If things are so much better in better-off "white" neighborhoods, why don't the blacks just duplicate it in their own neighborhoods. Get rid of the pants hanging below the buttocks, the baseball caps turned at 135 degrees, the rap music, the ebonics. Study math and English and don't waste time playing basketball all the time. Just DO it!
29
Hmmm, so the issue seems to be whether to force left-leaning affluent people, who presumably support tax rates and allocations that benefit the poor, to give up other things they rather would not. A pretty important question: if you want someone to support some forms of redistribution, how much freedom of choice can they retain?
6
Three stories - Opp Ed pieces in the NYT's in the last week on federal housing. The comments have never been so brutal. I can't believe the Times actually allowed some to be posted. The story last week about efforts in Dallas to move section 8 families into wealthy suburbs with better schools woke me up. Giving a single mother of four an $1,845 a month housing voucher, to live in a beautiful home in a nice neighborhood got me going. My question is why even try?
7
I wish I could understand why the federal gov. makes it imperative to give to those that have not EARNED the right to live in places like Westchester. The feds give them food stamps,section 8 housing etc.etc but wait that's not enough. Head start has been proven to be a failure, maybe if we (feds) just place some of the less fortunate among the hard working citizens in Westchester some of the good habits will shower down upon the less fortunate ones.
But what the feds just don't seem to understand is that we can't bring the less fortunate ones up but they surelyb can bring the community down.
Enough with this social experimenting allready
But what the feds just don't seem to understand is that we can't bring the less fortunate ones up but they surelyb can bring the community down.
Enough with this social experimenting allready
34
The House passed HR 2577 (the FY2016 T&H bill) with the Gosar amendment which strips all funding and also prohibits any funding for Obama's AAFH scam. The bill was sent to the Senate and passed out of committee with the Gosar amendment still in tact. The Senate is expected to pass the bill with the Gosar amendment in tact. So this new socialist scam is not going to be implemented anytime soon. The Senate and House can hold up the bill as long as they want if Obama threatens a veto. We can only hope that we get a Republican president who will sign the bill as well as eliminate this proposal all together.
13
I'm going to put a blunt metaphor out there with this dictum: :"The solution to pollution is dilution". This suggests that poverty and the attendant social ills can be seen as a form of "pollution" of human behavior. Years ago I read about studies which found rises in rates of crime and what we typically refer to as ghetto behavior in places where the rates of indigence rose above a certain level. That suggests to me that if a group of individuals moves into a neighborhood where most of the adults work, maintain responsible lives, and generally tend to stay out of trouble, they take on those values. They try to emulate them. Leading by example is a powerful thing. When what you see around you is unemployment, crime and indolence, you internalize those values and accept that that is how things are.
I have dealt with the effects of concentrated poverty and have seen my own neighborhood go downhill as more poor moved in. It has not been a pleasant experience and I empathize with those who write about having scraped and saved to afford a home. I work hard to pay for and maintain my property as well. Does the fact that there were already poor people around make someone less deserving of home value stability? Does your wealth have to mean the maintenance of others' poverty? It is the concentration of poverty that gives rise to ghettos. Why do we even have ghettos? We need to dilute them so that they become less so.
I have dealt with the effects of concentrated poverty and have seen my own neighborhood go downhill as more poor moved in. It has not been a pleasant experience and I empathize with those who write about having scraped and saved to afford a home. I work hard to pay for and maintain my property as well. Does the fact that there were already poor people around make someone less deserving of home value stability? Does your wealth have to mean the maintenance of others' poverty? It is the concentration of poverty that gives rise to ghettos. Why do we even have ghettos? We need to dilute them so that they become less so.
10
The story asks the right question in the headline, "Who will pay?" The answer is people who work hard for a living. The government will spend the money for housing, which will cost far more in upper class neighborhoods, delivering far fewer units than those built in modest circumstance. Those who benefit from the hard work of others who still pay taxes will be those neither work nor pay taxes.
It is a perfect liberal redistribution of wealth, because even those who pay the bills will be penalized even further by by the vindictive loss of their property values, plus crime and drugs coming to their neighborhoods.
It is a perfect liberal redistribution of wealth, because even those who pay the bills will be penalized even further by by the vindictive loss of their property values, plus crime and drugs coming to their neighborhoods.
31
Low income housing and other government programs that benefit low income families are needed because many people in the US do not make enough money from their jobs to cover their basic living expenses. They are, in effect, government programs that subsidize cheap labor for many very profitable businesses. Companies like Walmart counsel their employees to apply for government assistance needed because the companies do not pay enough for their employees to live. Americans, who work many more hours than people in other advanced economies, must be able to make a basic living working at a full time job. Republicans resist anything that would allow that to happen, and then they whine about government programs for the poor.
19
In too many of our communities, the problem is that rich communities are zoning to get more mcmansions to get more tax dollars. This needs to be fixed with state-level legislation, not with federal buearacrats using court rulings to force a one-size fits all mentality onto small towns.
4
Two things of note:
1. The irony that the New York area Democrats don't want to live in the changed New York City they have created. When you go to bat for mass migration -- both legal and illegal -- that means you get a lot of people from around the world, many of whom are poor and many of whom are racial and ethnics minorities that are not the same as those of most of the people who live in the wealthy areas of the tri state area.
When you approve of radical demograph change, how can you complain that you won't accept it where you live?
2. The biggest problem with "affordable housing" is not the who in my opinion, but the lack of it anywhere.
Because the population of the US is rising rapidly we are seeing real estate prices skyrocket in numerous urban areas, including NYC. We are expected to go from a US population of around 315 million today to around 400 million around 2050.
Today we already have far more people who qualify for and really need housing assistance than who receive it.
What's going to happen in another 10 or 20 years if wages remain more or less stagnant for most people while housing costs go up 25%-50%-100% or more? And that wouldn't just be in a few big popular cities. With the increased population we could expect rapid increases in housing prices in many areas around the country.
We are just at the beginning of what will be a terrible housing crisis. Who will pay to solve it? It will require trillions.
1. The irony that the New York area Democrats don't want to live in the changed New York City they have created. When you go to bat for mass migration -- both legal and illegal -- that means you get a lot of people from around the world, many of whom are poor and many of whom are racial and ethnics minorities that are not the same as those of most of the people who live in the wealthy areas of the tri state area.
When you approve of radical demograph change, how can you complain that you won't accept it where you live?
2. The biggest problem with "affordable housing" is not the who in my opinion, but the lack of it anywhere.
Because the population of the US is rising rapidly we are seeing real estate prices skyrocket in numerous urban areas, including NYC. We are expected to go from a US population of around 315 million today to around 400 million around 2050.
Today we already have far more people who qualify for and really need housing assistance than who receive it.
What's going to happen in another 10 or 20 years if wages remain more or less stagnant for most people while housing costs go up 25%-50%-100% or more? And that wouldn't just be in a few big popular cities. With the increased population we could expect rapid increases in housing prices in many areas around the country.
We are just at the beginning of what will be a terrible housing crisis. Who will pay to solve it? It will require trillions.
13
In the old days as I understand it the servants for the people in the big house lived on the other side of the alley... That said -- IMO most housing in the US is hideously designed... (think of the density and beauty of something likea Tuscan hill town.. Housing is built with infterior materials secured at high cost-- take a look at the MESS made by the MTA is the restoration?? of the number 168th subway station. My take on the original brick vault was that it was sound -- and in any case -- waterproofing it and putting a drop fault-- prefab in which the color does NOT match the remaining original brick vault at the sides with which it will abut was expensive for sure...and there's still no elevator that goes from the lobby level to the street. AND the stupid MTA architects still put a step at the top of the staircases and only the exit at 79th and B'way on the S-W corner has a railing for the handicapped to use to help them step to the sidewalk. (Don't get me going on bad design -- cheap material and people who are millionaires providing these services to the government -- oh privatization and capitalization are so wonderful..) BTW it would not hurt to have the recipients of public housing be involved in projects to maintain and beautify the grounds (veggie gardens anyone or landscaped roofs?? ( as in Habitat for Humanity) -- Where there's a will there's a wat -- but all that there seems to be is greed and fear.
3
Are people objecting to "poor" people moving into their neighborhood? Or are they objecting to ugly apartment complexes ruining the look and feel of the neighborhood? Perhaps both, but I feel that if developers created more houses or multi-family units that blended in better, that were spread out in the community, and didn't isolate the affordable housing in a self-enclosed area, then it would be better for everyone. The goal should be for the affordable housing to integrate with the existing buildings in the neighborhood, so that the "poor" are not ghettoized within the "nice" neighborhood.
12
Ho, ho. Pretty funny, I must admit. Conservatives do not like to live in crime filled neighborhoods, no one does. At least they are honest about it. Wealthy liberals spout their guff, but, when it actually impacts them, their tune changes. Of course, all those conservatives are racists, and the liberals are merely thinking of their safety and property values. Chortle, chortle.
27
Ed from Maryland wrote:
"I can only assume that those that romanticize the urban poor must not have any intimate experience with them."
I'd like to Recommend this comment 100 times.
"I can only assume that those that romanticize the urban poor must not have any intimate experience with them."
I'd like to Recommend this comment 100 times.
36
I don't understand the assumptionshere that anyone needing affordable housing must be black or hispanic and somehow likely to increase crime. I know many white people like myself, college educated, who need affordable housing. There are millions of us, and the numbers will grow. I live in an area where the homes keep getting larger and more expensive. And rent is not the low-cost option it used to be. In fact many mortgages would be less, but the banks vastly prefer people with large incomes. So I rent, although I don't know how much longer I can afford to.
I live in an integrated neighborhood of working class people. Some receive subsides to live here. Everyone is my neighbor, friendly and helpful people. I feel safe around them. I think there is a lot of unwarranted fear about minorities, especially the "poor". People are people. I am not surrounded by thieves, rapists or gangs. I walk my dog late at night. People help my clear around my car when it snows. We all pull together. I know good kids and kids with problems, but they are all kids. Nothing you have to run away or hide from. I am tired of people who gin up monsters in their heads and then insist the world will end if those terrible people come anywhere near them. This is a different America than 40 years ago. The white bastion of isolation keeps you from things as much as it provides that wall you need. You need to change the way you look at things.
I live in an integrated neighborhood of working class people. Some receive subsides to live here. Everyone is my neighbor, friendly and helpful people. I feel safe around them. I think there is a lot of unwarranted fear about minorities, especially the "poor". People are people. I am not surrounded by thieves, rapists or gangs. I walk my dog late at night. People help my clear around my car when it snows. We all pull together. I know good kids and kids with problems, but they are all kids. Nothing you have to run away or hide from. I am tired of people who gin up monsters in their heads and then insist the world will end if those terrible people come anywhere near them. This is a different America than 40 years ago. The white bastion of isolation keeps you from things as much as it provides that wall you need. You need to change the way you look at things.
17
I endured 20 years in an urban low-income environment (New Brunswick, NJ). Our home was burglarized annually. We didn't bother to lock our cars; it would just add to the expense of lost property to have to replace the glass. When we'd go walking (never after dark) we always observed the ritual of removing all jewelry (including our wedding rings) and taking along only one key, which my husband would place in his inner pocket. One evening we came upon an elderly woman sitting on the sidewalk, blood streaming from her head, frantic because some guys had taken her purse and were no doubt heading for her apartment to use her keys.
We worked for years, never took vacation, saved our money, and finally moved to a nice suburban area. Or I did. My husband died before we had the means to relocate. As he was being cared for at home by hospice, the boom box noise and partying were going on all night.
And now, thanks to the Mount Laurel decision, I now have "affordable housing" 1.5 miles away. I've already experienced my first burglary. Why did my husband and I work and save all those years, to end up in the same environment.
I was a Democrat for years. Though I still might agree with many of their principles, nothing can overcome the noise and crime in my everyday life.
I have voted Republican ever since, and will continue to do so.
I still hear that boom box.
We worked for years, never took vacation, saved our money, and finally moved to a nice suburban area. Or I did. My husband died before we had the means to relocate. As he was being cared for at home by hospice, the boom box noise and partying were going on all night.
And now, thanks to the Mount Laurel decision, I now have "affordable housing" 1.5 miles away. I've already experienced my first burglary. Why did my husband and I work and save all those years, to end up in the same environment.
I was a Democrat for years. Though I still might agree with many of their principles, nothing can overcome the noise and crime in my everyday life.
