home than a Section 8.

 

There are inherent problems with public housing that led to the current trend of centralization.  I think those are the issues we should discuss before altering real estate markets and, essentially entire community demographics with force.  The biggest issue being the “handout clause,” it’s not easy to find someone who will respect something they didn’t have to work for.  How do we find people that will respect public housing that is paid for them by their very neighbors, rather than people who will abuse it?

 

The way foreclosures are trending in the "desirable" growth areas, I think you're going to see suburbia welcoming Section 8's with open arms.

 

I would say most suburbs would prefer a vacant home than a Section 8.

 

There are inherent problems with public housing that led to the current trend of centralization.  I think those are the issues we should discuss before altering real estate markets and, essentially entire community demographics with force.  The biggest issue being the %u201Chandout clause,%u201D it%u2019s not easy to find someone who will respect something they didn%u2019t have to work for.  How do we find people that will respect public housing that is paid for them by their very neighbors, rather than people who will abuse it?

 

 

As a home owner, I would strongly disagree.  There is nothing worse in any neighborhood than a vacant home --- unless your house is next to the vacant home.

I don't mind the low income..................

 

You really need your own blog my man.

 

I do not agree with the idea of centralizing or decentralizing public housing.  Public housing should be strategically placed where it allows the needy an "opportunity" to pull themselves up by their own boot straps while having as little impact on "quality" neighborhoods as possible.  Therefore, it should be put near public transportation and near employment centers, but not in downtown and not along TOD's.  And definitely not on waterfront property!

You cannot get Section 8 if you have a criminal record. Unfortunately, this quickly descends into complicated issues about culture of poverty/criminality and such, because the criminals/dealers are often the connected to the 'clean' person who actually receives the voucher, but not in a way that the state can clearly deny the housing voucher to.

While you cannot get Section 8 with a criminal record, one can easily state that those on Section 8 can bring in more of the bad and undesireable influences that can drag down a project. There is a development on Walnut Street in OTR that is like that. Designed for Section 8, the development was successful in its first few years as integrating people of different incomes (and races) together. But it is now nothing more than a subsidized project -- at my expense -- that is now almost entirely of one income and of one race. That one building receives more calls than the surrounding structures to the police. It's a failure.

To answer the origional question, I don't think society should be responsible for moving one group of people anywhere based on any socio economic lines. 

Society also shouldn't put up excessively blocks on any group of people moving where they would like, which America has done for many moons.

Section 8 is not public housing.  It's a subsidy offered by the government to help low-income citizens find private housing; this is why you sometimes see apartment ads proclaiming "Section 8 OK" or "Section 8 welcome" or something to that effect.  Landlords don't have to accept them.  That said, I imagine that many of the concerns with truly public housing are also there with Section 8 housing.

 

To answer the original question: I don't see how it's economically feasible to put low-income housing (public or Section 8 ) in the middle of affluent neighborhoods.  If the government wants to buy the land to put up public housing, it has to pay top dollar for it, which is hard enough in boom times and would be an extremely unpopular expenditure now.  If the government wants to simply say that a certain amount of land has to be set aside for low-income housing as an area grows, well, the government can say that, but that just means that developers won't come into the area until the demand is so high that they can really sock it to the people in the non-low-income housing to make up for what they're losing on the low-income tracts.

Section 8 is not public housing.  It's a subsidy offered by the government to help low-income citizens find private housing; this is why you sometimes see apartment ads proclaiming "Section 8 OK" or "Section 8 welcome" or something to that effect.  Landlords don't have to accept them.  That said, I imagine that many of the concerns with truly public housing are also there with Section 8 housing.

 

To answer the original question: I don't see how it's economically feasible to put low-income housing (public or Section 8 ) in the middle of affluent neighborhoods.  If the government wants to buy the land to put up public housing, it has to pay top dollar for it, which is hard enough in boom times and would be an extremely unpopular expenditure now.  If the government wants to simply say that a certain amount of land has to be set aside for low-income housing as an area grows, well, the government can say that, but that just means that developers won't come into the area until the demand is so high that they can really sock it to the people in the non-low-income housing to make up for what they're losing on the low-income tracts.

This.

 

Also, why do people that hate socialism want to use its methodology to spread the poverty around to the wealthiest areas?

 

Section 8 (not public housing) is a market based program.  If the market is good enough in an area no landlord is going to put section 8 in.  They only do that to get guaranteed rent and tenants.  Talk to the landlord if things at the property aren't right. it's his/her responsibility.

 

PS, your neighborhood can't go to hell unless you let it.

How is Section 8 "market based housing"? It's the manipulation of the free market by artificially lowering rents in order to achieve a desired social goal.

 

Have you been to any Section 8 complexes? Landlords vary, and most that I've experienced really don't care about their tenants or property as long as they keep collecting the money. The fears of Section 8 tend to be true. Crime near Section 8 complexes do increase, and property values do decrease -- a big issue if you are stuffing Section 8 in say, Hyde Park.