I have voted Republican ever since, and will continue to do so.
I still hear that boom box.
56
Forcing people to live how one ruling elite group desires is dangerous and -- it is obvious to me -- that these particular authoritarian diktats are only the beginning. The LiberalProgressiveDemocrats will not stop until they are stopped. They have NO ultimate goals except to continue oppressing once-free Americans in their drive for power, raw power over "We the People!"
Http://www.periodictablet.com
Http://www.periodictablet.com
9
I think it is entirely disingenuous to make this white vs black racial issue. It is a color blind class issue. Which isn't necessarily much better, but it has nothing to do with race. I live in a neighborhood, The Avenues, with above average property values. Though we also have housing for just about every income level. There are multimillion dollar single family homes on large lots, 8 story apartment buildings with studio apartments, and just about everything in between. I think my neighborhood is a great example on how to successfully provide housing for people all along the income spectrum. Though to be fair, I don't think there is any government subsidized housing for the truly poor. But in it stead there certainly are apartments for the otherwise indignant that are paid for by the locally dominate religion. They just have to pay for it by going to church every Sunday while they find a way out of their situation. So that is kind of like government housing.
2
It is distressing that we do not recognize that housing which is safe and affordable for all is not something we should be trying to enable. Study after study show that this pays for itself in reduced crime, better parenting, better educational achievement, better jobs, and significant contribution to society and to our GDP. It pays for itself.
1
The specter of another Cabrini-Green project hangs over the head of any government attempt to subsidize housing for the poor. Will these be the working poor? If so, the results can be advantageous. Will this housing morph into another violent slum after the inevitable lawsuits for the inclusion "the least desirable"?
12
An on target piece. This is not only a matter of housing. Today, poor and minority families are forced to send their children only to the schools in their neighborhoods. Voucherizing education would likely expose wealthy white communities to a broader group of children and access to their schools would be based on lottery not the ability to afford housing. BTW - Arne Duncan recently made this point by choosing to send his children to the $30K Chicago University Lab School rather than the public schools in the neighborhood that he lives in.
President Obama recently made moves to release non-violent drug dealers from prison. Should we encourage those individuals to participate in public housing in your neighborhood to "give them a second chance"?
Progressive policies are great when the costs are born by other tax payers and the social impact is minimal. Mr. Edsall asks the right question. How will those of privilege react?
President Obama recently made moves to release non-violent drug dealers from prison. Should we encourage those individuals to participate in public housing in your neighborhood to "give them a second chance"?
Progressive policies are great when the costs are born by other tax payers and the social impact is minimal. Mr. Edsall asks the right question. How will those of privilege react?
8
Low income housing is traditionally placed in the already struggling first-ring suburbs, which can't handle the added stress and soon spiral into poverty themselves.
I think already-struggling first-ring suburbs should not receive low income housing at all. Put the low income housing in wealthy towns that can handle it and it will work out best for kids on both sides of the divide; they will learn from each other.
I think already-struggling first-ring suburbs should not receive low income housing at all. Put the low income housing in wealthy towns that can handle it and it will work out best for kids on both sides of the divide; they will learn from each other.
9
I have a Section 8 apartment complex about three blocks away from my very middle-class neighborhood, and the residents are wonderful neighbors. They, like the homeowners in the area, want better lives for their families, and they know that a strong community is important to that goal. The adults I've met are kind and hard working. The kids are typical kids, and very well behaved. We had more trouble with some university frat boys who rented a house nearby for a while.
8
I'm not comfortable with the tone of this article. As someone who is a member of a community land trust, I know that affordable housing projects take perseverance, a joyful heart, and a thick skin. We make some uncomfortable: We alter the landscape; we assist a few low income families acquire housing at below market rates (with resale strings attached) while others see the more subtle benefits. We are proud of those alterations. They advance livability, resiliency, and safety in our neighborhoods---and we trumpet the contributions of our families. We set high standards in energy efficiency, maintenance, preservation of the public subsides, and---foremost---communication. We build community knowing success can be measured by what stories we tell ourselves. Hunkering down is inevitable only if you buy into status driven consumerism. We don't worry about keeping up, we don't hide from the working parts of our buildings, our society. We keep ourselves mindful, we keep the basement door unlocked.
6
The last of the low income residents are being forced out of our town, which is fast becoming a very expensive place to live. We were just lucky enough to buy before home prices went sky high. It's sad to think of how far people have to commute to all their low wage support jobs here, because no gardeners, retail sales persons, restaurant workers, nannies, or housekeepers can afford to live anywhere near here. They do come to our parks, usually with their children, and enrich us all with diversity of language and cultures. I'm one of many residents in the SF Bay area who wish we had subsidized housing for these wonderful, hard working people. There's no reason why low income housing can't be modest, beautiful, and clean, and designed to encourage well being, and discourage crime.
8
The behavior and achievement of the minority poor, rooted as it is in cultural and social deficits, will not improve much; the racial antagonism will metastasize.
12
It's an interesting problem that will not be solved the way the Supreme Court or HUD expects.
Affluent people are not limited geographically. If they believe that their neighborhood is declining, they will move to a new neighborhood.
White flight is a very real phenomena that cannot be prevented by legislation.
Assuming that wealthy whites vote republican, and low income minorities vote democratic, the more the whites flee, the more democratic the neighborhood will become.
Affluent people are not limited geographically. If they believe that their neighborhood is declining, they will move to a new neighborhood.
White flight is a very real phenomena that cannot be prevented by legislation.
Assuming that wealthy whites vote republican, and low income minorities vote democratic, the more the whites flee, the more democratic the neighborhood will become.
8
Let me get this straight: we're constantly told diversity rocks and there is no difference between cultures and we're all equal and no ethnic group's thoughts, mores, habits, work ethic, and attitudes about constraints are better than any other, but in order for low income African Americans to lead a better life they need to move to a neighborhood where lots of wealthy white people live?
And what happens when the accepted norms of incidences of fighting, gang activity, stealing, carrying a gun and teenage pregnancy clash? Will civil rights leaders counsel their constituents in these new neighborhoods to work to adopt the different standards of behavior? Or will there be demonstrations preaching tolerance from the existing residents and an acceptance of the difference?
And what happens when the accepted norms of incidences of fighting, gang activity, stealing, carrying a gun and teenage pregnancy clash? Will civil rights leaders counsel their constituents in these new neighborhoods to work to adopt the different standards of behavior? Or will there be demonstrations preaching tolerance from the existing residents and an acceptance of the difference?
20
About at this point we need somebody like Jonathan Swift to come along and make a "modest proposal" such as:
"A law must be passed that in communities where affordable housing is to be constructed, the existing residents must by law remain in their own houses for a minimum of ten years."
Otherwise you get middle class flight and the property values fall. One must always look down at the path one is on to see if it is paved with good intentions. If it is, there might be reason to be nervous.
There is a limit to what social engineering can accomplish.
"A law must be passed that in communities where affordable housing is to be constructed, the existing residents must by law remain in their own houses for a minimum of ten years."
Otherwise you get middle class flight and the property values fall. One must always look down at the path one is on to see if it is paved with good intentions. If it is, there might be reason to be nervous.
There is a limit to what social engineering can accomplish.
5
NYT commenters are ususally very liberal but when its something that might affect them it turns into WSJ. It's so alarming. NIMBY-sim I would associate with conservatives at its best. Where would you propose low income housing go then? Anywhere but next to you? And if everyone thought that way?
Why do rich people believe the worst of poor people?
Why do rich people believe the worst of poor people?
5
Why? Baltimore.Detroit,Camden,Newark,Irvington just to name a few.
8
You can have some of my tax dollars to put a roof over the head of the impoverished but to insist the roof include granite counter tops is absurd! When did public assistance to housing become a free ride in a neighborhood I worked hard to live in? It's not a race thing. I grew up in poverty, on food stamps and welfare. Worked hard and now live in an affluent building (not neighborhood). Why should you be able to live in the same building because you are poor and decided working at Wal-Mart was a career choice? Yes, this will line people up to vote Republican.
20
A good deal of the wealth of a middle-class family is tied-up in their house. Moving an affordable housing project into their neighborhood will reduce its value. Why would you not expect resistance, even from the most liberal person? Who will compensate these people for their loss? A case of good intentions doing great damage.
18
I once volunteered on a housing authority board in my home town. I left shortly after recognizing the fact that several of the other members were secretly on board working to prevent or slow any further development of low income housing. Those people were not helping those who can no longer afford to live where they grew up and generations of their family have lived. This is happening in desirable locations across the nation, particularly in coastal communities. And yes, they deserve a chance to live in these now unaffordable towns. Don't tell them they all have to leave. They are teachers, firefighters, EMTs, landscapers and the like.
Also, not all who require subsidized housing are dark skinned.
There are plenty of struggling, white people everywhere.
This is not a racial issue alone, it is class.
Also, not all who require subsidized housing are dark skinned.
There are plenty of struggling, white people everywhere.
This is not a racial issue alone, it is class.
10
"The 2009 consent agreement is similar to decrees that jurisdictions across the country will be facing as the Supreme Court and HUD rulings are put into action."
Where is there any support for this assertion? Which HUD rulings? Is this merely a prediction? If so, it's pure speculation. Hopefully, unlike Westchester County, other communities will actually seek to affirmatively further fair housing, as they are obligated if they take HUD money, explicitly certifying that they do so.
In the absence of any oversight or enforcement whatsoever, it's true that some jurisdictions might be content to do nothing and let their certifications be empty words, so some oversight is always necessary. But no one actually wants pervasive segregation. No one wants absence of opportunity or decrepit community conditions. Right?
Where is there any support for this assertion? Which HUD rulings? Is this merely a prediction? If so, it's pure speculation. Hopefully, unlike Westchester County, other communities will actually seek to affirmatively further fair housing, as they are obligated if they take HUD money, explicitly certifying that they do so.
In the absence of any oversight or enforcement whatsoever, it's true that some jurisdictions might be content to do nothing and let their certifications be empty words, so some oversight is always necessary. But no one actually wants pervasive segregation. No one wants absence of opportunity or decrepit community conditions. Right?
1
on the street, Mr. Edsall, they would say you talk the talk but do you walk the walk? the same question holds for the editorial board of the nyt.
__
in breezy point, queens there is a large group of white police officers living in million dollars houses. why not put low income housing in breezy point. police could roll out of bed and do community policing without a commute. the crime rate would be near zero since the police would be protecting their families.
__
in breezy point, queens there is a large group of white police officers living in million dollars houses. why not put low income housing in breezy point. police could roll out of bed and do community policing without a commute. the crime rate would be near zero since the police would be protecting their families.
7
The lack of mobility between classes, is partially caused by a loss of middle class jobs, but is is mostly due to the cultural chasm between poor whites and blacks, and the upper classes to which they aspire. I have seen it in rural white E. Kentucky and minority Seattle neighborhoods.
The knowledge and skills that it takes must be drilled into the world view and value system of children starting from birth, and adults that do not have this already, are unable to pass this cultural skill on to their kids.
It is more fundamental than we think. I have read numerous articles that point out that poor families speak far fewer words to their children. This limits their devopment of certain skills, and their ability to take advantage of what is offered them in school.
We can put rich and poor families side by side in houses, but what matters is whether the adult in each house is sitting at their child's bedside, reading them to sleep.
In my city, Seattle, we spend much more per student in our public schools in the poor end of town than in the rich ones. The teachers bend over backwards to get their students to do their homework, but unless the parents are allies, checking up on their kids and insisting they do it, it is less likely to happen. No doubt the extreme stress of working several jobs may be a factor, but these parents are also much less likely to even show up for parent teacher conferences. The message to their children is clear.
School is not that important.
The knowledge and skills that it takes must be drilled into the world view and value system of children starting from birth, and adults that do not have this already, are unable to pass this cultural skill on to their kids.
It is more fundamental than we think. I have read numerous articles that point out that poor families speak far fewer words to their children. This limits their devopment of certain skills, and their ability to take advantage of what is offered them in school.
We can put rich and poor families side by side in houses, but what matters is whether the adult in each house is sitting at their child's bedside, reading them to sleep.
In my city, Seattle, we spend much more per student in our public schools in the poor end of town than in the rich ones. The teachers bend over backwards to get their students to do their homework, but unless the parents are allies, checking up on their kids and insisting they do it, it is less likely to happen. No doubt the extreme stress of working several jobs may be a factor, but these parents are also much less likely to even show up for parent teacher conferences. The message to their children is clear.
School is not that important.
44
Just to be clear, I do not blame poor families for their inability to take advantage of what opportunities may exist. The fact is that we have created a poverty trap in America, reducing such opportunities, and the result destroys the family structure, cultural integrity, personal responsibility, etc. But we must not think that by merely mixing housing up that we can create fundamental cultural, political, and economic changes that are needed. And then of course, there will be the question of just what cultural values are best. That is a question that goes to the heart of people's identity, because what I think is good and true is not what everyone else thinks is good and true.
2
uWhat if you kept this between the buyer/renter and HUD, Hud qualifies the buyer. Buyer finds house .Buyer pays mortgage, sends HUD receipt HUD rebates agreed amount each month. You need to front the first/last for a renter.
Buyer needs down payment again HUD fronts the money. Loses on this should not be more than what goes down rat holes today
Buyer needs down payment again HUD fronts the money. Loses on this should not be more than what goes down rat holes today
2
These are all thumbs in the dyke to much bigger social issues. Affordable housing in expensive communities have been shown to be beneficial for children under 13 who transfer their from poorer communities. However, forced integration has seldom been sustainable. The problems of poor communities are structural and cultural. The idea that integration will cause undue hardship to whites in these communities is confirmed by one study cited in this article and viscerally felt by many whites in their self imposed segregated communities.
At this point in time, I believe that many whites would be more comfortable with minorities that have similar socioeconomic backgrounds that came into their communities with somewhat equal affluence. This is the objective that we should be aiming out; economic equality for all Americans. Don't get me wrong, I certainly am not referring to income redistribution or reparations, only equal opportunity and a balanced playing field. Most of us white and black do not have that at this time.
At this point in time, I believe that many whites would be more comfortable with minorities that have similar socioeconomic backgrounds that came into their communities with somewhat equal affluence. This is the objective that we should be aiming out; economic equality for all Americans. Don't get me wrong, I certainly am not referring to income redistribution or reparations, only equal opportunity and a balanced playing field. Most of us white and black do not have that at this time.
15
I think the majority of these comments pretty much validate what Tom is speculating about here.
(Note: I am not saying the commenters are wrong or racist. But it is interesting that a normally "liberal" readership reacts this way; sort of like what we see every time the NYT runs one of it's pro-illegal immigration editorials).
There is a potential fault line here in the liberal vote; don't think for a second the GOP does not see this.
(Note: I am not saying the commenters are wrong or racist. But it is interesting that a normally "liberal" readership reacts this way; sort of like what we see every time the NYT runs one of it's pro-illegal immigration editorials).
There is a potential fault line here in the liberal vote; don't think for a second the GOP does not see this.
18
That's because the middle class does not particularly want to work even harder so the Dems can pander to Latinos and force us to have neighbors who expect us to literally hand them a house in the suburbs even if they drop out of tenth grade and have a dozen children.
6
I noticed it also, the comment sections normally skew left but this time not so much. One who has a dark sense of humor would be amused.
I'll look to see if I find it also after NYT immigrant articles. I know Fox News and the GOP base are up in arms there. It's quite interesting if as you say NYT commenters are also.
I'll look to see if I find it also after NYT immigrant articles. I know Fox News and the GOP base are up in arms there. It's quite interesting if as you say NYT commenters are also.
1
Born and raised in Chicago, sitll my favorite city worldwide. Come take a look at our South side, and the many millions poured into affordable hosung,( LBJ 's great society). A classic drug infested slum with record homicides on a continuing basis.
34
Are there no black families with the $81K median income that want to live there? That's a mom and dad, each making 40K. I suppose they don't want to rent, they want to go somewhere they can actually buy.
Why do liberals always want to mix the white elites with poor minorities in their schemes? Mrs. Obama did not like it when she was at Princeton, and she had two working parents and did not live in government housing.
I think the misguided part to the scheme is that someone should have to build GOVERNMENT housing. There are very few of these prime unaffordable cities, the rest are the BORING cities where it costs less because it does not have high property taxes, and every kind of service imanginable. The rents are cheaper there, so cheap you might not even need to be on a Section 8 voucher...you might not even qualify since the rents are so cheap. That is where poor people need to move.
Move to a boring suburb where it is cheaper, and the jobs will follow. There is nothing for todays minorities in the big cities except crime, and nothing they really want in Westchester. They can do it now, they can do it without a government program, and they might even like it in boring no-where's-ville.
Why do liberals always want to mix the white elites with poor minorities in their schemes? Mrs. Obama did not like it when she was at Princeton, and she had two working parents and did not live in government housing.
I think the misguided part to the scheme is that someone should have to build GOVERNMENT housing. There are very few of these prime unaffordable cities, the rest are the BORING cities where it costs less because it does not have high property taxes, and every kind of service imanginable. The rents are cheaper there, so cheap you might not even need to be on a Section 8 voucher...you might not even qualify since the rents are so cheap. That is where poor people need to move.
Move to a boring suburb where it is cheaper, and the jobs will follow. There is nothing for todays minorities in the big cities except crime, and nothing they really want in Westchester. They can do it now, they can do it without a government program, and they might even like it in boring no-where's-ville.
11
I read dozens of comments every day associated with NY Times articles. Not surprisingly, they vast majority are left/liberal, including my own contributions. It is fascinating to see the difference in the tone of commenters when liberalism comes to the liberals' doorstep (including my own). The reality of this issue seems to test the ideals of middle and upper class liberals.
Speaking for myself, I think the concern is less about racial mixing as it is economic mixing. I live in an affluent area of blue state Maryland with low crime rates and high property values. Maryland is home to many middle and upper class African Americans, many are my neighbors. People are eligible for public housing if their household salary is $70,000 or less, a provision that I had no trouble with when it was enacted.
This is not an issue of racial mixing--we already have a much higher than average percentage of minorities in this city and county. It is one of the great things about where I live. The economic mixing concerns me.
Today I have learned that I would rather pay higher taxes under a Democratic regime than risk plummeting property values or increased crime rates that could come from the HUD plan. From other comments I've read, I may not be alone. I also can't help feeling a little guilty about it.
Speaking for myself, I think the concern is less about racial mixing as it is economic mixing. I live in an affluent area of blue state Maryland with low crime rates and high property values. Maryland is home to many middle and upper class African Americans, many are my neighbors. People are eligible for public housing if their household salary is $70,000 or less, a provision that I had no trouble with when it was enacted.
This is not an issue of racial mixing--we already have a much higher than average percentage of minorities in this city and county. It is one of the great things about where I live. The economic mixing concerns me.
Today I have learned that I would rather pay higher taxes under a Democratic regime than risk plummeting property values or increased crime rates that could come from the HUD plan. From other comments I've read, I may not be alone. I also can't help feeling a little guilty about it.
21
I really appreciate your comment, Michael. I'm always amazed at the finger-wagging from fellow liberals who live in cities that are nearly 100% white and way more affluent than most.
Unlike them, I do not have a romanticized view of the urban/suburban poor. I lived in a lower income black community for 15 years, thinking I was "doing the right thing," and the ongoing nonsense I experienced would make many liberals seriously question their values.
Been there, done that. No guilt here.
Unlike them, I do not have a romanticized view of the urban/suburban poor. I lived in a lower income black community for 15 years, thinking I was "doing the right thing," and the ongoing nonsense I experienced would make many liberals seriously question their values.
Been there, done that. No guilt here.
4
I fear that scattered site low income housing will be as much a political disaster for the Democrats as was racial busing for integration. That policy cost the party much of its white working class support, and helped give us the Nixon Presidency.
The uproar over the Lindsay administration's effort to put public housing in the liberal middle class Jewish area of Forest Hills was an example of just how politically sensitive this issue can be.
Many Black politicians privately do not want their constituents/voters moved out of their districts. This scattering of the Black vote is referred to as quote bleaching unquote when Congressional districts are gerrymandered in the South.
In short, Federal housing policy should be limited to strictly enforcing non-discrimination in sales and rental.
The uproar over the Lindsay administration's effort to put public housing in the liberal middle class Jewish area of Forest Hills was an example of just how politically sensitive this issue can be.
Many Black politicians privately do not want their constituents/voters moved out of their districts. This scattering of the Black vote is referred to as quote bleaching unquote when Congressional districts are gerrymandered in the South.
In short, Federal housing policy should be limited to strictly enforcing non-discrimination in sales and rental.
17
Well, at least conservatives aren't hypocrites about wanting to live in a nice community, without the level of "risk behaviors" that Mr. Edsall notes are more prevalent in lower income communities.
I live in a middle to upper middle class community, and could care less what skin color my neighbors have. But I would care about their values - I don't want a car on cinder blocks next door.
I live in a middle to upper middle class community, and could care less what skin color my neighbors have. But I would care about their values - I don't want a car on cinder blocks next door.
57
There are two facts that the Government can't change - land costs more in affluent areas and there is less of it available for new development. Project sponsors have to be able to cover the cost of constructing the project and pay the costs of the debt incurred for that purpose. In most cases, tenant rents on affordable housing projects are tied to their individual income levels, not how much it costs to build and operate the project. That makes this kind of development very difficult - even with multiple layers of governmental subsidies. That's the economic reality of why this problem will continue persist. Even in Connecticut where we have State statute 8-30g which allows developers to avoid the normal land use/zoning regulations if a community doesn't have the required level of affordable housing, we still see nothing being built in Greenwich. It's not because of discrimination on the part of anyone - the land just costs too much.
7
The Dems' answer is to increase the subsidy amount.
1
Certainly it is not paid for by the taxes on Donald Trump's immense wealth. The wealthy know how to hide their money. So the middle class and the poor pay the price, at the same time combatting the never ending Republican mantra of "I don't want to pay". Politically, the democrats take the heat.
12
You cannot force people become more successful, socially conscious, striving for self-realization by forcing them to live in neighborhoods above their means.
39
The city of Berea just agreed to pay the Cleveland Browns 14 million dollars to keep the practice facility in their city. This form of extortion is how businesses have learned to hold citizens hostage to their demands and our legislators lining up for their season passes ... in some figuratively related form of course. The Cavaliers facility somehow has Cleveland Clinic's name plastered all over it. I wonder what creative accounting has your dying family member's doctor fee paying that?
4
How about this: get the drug dealers and convicted criminals out of the projects, therefore drastically improving the quality and availability of the housing, therefore improving the quality of live for the families living there, therefore making good schools a legitimate demand, therefore constructing a viable community instead of a violent ghetto in the middle of the "rich" folks .
Or, you can put a violent ghetto in the in the middle of the "rich" folks and see what happens. What happens is Detroit. Brute force instead of compassionate planning never works. That's not me, that's history.
Or, you can put a violent ghetto in the in the middle of the "rich" folks and see what happens. What happens is Detroit. Brute force instead of compassionate planning never works. That's not me, that's history.
28
Maybe this HUD scheme is to do just that, to sell the urban project land to upscale developers for gentrification, to make someone they know a profit.
5
in short you want to dump convicted criminals into the private apartment sector. these criminals living in public housing grew up in public housing. let them stay there with their families. it is a harsh reality but so be it.
I recall a housing program in Columbus,Ohio in the late sixties/early seventies that was a result of Johnson's Great Society Program. The goal was to support home ownership for low income people African Amnericans. Individuals who were employed in low paying jobs and had a steady employment history could qualify for modest homes that were built in a subdivision that were modest frame homes. The individuals who qualified were not in their early twenties or thirties. They were individuals who were approaching middle age but still renting. The homes had some land, not a lot. The subdivision was not in the inner city urban area. The homeowner purchased the house through a subsidized mortgage program with a 30 year mortgage. The mortgage payment was very low. The stipulation was that they had to live in the house and not attempt to sell it until the mortgage was paid off. It was a program that l helped out low income people at the stage in their life where they were not likely to improve their income due to lack of income and education.
My aunt purchased one of the homes when she was in her mid forties. She was proud of her home and took good care of it as did others in the subdivision. She would have still been renting had it not been for that program. After my aunt died the house was inherited by her children.
Affordable home ownership should be the goal, not subsidizing rentiers.
My aunt purchased one of the homes when she was in her mid forties. She was proud of her home and took good care of it as did others in the subdivision. She would have still been renting had it not been for that program. After my aunt died the house was inherited by her children.