 

A neighborhood can go to hell easily -- Price Hill has been steadily declining, despite the residents' pitch to rid the streets of thugs and drug dealers.

Section 8 is market based in that it's only going to go into a depressed market.  In Cincinnati a landlord isn't going to turn to Section 8 because he can already get a high rent on the property without the subsidy.  It's going to go into places without high demand.

 

Everyone talks about Price Hill...what would have happened to Price Hill if all the people didn't move out to the suburbs because they were afraid of the poor blacks?

 

I've seen Section 8 complexes.  I used to live next to one in Oakley.  Section 8 isn't only in apartment complexes, it can also be single family homes.  It is the landlord's responsibility to maintain the property or instruct the tenants on how to do so.  If those responsibilities are not being met, call the health department, call the police, call whomever it takes to get those properties into better shape.

Section 8 is market based in that it's only going to go into a depressed market. In Cincinnati a landlord isn't going to turn to Section 8 because he can already get a high rent on the property without the subsidy.  It's going to go into places without high demand.

 

Everyone talks about Price Hill...what would have happened to Price Hill if all the people didn't move out to the suburbs because they were afraid of the poor blacks?

 

I've seen Section 8 complexes.  I used to live next to one in Oakley.  Section 8 isn't only in apartment complexes, it can also be single family homes.  It is the landlord's responsibility to maintain the property or instruct the tenants on how to do so.  If those responsibilities are not being met, call the health department, call the police, call whomever it takes to get those properties into better shape.

 

I disagree.  I'm speaking from experience.

 

 

I disagree. I'm speaking from experience.

well, rather than being merely contrary, please let us in on those experiences. I've got an open mind.

Section 8 is market based in that it's only going to go into a depressed market. In Cincinnati a landlord isn't going to turn to Section 8 because he can already get a high rent on the property without the subsidy.  It's going to go into places without high demand.

 

Everyone talks about Price Hill...what would have happened to Price Hill if all the people didn't move out to the suburbs because they were afraid of the poor blacks?

 

I've seen Section 8 complexes.  I used to live next to one in Oakley.  Section 8 isn't only in apartment complexes, it can also be single family homes.  It is the landlord's responsibility to maintain the property or instruct the tenants on how to do so.  If those responsibilities are not being met, call the health department, call the police, call whomever it takes to get those properties into better shape.

 

I disagree.  I'm speaking from experience.

 

I would have to disagree as well.

 

Shaker Heights, for example, has a number of Section 8 tenants.  Kind of hard to believe, until one looks at the sociodemographic make-up of the Shaker Heights school district.  On the one hand, these children will have a chance to go to a quality school district with resources which wouldn't be available to them in other areas.  They will inherently, because of their location, have role models to look up to and will have a better chance at life than those in similar situations who live in Section 8 housing in the city, for example.  Personally, I believe that this is the best quality of the Section 8 program- that children and teenagers have good role models who live around them and interact with them in their community.  For some individuals who were fortunate enough to have some type of positive role model growing up, you may not know the full implications of what I'm saying.

 

On the other hand, their parents have lucked out and are living in what was designed to be an exclusive city for the well-to-do (ignoring the original racial and ethnic biases)... for next to nothing.  Additionally, parenting starts at home,  and letting children run wild throughout the streets of any city will bring down the quality of life for surrounding residents.

Unfortunately, this is not fair to some individuals who call Shaker home. 

Section 8 is market based in that it's only going to go into a depressed market.

 

Hyde Park is not a depressed market. It's Cincinnati's wealthiest neighborhood.

 

Everyone talks about Price Hill...what would have happened to Price Hill if all the people didn't move out to the suburbs because they were afraid of the poor blacks?

 

People didn't move out because of the "poor blacks." People moved out because Price Hill's crime rate has spiked due to violent crime and drug use. It's no secret that the crime rate in East Price Hill is higher than the overall average for the city. Part of the reason was the introduction of subsidized housing (Section 8, etc.) into Price Hill in the 1990s. What went from a stable, blue-collar neighborhood went to a neighborhood in relative decline.

 

People who move out to safer pastures are not racists, and it is unfair to label it as that.

 

I've seen Section 8 complexes. I used to live next to one in Oakley. Section 8 isn't only in apartment complexes, it can also be single family homes. It is the landlord's responsibility to maintain the property or instruct the tenants on how to do so. If those responsibilities are not being met, call the health department, call the police, call whomever it takes to get those properties into better shape.

 

I live near several hundred Section 8 units. Some are in newer units that in just five years have become completely trashed. Talk to any cop on the beat and they can point out the crime hot spots. The interactive online map has a nice listing of crime locations, and behold the units that are offending are those that are public or subsidized housing.