Affordable home ownership should be the goal, not subsidizing rentiers.
20
Exactly.
The Kenner Commission Report, released in 1968 following the urban rebellions, stated that the United States was “moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal….What white Americans have never fully understood—but what the Negro can never forget—is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.”
Twenty-five years later, Douglas S. Massey & Nancy A. Denton, in their powerful book, “ American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass,” stated that, “ …dismantling the ghetto and ending the long reign of racial segregation will require more than specific bureaucratic reforms; it requires a moral commitment that white America has historically lacked. The segregation of American blacks was no historical accident; it was brought about by actions and practices that had the passive acceptance, if not the active support, of most whites in the United States. Although America’s apartheid may not be rooted in the legal strictures of its South African relative, it is no less effective in perpetuating racial inequality, and whites are no less culpable for the socioeconomic deprivation that results.”
Who pays? Those who benefited, of course.
Twenty-five years later, Douglas S. Massey & Nancy A. Denton, in their powerful book, “ American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass,” stated that, “ …dismantling the ghetto and ending the long reign of racial segregation will require more than specific bureaucratic reforms; it requires a moral commitment that white America has historically lacked. The segregation of American blacks was no historical accident; it was brought about by actions and practices that had the passive acceptance, if not the active support, of most whites in the United States. Although America’s apartheid may not be rooted in the legal strictures of its South African relative, it is no less effective in perpetuating racial inequality, and whites are no less culpable for the socioeconomic deprivation that results.”
Who pays? Those who benefited, of course.
2
I am all for this type of program, but I can see the concerns with building large apartment complexes in these areas. The whole idea is to create spaces where the sour environment of concentrated poverty is diluted out. The buildings have to have few enough units that its residents do not feel sufficiently insulated in a mini- island-Project. There are lots of plans available for 10-or-less unit buildings. Plus, if there are lots of smaller dwelling scattered about, everyone who already lives there will live near one and no none of them will feel especially put upon compared to everyone else.
4
A very simple solution to those neighborhoods who do not want low-income housing forced down their throats by the federal government is to just declare their city, town or county a sanctuary zone. It's obvious that the federal government, this administration especially, hold such zones in high esteem, just look at San Francisco!
6
You're right, and since sanctuary cities/counties/states are obviously allowed, where else can we expand that practice? Say NO to the federal government!
It's more that the well to do who will take offense. These plans are to move the poor into solid middle class, or better, neighborhoods. There are lots of people who are a bit better off than poor who would also like to move into such neighborhoods. That these people get passed over so that the government can pay for even poorer people to get what they would want, is not a recipe getting the working class to appreciate the government.
23
It would be fair but this is not how the government works!
The irony is that segregation is more severe in liberal Democratic Westchester because of the weakening of private property rights through restrictive zoning , the absence of which has permitted more affordable housing in the South.
2
Excellent analysis, Mr. Edsall.
.
For eight years I lived in Southwest Houston, near a neighborhood called Sharpstown. It was developed as suburb in the 1950s, and overbuilt with apartments in the 1970s and 1980s. Today it represents the future of American cities: working class, very diverse (whites are a minority). I served as a Super Neighborhood President, and I learned a few things.
.
First, people have the wrong dea about low income housing. They see a slum, and they call it "section 8 housing." In many cases those slums are actually just slums. The owners know their properties could never pass the inspections required to accept vouchers, so they don't bother trying. They keep costs low by deferring maintenance. Then they claim they're doing everyone a favor when in face they're making things worse.
.
Second, when HUD comes to neighborhoods, and they do it the right way, they can be welcomed with open arms. What is the right way? Listen first to what the neighbors need and want in their community. Address those needs and wants in a holistic way. I've seen them do it.
.
Third: the question of moving poor youths to wealthy areas is, to me, a cop out. We need to ask ourselves: why do these kids do better in wealthier areas? The answer is: wealthier areas have fewer gangs and crime, better policing, better schools, more jobs, grocery stores.... It would be much better to confront these issues head on, than to evade them as HUD is doing.
.
For eight years I lived in Southwest Houston, near a neighborhood called Sharpstown. It was developed as suburb in the 1950s, and overbuilt with apartments in the 1970s and 1980s. Today it represents the future of American cities: working class, very diverse (whites are a minority). I served as a Super Neighborhood President, and I learned a few things.
.
First, people have the wrong dea about low income housing. They see a slum, and they call it "section 8 housing." In many cases those slums are actually just slums. The owners know their properties could never pass the inspections required to accept vouchers, so they don't bother trying. They keep costs low by deferring maintenance. Then they claim they're doing everyone a favor when in face they're making things worse.
.
Second, when HUD comes to neighborhoods, and they do it the right way, they can be welcomed with open arms. What is the right way? Listen first to what the neighbors need and want in their community. Address those needs and wants in a holistic way. I've seen them do it.
.
Third: the question of moving poor youths to wealthy areas is, to me, a cop out. We need to ask ourselves: why do these kids do better in wealthier areas? The answer is: wealthier areas have fewer gangs and crime, better policing, better schools, more jobs, grocery stores.... It would be much better to confront these issues head on, than to evade them as HUD is doing.
14
The Great Schools in wealthy areas do not spend their money on government social services, they spend their money on college prep courses and they have the best teachers, because frankly, teachers like teaching, they don't like playing teacher cop or coddling misbehaving students. If you want good schools in urban areas, move the social services to a community center and let lesser paid individuals than teachers handle the problems, and let the police take care of any crime, not the principal. None of that happens in the best schools.
15
I agree, Sundra. We saw this in Sharpstown. The high school was terrible for a long time. It fell into what I call the "poverty trap" - where a school focuses so much on social services that it ceases to be a school. This is starting to change, under a new Principal who started (I think) in 2011. But it's a really long, difficult process fraught with political risks.
.
I have to admit, though, that the changes in Sharpstown came too slow for me and my family. Our three year old will be starting school soon, and it will be out in the suburbs. I know, I'm one to talk about cop outs. But I've got to do what I've got to do.
.
I have to admit, though, that the changes in Sharpstown came too slow for me and my family. Our three year old will be starting school soon, and it will be out in the suburbs. I know, I'm one to talk about cop outs. But I've got to do what I've got to do.
2
Time to fire bad cops, bad firemen, bad teachers, bad principals, bad bureacrats -- and to limit pensions paid to all of the so-called public servants ( these are also people who are on welfare-- if you think about it -- but their welfare costs more.) Build luxury apts. blds on the parking lots in the housing developments-- so interesting the luxury developments on Columbus Ave. in between Mitchel Llama -- and the Amsterdam Housing project. No that are has both Whole Foods and Associated!!
Just through the White predominance of our culture, Blacks have been excluded for centuries. Even though the Whites have absorbed Rock & Roll, the child of African-American Blues, and even though White people listen to Jazz and Hip Hop, and dance the dances that accompany those strains, there is still inherent fear in the White population, of the Dark Skinned; of course, Whites imitate the Dark Skin, even to the point of danger, in tanning booths.
Not one white person I know has any recollection of any ancestor who was racially held in Slavery. All African Americans I know have Slavery in their Ancestral background. Think about this remarkable difference; you see it most clearly on the PBS show "Antique Roadshow", all Whites, a rare Black face.
America must accept that Black people have amounted to great success, but the vast majority has not, nor will they, inherit anything from any deceased family member, and many Whites afford their first home purchase using such inheritances and gifts, as down payments.
This lack of "nobles oblige" has caused many revolutions, and a continuance of our worrying how much "fair play" will cost is a blatant insult to the economically oppressed. Worry about money spent on wars but do not be against affordable housing for the majority of the poor, who outnumber the wealthy whites by far.
Not one white person I know has any recollection of any ancestor who was racially held in Slavery. All African Americans I know have Slavery in their Ancestral background. Think about this remarkable difference; you see it most clearly on the PBS show "Antique Roadshow", all Whites, a rare Black face.
America must accept that Black people have amounted to great success, but the vast majority has not, nor will they, inherit anything from any deceased family member, and many Whites afford their first home purchase using such inheritances and gifts, as down payments.
This lack of "nobles oblige" has caused many revolutions, and a continuance of our worrying how much "fair play" will cost is a blatant insult to the economically oppressed. Worry about money spent on wars but do not be against affordable housing for the majority of the poor, who outnumber the wealthy whites by far.
4
"the wealthy whites". Do you live in the US? If you do surely you must have discovered, if you were curious, that a great number of whites are anything but wealthy. Because of the Wall Street follies many of these folks have now joined the ranks of the lower class. Who watches out for them? Who takes care of them? Certainly not the government. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
1
Thank you Thomas Edsall,
I live in a country run as a social democracy. Here in Quebec the vast majority of the electorate have an annual family income income of between 40-80k. They are the focus of government programs in health education and welfare. Pensioners such as my wife and myself are recipients of the government focus on our needs and grateful we left the Midwest to spend our retirement in our socialist enclave.
Our children and grandchildren are Hilary democrats thanks to very elite schools and an economy geared to high income earners. A 50 K job provides security, better housing, better schooling, better food and better healthcare than 100K does in Chicago so my wife sends her political contributions to Bernie.
Bernie should be running in the GOP primaries because it is the GOP primary voter who has the most to gain from a Bernie presidency. Trying to persuade Reagan Democrats that only Bernie offers the policies that will give them the wealth and security they once had is like spitting into the wind. The right wing propaganda machine sure is powerful.
I live in a country run as a social democracy. Here in Quebec the vast majority of the electorate have an annual family income income of between 40-80k. They are the focus of government programs in health education and welfare. Pensioners such as my wife and myself are recipients of the government focus on our needs and grateful we left the Midwest to spend our retirement in our socialist enclave.
Our children and grandchildren are Hilary democrats thanks to very elite schools and an economy geared to high income earners. A 50 K job provides security, better housing, better schooling, better food and better healthcare than 100K does in Chicago so my wife sends her political contributions to Bernie.
Bernie should be running in the GOP primaries because it is the GOP primary voter who has the most to gain from a Bernie presidency. Trying to persuade Reagan Democrats that only Bernie offers the policies that will give them the wealth and security they once had is like spitting into the wind. The right wing propaganda machine sure is powerful.
3
The immediate question is whether the county executives claim is true "Their demands are outrageous. HUD wants no restrictions — in any neighborhood — on height, size, acreage, density, number of bedrooms and lack of water or sewers.". The second question is about community morality and ethics. The housing needs of those who serve are more acute and it is playing out across America where the servants cannot afford to either buy or rent quarters in the same location as the masters (look at any gated community or other high income area in the US like Westchester, Aspen, etc. etc. etc.). Affordable housing is a common good that benefits all in the community whether they know it or not.
6
The market rents for apartments in that town are not affordable, but the government will pay MORE for apartments there, than if the same people move to a cheaper town. No one is entitled to live in Westchester or Chappaqua. Well not unless Terry McCaulliffe is willing to help them fix up the mortgage.
2
Saundra, agree that no one is "entitled" to live in Westchester (or Methuen or Andover where we have friends living) but a good community does plan and does have at least some affordable housing if they are truly a good community. BTW, where is a cheaper town in the greater Boston area?
3
But Saundra, this is not the consensus. Yes, most people cannot afford to live in such tony areas and have resigned themselves to that. No one should have a right to live in a particular place unless they can pay for it. Apparently this is no longer the case. Mind you, not for everyone, but just a minority. No pun intended.
2
I have often described myself as a social democrat. I have a different problem with the Westchester County/HUD settlement than many writing here. I own a house in a mid-Westchester village. Adding 50 or so units of affordable housing would have little effect on the village. I would expect the new residents would be there because they wanted a nice place to live and would fit into our eclectic community.
In our village we have a number of Bee-line buses running through the village, have good schools with no majority ethnic/racial group, and have mixed housing stock, predominantly small lot suburban but also some multifamily which is actually in the realm of affordable. There are some walkably accessible stores in the village center. There is undeveloped and underdeveloped land in and near the village. It would be a perfect place to add some affordable housing. But if that happened it wouldn't qualify as part of the HUD 750 units. Why? We are already an integrated community, racially and economically. Instead many of the locations proposed have a paucity of affordable public transportation (Metro North should not count, it's not affordable in this context), no walkable shopping for necessities, certainly no affordable day care. Putting people where you have to be a two car family in order to get to work and shopping is not going to attract working class folks who are realistic about how they need to live.
In our village we have a number of Bee-line buses running through the village, have good schools with no majority ethnic/racial group, and have mixed housing stock, predominantly small lot suburban but also some multifamily which is actually in the realm of affordable. There are some walkably accessible stores in the village center. There is undeveloped and underdeveloped land in and near the village. It would be a perfect place to add some affordable housing. But if that happened it wouldn't qualify as part of the HUD 750 units. Why? We are already an integrated community, racially and economically. Instead many of the locations proposed have a paucity of affordable public transportation (Metro North should not count, it's not affordable in this context), no walkable shopping for necessities, certainly no affordable day care. Putting people where you have to be a two car family in order to get to work and shopping is not going to attract working class folks who are realistic about how they need to live.
13
I have noted this same issue in my community, although good public transportation options and frequency are challenging even in downtown Phoenix. Downtown Phoenix is currently mostly middle to low income but with the infusion of AZ State U's downtown campus and the gentrification of the surrounding historic neighborhoods, it is going the way of luxury townhomes and condos. Lower income and working class households are increasingly being priced out, pushed to suburban communities. Unfortunately, lower income suburbs often lack sidewalks and bike lanes that connect to areas that people need to go. Transportation policy and implementation and housing policy should align with the needs of people they will affect. I appreciate the efforts but think our decision makers need to dig deeper and get the direct input of lower income families who are supposed to benefit.
2
There is nothing good about lumping affordable or low income housing all in one place relatively undesirable location where everyone is poor and there is no better examples to aspire to. Plopping it into the middle of upper upper class neighborhoods is not a receipe for success either. Affordable housing is something that more and more of the population is in need of, not just lower income or minority groups, but partitioning it off in the fringes of wealthy neighborhoods isn't the answer either....the proposed site in Westchester - between a highway and railroad tracks is ridiculous as well as a dangerous idea....unsafe for children and how exactly will people be transversing those major thruways? Housing needs to be more affordable for the average American middle class working family, without the "stigma" of a special class of tax subsidized housing, it should be sprinkled amongst average and above average neighborhoods and not consigned to a big condensed "project" of poor and poorer low income groups. Whatever happened to "starter homes" for new families? Oh, those houses were either torn down for McMansions or the better ones are now out of reach for most people. That reflects an economy out of balance, that housing to be affordable, has to be subsidized by the government or no one will build it.
11
There are plenty of 1,000 square foot bungalows in inner-ring suburbs in my area. Those starter homes you speak of. 25 years ago a friend and her new husband lived in one of them, a few miles outside of the downtown district of a major midwestern city. Nice, neat, house-proud little dwellings, very well-built of brick, mostly, with little quarter-acre lots featuring edged lawns, lots of hostas, a fair amount of tacky religious statuary. Working class people with incomes that would be on the low end particularly in a union-heavy region, but neat, clean and safe.
I happened to drive near that neighborhood the other day for the first time in years and it was like driving through a third world country -- garbage, vandalism, disrepair, vacancies, most of the houses had those security bars/grates on the windows and and doors. The damage and decay was absolutely breathtaking; I would not have stopped at a red light for more than five seconds let alone stepped out of my car -- this in an area when not too long ago I used to happily sit on the front porch and drink beer with my friend and talk to passers-by, and where my friend had no qualms being alone if her husband was out of town.
Guess what the big difference is between now and 1990?
I happened to drive near that neighborhood the other day for the first time in years and it was like driving through a third world country -- garbage, vandalism, disrepair, vacancies, most of the houses had those security bars/grates on the windows and and doors. The damage and decay was absolutely breathtaking; I would not have stopped at a red light for more than five seconds let alone stepped out of my car -- this in an area when not too long ago I used to happily sit on the front porch and drink beer with my friend and talk to passers-by, and where my friend had no qualms being alone if her husband was out of town.
Guess what the big difference is between now and 1990?
8
Actually Starter Homes, were lower cost homes, built in suburbs that were in places where land was a little cheaper. The trouble is, there is nothing to move up to today. The units are occupied by people who would like to buy up, but there are no Move on UP houses available to keep the cycle moving. Today's wealthy two income couple is living in yesterdays workin mans one income dwelling. We need more 3000 sq. foot brand news, on mid size lots with 2 car garage. A glut of those units would move real estate, to free up smaller units at the bottom/entry level.
1
They made them all section 8 housing and everyone in the neighborhood is poor or poorer? White flight as soon as a minority or two moved in? Eroded tax base making it into a slum? Not enough money to fund infrastructure and education?
Those are the things that usually damage formerly nice enclaves.
Those are the things that usually damage formerly nice enclaves.
2
All politics is local, Mr. Edsall. All of it.
While we talk of flags, Israel and what SCOTUS has been up to, it's the local decisions affecting quality of life that hone the skills of tomorrow's leaders.
While we talk of flags, Israel and what SCOTUS has been up to, it's the local decisions affecting quality of life that hone the skills of tomorrow's leaders.
3
Mr. Edsall:
In one way or another we will all pay the political price for affordable housing. As a nation we have been failing at solving this problem for too many years. Warehousing people in structures that violate the aesthetic of any community serves no one well.
A more comprehensive approach requires more diverse participation from all
talent germaine to tackle such a shift in perspective. While no one wants their lives to be disrupted by arbitrary decisions, compromise can work if all involved have a say in the outcomes.
I might suggest Levittown as an historical experiment that had a fair share of success. The racial element inherant in this issue will not go away by decree.
Nor will the poverty that helps fuel it. Ownership of one's own home is the only viable way forward. Raising the minimum wage and providing a system
whereby the poor can actually begin to save without being exploited would be a start.
In one way or another we will all pay the political price for affordable housing. As a nation we have been failing at solving this problem for too many years. Warehousing people in structures that violate the aesthetic of any community serves no one well.
A more comprehensive approach requires more diverse participation from all
talent germaine to tackle such a shift in perspective. While no one wants their lives to be disrupted by arbitrary decisions, compromise can work if all involved have a say in the outcomes.
I might suggest Levittown as an historical experiment that had a fair share of success. The racial element inherant in this issue will not go away by decree.
Nor will the poverty that helps fuel it. Ownership of one's own home is the only viable way forward. Raising the minimum wage and providing a system
whereby the poor can actually begin to save without being exploited would be a start.
12
It seems sad that rather than effectively addressing the root causes of poverty, lack of decent education and work opportunities some in government resort to ham fisted social engineering. The poor need assistance directed at self motivated self determination not the continuos reshuffling of the deck.
19
While I think this policy is a mistake, it will take far, far more than this to drive me to the party of "rob the middle class," "give Big Business everything they want," and "let's make endless war."
Just look at today's front page. The GOP is determined to destroy the treaty with Iran, just as they want to end health care access for more people and marriage for all committed couples.
Just look at today's front page. The GOP is determined to destroy the treaty with Iran, just as they want to end health care access for more people and marriage for all committed couples.
11
People see that our government prioritizes special interest groups and loud constituencies with good lobbyists over doing the basic running of good government.
From a lack of policing the borders, inability to improve infrastructure, inability to provide cybersecurity while spending billions on unconstitutional collection and surveillance of citizens, inability of TSA to catch 95% of forbidden items, and so on and so on, the emphasis of shoving another government sponsored program down the public's throat isn't how you get buy in from those affected.
Policies that support more and better job opportunities, better sense on crime and incarceration, and realization by people that you can't always get something for free (and reinforced by plain talk from politicians) would be a good start.
In order for any policy or program to be successful, all stakeholders have to see that there is not only something in it for them, but there will be a long term improvement with the implementation of that policy.
Just shoving in low-income housing doesn't solve these issues, just distribute them, and as a result, are doomed to failure.
From a lack of policing the borders, inability to improve infrastructure, inability to provide cybersecurity while spending billions on unconstitutional collection and surveillance of citizens, inability of TSA to catch 95% of forbidden items, and so on and so on, the emphasis of shoving another government sponsored program down the public's throat isn't how you get buy in from those affected.
Policies that support more and better job opportunities, better sense on crime and incarceration, and realization by people that you can't always get something for free (and reinforced by plain talk from politicians) would be a good start.
In order for any policy or program to be successful, all stakeholders have to see that there is not only something in it for them, but there will be a long term improvement with the implementation of that policy.
Just shoving in low-income housing doesn't solve these issues, just distribute them, and as a result, are doomed to failure.
17
Congress is NOT unable to accomplish these necessary tasks, nor is it that we can't afford to do them. Congress has just elected to spend our money on other things THEY think are more important, like paying our "allies" not to do worse things than they're already doing, or building bridges to nowhere, or arming people we really can't trust, or incarcerating petty criminals for 30 years, or just slipping it into their own pockets. Less government is Republican-speak for ending social programs and normal government expenditures, like roads and sewers, not ending their out of control spending on special interests.
2
You've got one thing right. This is an issue that thrusts middle class voters into the arms of the republican party. This "solution" looks too much like a knee jerk reaction to a much more complex problem. I just read an article yesterday that said planting trees will produce the same outcomes. Sometimes the obvious choice really is best. Repair areas that are broken. Plant trees, fix the schools, create community clinics and incentivize fresh food groceries. Simply penalizing those who have worked hard to provide a good life by throwing away their security, financial and bodily, is the opposite of repairing. And like most jury-rigged repairs, it won't last long.
41
I promise, most Independents and erstwhile Democrats will NOT be thrust into the arms of the Republicans, these days, for any reason. I'd far rather live next to someone who is honestly trying to do better, than a dyed in the wool Republican. "Snakes! I HATE snakes!"
2
It's ironic that we applaud the large scale "gentrification" that is occurring in NYC (pre-war walk-ups being displaced with 55 story luxury apartments) while ignoring (conveniently) that the increased housing and living costs are driving sizable numbers of low income residents to seek alternate places to live.
New York City's history is one of socio-economic movement and changes in neighborhoods. The songs, stories, and movies of Americana are rich with tales of "the other side of the tracks". On my subway ride, I can't help but notice that no matter which stop we get off, we all ride the same train.
New York City's history is one of socio-economic movement and changes in neighborhoods. The songs, stories, and movies of Americana are rich with tales of "the other side of the tracks". On my subway ride, I can't help but notice that no matter which stop we get off, we all ride the same train.
8
Edsall raises interesting points but, as often as not, misses the boat about the actual political impacts of things like housing discrimination initiatives. Sure, at the level of local elections, things like the expansion of HUD housing might matter and drive some otherwise-Democratic voters into the arms of Republicans. But it won't work at the national level as long as the GOP pursues policies that are otherwise anathema to educated, socially liberal and economically moderate voters. A burning desire for war with Iran or massive tax cuts for the wealthy funded by reductions in Medicare is going to weigh more on the scale of voters' choices in 2016 than opposition to expanded HUD developments. Maybe if the GOP implements its rebranding effort it could make HUD development a wedge issue in places like New York in some future national election. But the national GOP of 2016 or 2020 or even 2024 seems utterly incapable of such movement.
4
Why the question when you already know the answer? As usual, you and I and our children will pay the dollar cost. The politicians in power at the the time of the doing, if it is ever done, will pay the political cost, no matter the party.........
7
The American taxpayer has been subsidizing professional sports teams by paying for their arenas and stadiums for decades while the STARS have been holding out for and getting ... get ready --- $25 million dollar a year contracts. That's got to be a bigger scam than even religion. Representative government??? No not really.
20
quick thought from a modest thinker: How about Westchester being incentivized to update it's zoning laws to allow for more housing clusters, ie. apartments or variations thereof, which can attract all different types of people that are also affordable for young singles, young families, etc. At the same time, if low income ethnic minorities are eligible to receive housing vouchers (as the article suggests) they have he option to move to these affordable units just like any other person. The NY region needs more housing in general and this would be a way to solve a problem that benefits everyone. At the same time, the wide open spaces of the suburbs are outmoded and I believe most planners on this subject agree that housing density is a far better route for the future of suburbs.
9
In the East Bay area of California, "over the hill", forced affordable housing has become a major election issue, along with the right of BART workers to strike and shut down this public transportation used by so many East Bay workers commuting to or close to San Francisco. Our State Senator, Assemblywoman and U.S. Representative are now middle-of-the-road Democrats or Republicans, a change from the more liberal near-past. Other factors certainly have influenced this change, but housing has been a potent issue.