 

I drive down Walnut Street daily to get to my unit. Besides the near weekly shootings along the street, it's home to some of the highest crime rates south of Liberty Street. People hang out on the street corners dealing drugs at all hours of the day and night, some wearing the trademark Crips and Blood attire (I walked the beat with a cop who pointed out many of these features). It's just not a safe area, and it's a concentration of Section 8 housing that is really draining any life from that stretch of Walnut.

 

 

I disagree.  I'm speaking from experience.

well, rather than being merely contrary, please let us in on those experiences. I've got an open mind.

 

My father has a section 8 renter.  This particular person is a better tenant than my fathers other tenants.  The home is in zip code 44122.  That zip code is hardly going to hell.

 

We also had a renter who received welfare benefits.  That person was the best tenant we ever had.  He was a single father with triplets.  While he received benefits, he was in school full time and worked a part time job.  They lived in the house for 9 years.  He wanted to buy the hosue from my father, because he liked CH and the CH-UH school district and didn't want to uproot his kids.  When the house two doors down became available he bought and moved into it.  This house is near Fairmount.  That area isn't going down hill.

 

Id like to say that just because a person is on section 8 or public assistance that doesnt mean they are a negative to the home, home owner or neighborhood.

 

The people that live next door to our first house (in CH) are the worst neighbors and they own their home.  They leave stuff all over the yard and the general upkeep of their home is horrible.  This guy who owns it is a lawyer (or does something in litigation) and his wife is a stay at home mom. The wife actually dug up the plants my mom planted and replanted them on the other side of their house.  Plants in which came from my mothers main garden.  My parents have taken them to court twice on behalf of the tenants.

Yeah, i know Hyde Park is the wealthiest area and Section 8 is only going in there because it's being forced in by CMHA.  What i'm suggesting is that section 8 has concentrated on the west side of the city because of the guaranteed rent for the landlords and the fact that there isn't a need for that sort of subsidized rent in areas like Hyde Park.  When an area is in high demand there is not need for a landlord to offer Section 8 unless mandated by law.

 

About Price Hill, i honestly don't know the neighborhood that well, i've only been here a couple years, so i apologize for stereotyping.  My experience in other areas has lead me to the conclusion that many neighborhoods go downhill because people abandon them rather than trying to maintain them.  In Detroit they've hidden their racism in language about their children and i don't buy it.

 

I don't think that OTR's issues really come from the people that live down there (in section 8 or otherwise) , rather from the high vacancy rate and from people that come in to do their "business"

MyTwoSense:

 

This is why it's generally not overly workable to go from the specific to the general or from the general to the specific.  You can't generalize about your Section 8 renter to all Section 8 renters--and you can't generalize about your lousy neighbors to all homeowning neighbors.  The issue is whether your Section 8 renter was the rule or the exception (and, in either case, by how much).  I don't know the answer to that.

MyTwoSense:

 

This is why it's generally not overly workable to go from the specific to the general or from the general to the specific.  You can't generalize about your Section 8 renter to all Section 8 renters--and you can't generalize about your lousy neighbors to all homeowning neighbors.  The issue is whether your Section 8 renter was the rule or the exception (and, in either case, by how much).  I don't know the answer to that.

 

I agree, however, I'm not generalizing only speaking about my experience.  Homeowners, renters, people in public housing along with this in the section 8, you have good and bad in the entire lot!

We are mixing up a bunch of different kinds of public supported housing. Section 8 is the vouchers only which can be used anywhere a landlord is willing to accept them. The CMHA is talking about actually buying some building and putting their tenants in them (though they may able to essentially use the section 8 vouchers that that gets paid back to them). It is worth noting that the largest beneficiary of subsidized housing of all kinds is the elderly. Price Hill was hurt because when they tore down the projects most of those residents pressed into Price Hill and other places on the West side.

 

The challenge about all these issues is that Cincinnati (and the rest of Ohio) has a long and unpleasant history of implicit segregation of the neighborhoods that have been proven again and again. Ohio's Fair Housing movement has never been very effective undermining segregation.

dmerkow:

 

I actually think the racial issues are a bit of a sideshow here.  The effects of concentrated poverty vs. distributed poverty are not inherently race-sensitive.  (In other words, there's no intrinsic reason why concentrated poor whites would affect and are differently than concentrated poor blacks, and the same applies to distributed poor people of any race.)  In practice, there may be observed differences, but I think those differences have to be assumed to flow from other factors, and therefore shouldn't affect the discussion of whether we gain more (or lose less) by concentrating poverty in small areas or by spreading it out across much larger ones.

I've always wondered about the history of Ohio housing authorities.  It looks like they were all created back in 1933.  Here's the nitty-gritty: http://law.justia.com/ohio/codes/orc/jd_3735-1371.html

 

I think they are pretty clumsy nowadays but serve a purpose.  The problem as diagnosed by social engineers doesn't seem to be poverty, but poverty that breeds poverty.