More interesting is the increase in handgun ownership among some of my more liberal local friends and acquaintances, which based on conversations is due directly to possible changes driven by so-called forced housing. A few years ago they were avidly anti-gun. I would be interested in discovering whether this is a widespread phenomenon, or just anecdotal.
More interesting is the increase in handgun ownership among some of my more liberal local friends and acquaintances, which based on conversations is due directly to possible changes driven by so-called forced housing. A few years ago they were avidly anti-gun. I would be interested in discovering whether this is a widespread phenomenon, or just anecdotal.
26
The problem group in America is almost always young males and not just those of color. Safe middle and upper middle class neighborhoods ARE integrated - with young poor women of all races who often have kids in tow and have fled the perpetual trauma, victimization and crime of those poorer neighborhoods and violent males. The arm-flapping fringe lefties and corporate media have long missed the boat on the shifting sands: fewer teen girls are getting pregnant (save for latinos, which are seeing an increase in unwed teen pregnancies); more low income teen girls are graduating high school and then finding the means to get a job in order to pay for college, community college or vocational tech training, where they can turn a tidy middle class wage before the age of 30 - doing better than many traditional college grads. The girls get it, the boys don't, even after several trips to juvie lockup and then prison. There exist already numerous federal and state/local housing assistance programs funded with matching federal taxpayers monies. Some are public/private partnerships and faith based. Our small, benign middle/upper middle income neighborhood has some of the highest property taxes in the city, a large portion of which go to fund the more numerous contiguous low income neighborhoods, 24/7 emergency and law enforcement, ESL programs, elderly transportation assistance, and on and on. We already pay to lift them up, with not much hope of success. You can lead a horse to water ...
20
Presuming that local and national governments will continued to subsidize the relocation of low income families into higher income neighborhoods to meet fair housing requirements:
those governments should consider the idea that such families might need training in adapting their former social skills over to those used by the new neighbors with whom they will be socializing.
Any one of us will fail in a game if we haven’t picked up the same skills and know the same rules as the other players.
Upper, lower, middle, cool, mixed, laid-back? Whatever it covers, sameness seems to matter when it comes to neighborhoods.
those governments should consider the idea that such families might need training in adapting their former social skills over to those used by the new neighbors with whom they will be socializing.
Any one of us will fail in a game if we haven’t picked up the same skills and know the same rules as the other players.
Upper, lower, middle, cool, mixed, laid-back? Whatever it covers, sameness seems to matter when it comes to neighborhoods.
8
Issues like this one affirm why I'm an independent --- there are those in the Democratic party whose empathy for this society's downtrodden is miserably low.
1
Recognizing cause and effect is not racism. Frankly also this is not an explicitly racial issue so much as an income/wealth class issue (yes I recognize there is a high incidence of correlation between race and income but being explicit is important for getting people on-board on these sorts of grown up discussions). If minorities could afford to live in the "white" communities and would agree to the covenants the communities have in place to keep them nice and upscale, then I would submit that the "Whites" would not object. We should be focusing our attentions on the reasons why there is not decent income levels available for the lower & middle skilled in this country. The reasons are myriad; irrational trade policy, lack of control on executive pay, lack of accountability for executive decision making, idiotic immigration policy, poor worker protections vs aristocratic level of government deference to the "job creators", lack of rational estate/wealth taxation to prevent aristocratic like wealth/power, Corporations given amendment rights...the list goes on and on.
This silly fed policy is like giving someone morphine for a gunshot wound but doing nothing for the wound itself. Sure the pain goes away temporarily but the issue is still there.
This silly fed policy is like giving someone morphine for a gunshot wound but doing nothing for the wound itself. Sure the pain goes away temporarily but the issue is still there.
11
Mr. Edsall writes without any real understanding of the dilemmas of supplying affordable housing, which we have been grappling with in New Jersey for more than 40 years. Further, he seems to side, more and more often, with aging white voters who make up a declining share of the population and registered voters.
The new HUD rule says that a town or region will not receive affordable housing aid unless it puts together a credible plan to affirmatively provide affordable housing. Why would we provide government aid designed for this purpose without such a credible plan, as was the case before the rule change?
Whatever the wedge-sharpening skills of contemporary Republicans, demographic trends are strongly against them. How will they argue that it is better to keep ''certain people'' behind when those very same people make up an electoral majority?
It is best not for policy wonks like Mr. Edsall to be too bound to the past when they should instead focus on figuring out how to supply affordable housing in a framework that balances land use, rational planning and fiscal reality. Such a solution would make a big difference in the lives of millions of American families and the overall well-being of our society and is much preferred to stoking the fears of the declining white majority.
The new HUD rule says that a town or region will not receive affordable housing aid unless it puts together a credible plan to affirmatively provide affordable housing. Why would we provide government aid designed for this purpose without such a credible plan, as was the case before the rule change?
Whatever the wedge-sharpening skills of contemporary Republicans, demographic trends are strongly against them. How will they argue that it is better to keep ''certain people'' behind when those very same people make up an electoral majority?
It is best not for policy wonks like Mr. Edsall to be too bound to the past when they should instead focus on figuring out how to supply affordable housing in a framework that balances land use, rational planning and fiscal reality. Such a solution would make a big difference in the lives of millions of American families and the overall well-being of our society and is much preferred to stoking the fears of the declining white majority.
6
Few folks are against living next door to someone of color from an idealistic standpoint. But if you tell someone who has worked hard to afford high housing prices so that they can get in a good school district that all of a sudden other folks, who haven't worked as hard, who don't have as much skin in the game, and who will actually end up lowering their experience and lowering their home value will be moving in next door, then that's a recipe for disaster and lost equity. Folks will begin to move out if they see these changes as not improving their personal position.
23
Did it ever occur to you that your race (and the good schools you attended) may have been the deciding factor in your hard work paying off well enough to afford that affluent neighborhood--and that the prospective poor non-white neighbor may be working as hard or harder for less money because their inferior schools didn’t equip them with the skills and connections to get as good a job as you did? The squeaky wheel gets the most grease: the egregious outliers in terms of violence, drug abuse and deliberate dependency on the “system” get all the publicity because their behavior outrages people of all races and incomes. Here in Chicago, every time an innocent person becomes “collateral damage” of gang warfare, entire communities turn out in impassioned and peaceful protest: thousands of hardworking, morally upright, peaceful, education-valuing people of color for every victim of and participant in violence.
Don’t want socially destructive behavior in your own backyard? Start by committing to curb it in the ghettos and barrios: push for more jobs and schools there, and do what you can to make such jobs pay a decent wage (and pay higher wages if you’re the employer). Yes, ghetto/barrio life may be so bleak that for many, violence and crime seem preferable--but exponentially more ghetto residents work just as hard as or harder than we do for less. The success of scatter-site housing here is that you can’t tell at a glance which units are and aren’t subsidized.
Don’t want socially destructive behavior in your own backyard? Start by committing to curb it in the ghettos and barrios: push for more jobs and schools there, and do what you can to make such jobs pay a decent wage (and pay higher wages if you’re the employer). Yes, ghetto/barrio life may be so bleak that for many, violence and crime seem preferable--but exponentially more ghetto residents work just as hard as or harder than we do for less. The success of scatter-site housing here is that you can’t tell at a glance which units are and aren’t subsidized.
2
This is a solution in search of a problem
5
I could not agree more. Affordable housing will be a real test of "white liberals" and non white liberals that have sought sanctuary from the cities and rural poverty in the suburbs.
Many middle class and wealthy whites (and non whites) avoid "black spaces" at almost any cost. Although they are against racism and are for equality, they do it at arm's length - vote for liberal/progressive policies and candidates (e.g., President Obama) and support causes (e.g., attend black tie galas and raise money). But ask them to have poorer people - of any color - live near them or influence their children the NIMBY protests begin. Ask them to volunteer their time in "black space", forget it (with the exception of some who do faith based outreach and community service).
It is the height of hypocrisy. Rich Republicans are no better. The suburbs are basically "non-gated" gated communities. Self segregation.
What we need to do is fix our cities and the schools that are failing. But the real question is are our cities and schools the cause or the symptom of something else? My feeling is that the economic pressures on single family homes or two parent family homes have created a parental "vacuum" - the parents are either at work or home but exhausted. They cannot be the parents they want.
Affordable housing is not a solution but a band-aid covering a deeper issue - economic opportunity - and the lack of hope and aspiration and exhausted families. Fix that, the rest follows.
Many middle class and wealthy whites (and non whites) avoid "black spaces" at almost any cost. Although they are against racism and are for equality, they do it at arm's length - vote for liberal/progressive policies and candidates (e.g., President Obama) and support causes (e.g., attend black tie galas and raise money). But ask them to have poorer people - of any color - live near them or influence their children the NIMBY protests begin. Ask them to volunteer their time in "black space", forget it (with the exception of some who do faith based outreach and community service).
It is the height of hypocrisy. Rich Republicans are no better. The suburbs are basically "non-gated" gated communities. Self segregation.
What we need to do is fix our cities and the schools that are failing. But the real question is are our cities and schools the cause or the symptom of something else? My feeling is that the economic pressures on single family homes or two parent family homes have created a parental "vacuum" - the parents are either at work or home but exhausted. They cannot be the parents they want.
Affordable housing is not a solution but a band-aid covering a deeper issue - economic opportunity - and the lack of hope and aspiration and exhausted families. Fix that, the rest follows.
5
It seems from reading many of these comments that what people in the affluent communities object to is not the low-income part of the equation, but the lifestyle part. The objection seems be that the new arrivals live a different way than the established residents. In other words, behavioral issues. It seems as though the newcomers would be more welcome if they made an attempt to live like the other residents.
So, would it be unconscionable if the newcomers were given some advice or even classes for blending into their new environments? Maybe they've lived the way they do because no one ever cared before. Maybe they just need lessons, if you will, like people might receive tips on visiting foreign countries. Most guidebooks include such tips for travelers. Why not the same kind of tips for people who move into unfamiliar neighborhoods? Maybe the newcomers just need some help to understand that now it's important to park cars in driveways or garages, instead of on the street. Maybe they need to know that in their new home garbage cans have to be returned to the back yard or garage after pick-up. Or, that play equipment should go in the backyard, not the front. And, that neighborhoods require quiet at night and music must be turned low. Would that kind of thing be offensive to newcomers? I don't know. I always try not to offend when I travel abroad. Maybe the newcomers just need a little help in order to fit into their new communities.
So, would it be unconscionable if the newcomers were given some advice or even classes for blending into their new environments? Maybe they've lived the way they do because no one ever cared before. Maybe they just need lessons, if you will, like people might receive tips on visiting foreign countries. Most guidebooks include such tips for travelers. Why not the same kind of tips for people who move into unfamiliar neighborhoods? Maybe the newcomers just need some help to understand that now it's important to park cars in driveways or garages, instead of on the street. Maybe they need to know that in their new home garbage cans have to be returned to the back yard or garage after pick-up. Or, that play equipment should go in the backyard, not the front. And, that neighborhoods require quiet at night and music must be turned low. Would that kind of thing be offensive to newcomers? I don't know. I always try not to offend when I travel abroad. Maybe the newcomers just need a little help in order to fit into their new communities.
8
I think the problem is the 'newcomers' just don't care. They want their lifestyle and they want the rest of us to pay for it.
1
Once in a while, my nerves frayed from having to take home work evenings and weekends, I have asked people who are standing in front of where I live and blasting their car stereos please to lower the music. (If, frankly, you can call rhythmic shouting of four-letter words and the n-word -- funny I am forced to hear it but daren't write it -- "music.")
Do you know what the usual answer is? How about "F$&k you"? Or a silent turning UP of the volume?
Do you know what the usual answer is? How about "F$&k you"? Or a silent turning UP of the volume?
2
Two different questions:
1. Would you be willing to live next door to low-income black or hispanic people? (Yes, of course.)
2. Would you be willing to live next door to felons, drug-addicts or gang members of any race? (Uhhhh....no.)
If there was some way to separate the above outcomes, we could make this
politically palatable for people.
1. Would you be willing to live next door to low-income black or hispanic people? (Yes, of course.)
2. Would you be willing to live next door to felons, drug-addicts or gang members of any race? (Uhhhh....no.)
If there was some way to separate the above outcomes, we could make this
politically palatable for people.
48
This won't work unless the residents for these places are carefully screened. If the place is trashed and vandalized and the crime rate goes up as well, it will cause people's bias against the residents to increase. This is about class not race.
I have worked with low income whites and blacks. There are some that I would welcome next door. Others I would never invite into my yard or home because, let's face it, they can't be trusted and they're behavior is obnoxious and it's class not race that is at the root of this.
That said, this one issue will not cause me to vote Republican, at least not with the current crop of sound-alike corporate puppets.
I have worked with low income whites and blacks. There are some that I would welcome next door. Others I would never invite into my yard or home because, let's face it, they can't be trusted and they're behavior is obnoxious and it's class not race that is at the root of this.
That said, this one issue will not cause me to vote Republican, at least not with the current crop of sound-alike corporate puppets.
22
I consider myself a liberal and have voted mostly for Democrats. But I've also lived in an area with a high concentration of subsidized housing and been on the losing end, personally & financially, of being surrounded by people who have absolutely no skin in the game.
I ended up moving to a more affluent Republican area, and guess what? I couldn't be happier. My neighbors all take care of their homes & kids, the streets & stores are much cleaner, and crime is nearly nonexistent.
After 15 years at my previous home, I felt like a fool for investing so much and trying so hard to support a diverse community. Who wants to be the only one on the block who actually pays their own mortgage? Or earns an honest living? Now at my new home, I feel like I'm surrounded by people who are actually carrying the same weight.
I think Democrats need to think long and hard about who they will alienate if they keep bending over backward for the "have-nots." Taking middle-class "haves" for granted, and expecting them to absorb all the ills of the poor, is not a winning strategy. Especially when wealthy Democrats continue to be insulated from their own policies.
I ended up moving to a more affluent Republican area, and guess what? I couldn't be happier. My neighbors all take care of their homes & kids, the streets & stores are much cleaner, and crime is nearly nonexistent.
After 15 years at my previous home, I felt like a fool for investing so much and trying so hard to support a diverse community. Who wants to be the only one on the block who actually pays their own mortgage? Or earns an honest living? Now at my new home, I feel like I'm surrounded by people who are actually carrying the same weight.
I think Democrats need to think long and hard about who they will alienate if they keep bending over backward for the "have-nots." Taking middle-class "haves" for granted, and expecting them to absorb all the ills of the poor, is not a winning strategy. Especially when wealthy Democrats continue to be insulated from their own policies.
97
Affordable housing goals can have a direct cost on a community. All of the proposals call for higher concentration of families which in turn increase demands and costs, such as schooling, fire, law enforcement, and transportation.
If we look at Westchester County, which has some of the highest property taxes in the nation, being forced to add thousands of low income families only increases the burden.
Northeastern residents already get to pay a premium in their taxes courtesy of the AMT which penalizes them for living in a high tax state with additional federal taxes. Those taxes are then funneled to other parts of the country.
With this plan, they will be forced to pay even more locally.
If HUD thinks this is such a good idea, perhaps they can fund the additional costs themselves? Nah. Just another unfunded mandate coming from Washington.
If we look at Westchester County, which has some of the highest property taxes in the nation, being forced to add thousands of low income families only increases the burden.
Northeastern residents already get to pay a premium in their taxes courtesy of the AMT which penalizes them for living in a high tax state with additional federal taxes. Those taxes are then funneled to other parts of the country.
With this plan, they will be forced to pay even more locally.
If HUD thinks this is such a good idea, perhaps they can fund the additional costs themselves? Nah. Just another unfunded mandate coming from Washington.
21
Has anyone asked poor blacks if they'd like to be moved to subsidized housing in white neighborhoods? I'm betting their attitude would be similar to theirs on forced busing out of their predominantly black neighborhood elementary schools, across town to white, affluent public schools.
My cleaning woman's son rented a very nice townhouse apt in the side of my town that is predominantly white. He tried very hard to get his mother and two brothers to do the same, but they didn't want to do so - they wanted to be near their church and their friends and a familiar neighborhood. They weren't afraid they wouldn't be welcome - they just preferred their own neighborhood, warts and all.
All this social engineering does nothing for anyone. I didn't pay a high price for a house in a highly desireable neighborhood where my neighbors take good care of their homes and yards and which is zoned single family, to have someone decide that it is too white and that building a 5 story apt building for poor minority families on my block or the next block, was going to change their lives. It sure would change MY life when I needed to sell it to pay for a nursing home!!!
As for the improvement in income...$1600+ is considered significant enough to forceably change neighborhoods? That's not a one month mortgage payment in most of these neighborhoods.
Habitat for Humanity does a wonderful job of fixing up or building good, economical houseing, usually in poorer neighborhoods. We need more.
My cleaning woman's son rented a very nice townhouse apt in the side of my town that is predominantly white. He tried very hard to get his mother and two brothers to do the same, but they didn't want to do so - they wanted to be near their church and their friends and a familiar neighborhood. They weren't afraid they wouldn't be welcome - they just preferred their own neighborhood, warts and all.
All this social engineering does nothing for anyone. I didn't pay a high price for a house in a highly desireable neighborhood where my neighbors take good care of their homes and yards and which is zoned single family, to have someone decide that it is too white and that building a 5 story apt building for poor minority families on my block or the next block, was going to change their lives. It sure would change MY life when I needed to sell it to pay for a nursing home!!!
As for the improvement in income...$1600+ is considered significant enough to forceably change neighborhoods? That's not a one month mortgage payment in most of these neighborhoods.
Habitat for Humanity does a wonderful job of fixing up or building good, economical houseing, usually in poorer neighborhoods. We need more.
23
How about instead of arguing about low income housing -- where it should be, how much it should be, etc. -- why don't we pay people enough that if they work at a basic job, they have market-provided housing options?
17
There are 7 billion people on the planet. There are not 7 billion jobs - in a variety of economies where humans and human labor are becoming less necessary by the day. Deconstruct that down to just the U.S., and there are not 320 million jobs. The liberal utopia of every human livin' the dream is predicated in every way on taking from the few who work hard, giving to those who don't, proudly won't, and never intend to.
3
The US labor pool is less than the total population: a significant percent of Americans are under 18, retired, or unable to work due to disability or illness.
Your first two sentences are the myth upon which current economics is predicated. That is, with an abundance of labor, to employ as few people as possible and pay them as little as possible. The reality is, there is plenty of work that could be available to improve the current state of our infrastructure, health, housing, natural resources, and human condition (in general) if it were not for the priorities in how we allocate funds or, that we are willing to let so much human capital go to waste. To that end, there should be a job for everyone and, I agree, no one should "proudly" live off others.
2
I don't see why this issue is only presented in terms of race. In my small suburban neighborhood we're nearly all hispanic, college educated and middle to upper middle class incomes. If we were informed that low-cost housing was going to be built near our neighborhood in all likelihood we would react the same way as whites. And I imagine if whites were informed that trailer park whites were moving into the area they'd react the same way. This is less about race than it is about class.
125
It is about crime, most of it violent and all of it traumatizing to the victim(s). Matters not if is against the person or their valuables, there is no such thing as victimless crime.
13
I live in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, NY in a neighborhood this article describes. A few projects located in mostly white neighborhood. They are surrounded by coops and private houses. The projects is also the area where the crime is. I saw shooting, I saw black teenagers stealing beer from a local grocery store. It is not about the color of skin. I work with a black girl who knows vey well what is right and what is wrong. It is about the family and black culture.
46
What a stupid question, the poor always pay political and every other way, to think otherwise is delusional. The poor cannot 'walk', others can and do. As in education, choice is dollar driven, liberals always have their children in private schools. If you take the Texas ruling to its logical conclusion, everything in our society can be proven to dis-part impact. Voucher for education should be mandatory. What is the matter with you, Tom? Don't you know that you can have all the justice and freedom you can afford. True now, true tomorrow. Get real.
1
The broken clock of Ayn Rand was, for a rare moment, spot-on when she recognized, before the postwar suburban boom, that while the rich have the money to give them space, and the poor have no money and therefore no choice, it is the middle class that misses out, as it has the money for space, but the options (in 1943), did not yet exist. Simply put, while you cannot choose your neighbors, it seems baked into the American Dream that you can at least choose your neighborhood. And if you're middle class and live in a nice neighborhood, you will feel rich enough. Without that sense, why stay?
33
A Christian has an obligation to be "neighbor" to someone unlike himself.
This is quite the racially biased initiative. Why is it that only blacks and Hispanics ("non-white" Hispanics) are the only recipients of subsidies that will allow them to move into far nicer neighborhoods? What, there are no poor people of Caucasian or Mongolian descent whose lives could use a boost through affordable housing?
81
I hope you realize by now that cities don't reflect the demographic profile of the country at all. New York City is 25% African American and 28.6% Hispanic and Asians make up 12.6%. NYC is only 33% non-Hispanic White! Imagine if America as a whole actually looked like that! The United States as a whole is 62% non-Hispanic White and 77% White. You also have to remember that rural counties are not large enough to support their own public housing programs. There are certainly poor white Americans, but the urban poor are overwhelmingly concentrated in the inner city and they are overwhelmingly people of color.
1
Look at Mitchell-Llama and rent controlled apartments in NYC to see great presence of whites receiving subsidized housing. The only easy part of this situation is to do as you have and "flip the script." These programs are for poor people not just black. It just happens that percentage wise, blacks are represented much more highly than whites.
"The study compared “risk behaviors” among low-, middle- and high-income adolescents. The percentage of those who attack others or get into fights was 33 percent for low-income youth, 26 percent for middle income and 22 percent for high income. The same pattern was found for gang membership: 12 percent, 7 percent, and 5 percent; for stealing something worth more than $50, 18 percent, 13 percent, 11 percent; for carrying a gun, 19, 16, and 11 percent; and for births before the age of 18: 7 percent, 2 percent, and 1 percent."
The Urban Institute study underscores the driving forces of income and culture over race. Will moving low income people into subsidized housing in wealthier neighborhoods change these statistics, especially the birth rate to teenage parents at 7x that of high income households? If wealthy liberals believe it will, I expect we will see them step up and demand that Section 8 housing be built on their streets first.
I won't hold my breath on that.
The Urban Institute study underscores the driving forces of income and culture over race. Will moving low income people into subsidized housing in wealthier neighborhoods change these statistics, especially the birth rate to teenage parents at 7x that of high income households? If wealthy liberals believe it will, I expect we will see them step up and demand that Section 8 housing be built on their streets first.
I won't hold my breath on that.
47
Exactly.
Moving kids to wealthier neighborhoods will not make up for being born to a 17-year-old girl with a 75 IQ, no stable relationship, no education and no marketable skills.
Free, widely available birth control, free abortion (including transportation to and from) and if necessary $500 a month in cold hard cash for every month a young woman does not produce a child up to age 25 is what we need, not nine-story public housing forced into upscale neighborhoods.
Moving kids to wealthier neighborhoods will not make up for being born to a 17-year-old girl with a 75 IQ, no stable relationship, no education and no marketable skills.
Free, widely available birth control, free abortion (including transportation to and from) and if necessary $500 a month in cold hard cash for every month a young woman does not produce a child up to age 25 is what we need, not nine-story public housing forced into upscale neighborhoods.
4
The whole point of Section 8 housing, at least in middle-class white urban neighborhoods, is that most of it is indistinguishable from the rest of the multi-family housing stock. That mid-20th-sentury low-rise garden apt. complex at the end of the block, or those nice greystone 2-and-3 flats, likely contain several Section 8 tenants. That’s because Section 8 is defined not by the unit but the applicant’s resources and amount of voucher. I had a friend who was able to use Section 8 to rent a nice 1-BR in a near-luxury Gold Coast high-rise before he became too disabled to live independently. None of his neighbors knew his rent was any lower than theirs. And I used to represent multi-family-housing landlords, all of whose buildings contained one or more Section 8 tenants alongside their market-rate tenants.
“Affordable housing” does not necessarily mean ugly, tackily-built boxy fortresses built expressly to house poor people. It can mean that a certain proportion of those middle-income lowrise apt. buildings, townhouses, starter-homes be priced lower-than-prevailing-market rate, or in the case of Section 8, low enough for a voucher to cover the rent. (Even in a prospective condo-building, that some units be set aside for subsidized renters). Don’t let Republicans scare you into thinking that “affordable housing” means injecting a mini-slum into your nice neighborhood.
“Affordable housing” does not necessarily mean ugly, tackily-built boxy fortresses built expressly to house poor people. It can mean that a certain proportion of those middle-income lowrise apt. buildings, townhouses, starter-homes be priced lower-than-prevailing-market rate, or in the case of Section 8, low enough for a voucher to cover the rent. (Even in a prospective condo-building, that some units be set aside for subsidized renters). Don’t let Republicans scare you into thinking that “affordable housing” means injecting a mini-slum into your nice neighborhood.
3
The study comes to the somewhat obvious conclusion that children are influenced by their peer group, and that exposing poor children to a higher achieving peer group will raise their achievement levels.
A far more interesting question is whether exposing rich children to a lower achieving peer group will lower their achievement levels. I suspect that high income people think they know the answer to this question and that, not racial prejudice, accounts for much of the resistance to low income housing.
A far more interesting question is whether exposing rich children to a lower achieving peer group will lower their achievement levels. I suspect that high income people think they know the answer to this question and that, not racial prejudice, accounts for much of the resistance to low income housing.
The wide angle picture makes the site look more spacious than it is.
Tenants will live on this unsafe site, the town will gain a huge eyesore, and the per unit construction cost subsidized by taxpayers is higher than the purchase price of some market rate condos in town, but the concern of NYTs is that politicians of the Democratic Party will lose votes.
Tenants will live on this unsafe site, the town will gain a huge eyesore, and the per unit construction cost subsidized by taxpayers is higher than the purchase price of some market rate condos in town, but the concern of NYTs is that politicians of the Democratic Party will lose votes.
5
The question really is are are people opposed to ethnically and racially diverse neighborhoods where all residents fall into roughly the same economic class or are they opposed to bringing low income residents into a upper middle or upper income community. If it's the latter, as I strongly suspect, there will likely be potential impacts for Democratic candidates down the line.
My neighborhood is racially and ethnically diverse. Economically diverse? Not really, though 5-10 minutes away there are neighborhoods that are both.
My neighborhood is racially and ethnically diverse. Economically diverse? Not really, though 5-10 minutes away there are neighborhoods that are both.
5
Exactly
So Hillary, like all Democrats, will be self-proclaimed 'champions of the middle class' by touting Sanctuary Cities and the Africanization of their now peaceful neighborhoods? That's a sure fire platform that middle class whites will cheer loudly. You go, Girl!
5
I was active in a Chamber of Commerce in an affluent Southern California community that had a HUD housing project. One has to see the social dissension one of these complexes can have on a community to believe it.
One problem was that the prison system paroled "uncles" and "cousins" to relatives in the complex and so the community experienced the recidivism issue--which is an explosive one.
One problem was that the prison system paroled "uncles" and "cousins" to relatives in the complex and so the community experienced the recidivism issue--which is an explosive one.
29
This is another social engineering idea brought to you by the federal government.
You simply can't force people to live in a neighborhood filled with people of class known for crime and drugs. If they want it to work, there needs to be a screening process to ensure that the families who will live in the neighborhood, make an effort to be part of that community, as opposed to people who will just tear the community down and drive everyone out until it turns into another ruined Ghetto.
You simply can't force people to live in a neighborhood filled with people of class known for crime and drugs. If they want it to work, there needs to be a screening process to ensure that the families who will live in the neighborhood, make an effort to be part of that community, as opposed to people who will just tear the community down and drive everyone out until it turns into another ruined Ghetto.
10
Moving poverty stricken minorities into more affluent neighborhoods does not solve the problem of poor education, increased crime and lack of community involvement. Communities are made up of people who share common values and sense of well being. The reason a neighborhood like Englewood in Chicago is a drug infested, gang ridden high crime area is simply because the members of the community who are law abiding hide behind their doors and are unwilling or unable to stand up and say no more! Trying the same methodology of prove past failures and expecting a different result is naïve at best! If I lived in an area where forced affordable housing was to be built the for sale sign would be in front of my house immediately!
6
before the city government in new york city started to regulate rents in new york there was housing available to people from every economic class. affordable housing was built for the middle class by private developers the housing stock was kept in good physical shape. harlem was not always mainly black . Jews, Italians and Irish lived there. the government created this mess and now we have a federal government that will exacerbate the problem with ill- conceived social engineering.
10
The answer, at least in part, is to put a few affordable units in any future building or development. In that way, we do not create mini-Ghettos and the often-justified opposition to them that occurs.
3
That's the way Atlanta does it.
No one who has lived in a poor neighborhood has any illusions about living amongst poor people. Generation after generation, the best and the brightest move up and out, leaving only the elderly, the sick, and the dregs of society who prey on them.
(To those who insist this is 'racist', England has the same problems, where the vast majority of people in public housing are white. So many generations of families on welfare have lived in the same housing complex that there are genetic issues due to inbreeding.)
While there are people who are poor through no fault of their own, the vast majority are poor because they made terrible choices, took no responsibility for those choices, and compounded that with more bad choices, all the time demanding more and more entitlements they see as 'owed' to them because of (fill in the blank).
That these pathologies are taught by parents to their children is despicable, that their children repeat the same behavior with the same outcome is not surprising, and that no safe and stable neighborhood wants to see their environment destroyed is rational.
(To those who insist this is 'racist', England has the same problems, where the vast majority of people in public housing are white. So many generations of families on welfare have lived in the same housing complex that there are genetic issues due to inbreeding.)
While there are people who are poor through no fault of their own, the vast majority are poor because they made terrible choices, took no responsibility for those choices, and compounded that with more bad choices, all the time demanding more and more entitlements they see as 'owed' to them because of (fill in the blank).
That these pathologies are taught by parents to their children is despicable, that their children repeat the same behavior with the same outcome is not surprising, and that no safe and stable neighborhood wants to see their environment destroyed is rational.
47
I have worked very hard to save enough money to buy buy a small one bedroom apt. In the Condominium complex I live in. I have sacrificed the last 20 years making extra payments and in 2 years will have my mortgage paid in full. I can't afford a home in this area but that's the way our system works and its the best system. I am happy with what I have earned. Out of over 100 units at the complex, we have one Section 8 dwelling . Late night noise, domestic arguments, police visits and one noontime urination in the main courtyard (I personally witnessed ) all emirate from this one apartment. I can't imagine what would happen to property values if you added even one or two more section 8 units . I guess this is the transformation Obama promised.
50
And at the end, Mr. Edsall blandly ignores the evidence of the power of tribalism, including in some of the studies he quotes, and reduces racial equality to willingness by one party to sacrifice a quality of life s/he has worked incredibly hard to obtain to another party, who hasn't. Then Edsall wonders why the left is on the run.
Chappaqua is a beautiful rural area. Where on earth would low-income residents be employed? The town doesn't even have supermarkets any longer, only a few small groceries where nannies can pick up basics like milk, eggs, and peanut butter, but families order main meals in from local upscale restaurants. The low-income children would find themselves, in those nice local schools, not just in a different neighborhood but on a different planet among students virtually speaking a different language whose parents can throw huge resources at their children's education so that even the least intellectually equipped succeed. Are the emotional lives of those ill-prepared low-income children being pushed into schools like these, with parents who have never functioned at that level, being taken into consideration?!
The problem with ideology is that it's often at variance with reality on the ground. The left is shocked when this occurs and people resent their ox being gored.
Those "projects" built in NYC in the late 1940s were meant to be affordable housing. When WWII vets moved out, the next set of residents turned them into high-crime slums.
Chappaqua is a beautiful rural area. Where on earth would low-income residents be employed? The town doesn't even have supermarkets any longer, only a few small groceries where nannies can pick up basics like milk, eggs, and peanut butter, but families order main meals in from local upscale restaurants. The low-income children would find themselves, in those nice local schools, not just in a different neighborhood but on a different planet among students virtually speaking a different language whose parents can throw huge resources at their children's education so that even the least intellectually equipped succeed. Are the emotional lives of those ill-prepared low-income children being pushed into schools like these, with parents who have never functioned at that level, being taken into consideration?!
The problem with ideology is that it's often at variance with reality on the ground. The left is shocked when this occurs and people resent their ox being gored.
Those "projects" built in NYC in the late 1940s were meant to be affordable housing. When WWII vets moved out, the next set of residents turned them into high-crime slums.
27
Message to all you lucky "beachfront" water home owners and investors who are snatching up the best real estate in America and driving up prices -and taxes. All water land in America should have public domain status and belong to ALL of us. Hawaii has it. Time for average Americans in the rest of the United States to demand that WE have access to OUR beachfront.
2
Property values have no impact on total taxes. Only how they are apportioned within a jurisdiction. That is why a $5M condo owner pays less property taxes in NYC than a $1M home owner does in Jersey City.
How terribly sad that Mr. Edsall raises and chooses to frame this dialogue in the context of a possible loss of voters to the GOP, instead of calling out hypocritical elites who live in upscale Westchester County, rant about the need for integrated housing and Democratic ideals, then hang out a NIMBY sign. This became readily apparent when Obama tried to resettle a mere 100 illegal immigrant women and children in non-Western state Democratic strongholds last year, and most refused. The truth is that people of all socio-economic backgrounds vote in their own financial self-interest while telling others who are less well off to take a hit to their pocketbooks for the common good.
4
Edsall being the loyal person he is will do all he can to put the spotlight on Republicans. If the spotlight (along with an honest discussion) had been on the actions of the Democratic liberals for say the last 50 years, we'd be nowhere near as politically fragmented to the degree we are today.
I am so sick of "hard-working" white Americans who say they "made it on their own". No, you did not. No one makes it on their own and white people in America, particularly white men and families, have a distinct advantage. We get the good government, education jobs and research jobs. We get hired if we look right. We get home and education loans where people of other colors can't. I ask you, are you a harder worker than the gardener or housekeeper who takes care of your beautiful home or the teachers, fire fighters and law enforcement officers - as well as military people - who take care of your property and can't afford to live in the same community? Take off your blindfolds and unlock those "security" gates because America is going back to the 60s to restore democracy and put an end to the largesse that has allowed your arrogance.
27
"I am so sick of "hard-working" white Americans who say they "made it on their own". No, you did not. "
Well actually, I did. We don't need "Affirmatively furthering fair housing" which is a criminal overreach by the federal government.
Well actually, I did. We don't need "Affirmatively furthering fair housing" which is a criminal overreach by the federal government.
13
Is it arrogant to expect one's neighbors not to throw trash and garbage on their or anyone else's lawn? To respect the hours of working people by not blasting music, lighting firecrackers, having domestic disputes at top volume in the street at 2 or 3 a.m.? To pick up dog waste? To mow their lawn and rake their leaves and get their noisy car mufflers taken care of? To teach their children to play without screaming, shouting or invading strangers' yards? To not throw cigarette butts and empty packs on neighbors' yards? To not let their friends drive up over curbing and park on the lawn? To not have animals you don't take care of, or let prowl around unleashed to foul others' property and kill the local wildlife?
If so I am the queen of arrogance, because I have all of those expectations and plenty more for people of any color who live in the neighborhood I have worked hard to attain. Especially if my tax dollars are helping to bring them here.
If so I am the queen of arrogance, because I have all of those expectations and plenty more for people of any color who live in the neighborhood I have worked hard to attain. Especially if my tax dollars are helping to bring them here.
46
Your racism and classism is what is blinding you, twisting you into an angry mess. Most Americans of all races are so sick of that arrogance. Most Americans of any race or class do live behind the safety of a gated community, but they do effort to go to college, get a decent job and instill values in their offspring. There are more poor whites in America and more "teetering on the edge of poor" middle class white Americans than any other people, coast to coast. The troubles in America are economic-based and began in the 1970s, when jobs were sent overseas and many middle class/lower middle class young males picked the wrong time to begin refusing to go to college (when it was so low cost as to almost be free). Young females of all races did go to college in greater numbers, because girls and women never had the option not to grab any of the few opportunities that came their way. Sadly for many of those black and white young American males, the 1970s brought tougher crime laws, increased immigration and a shift from manufacturing to an academically demanding technology economy. Those males tended to have addictions, brushes with the law, multiple divorces and dysfunctional children who repeated those behaviors. The 40-year downward spiral resulted in 2 generations of a permanent new U.S. underclass that is now rocked by meth and heroin addiction, violent crime, lack of even blue collar work that has gone to 60 million latinos.
3
As a progressive, I can see that this sort of housing policy will be a disaster for us. As has been pointed out, the backlash against this policy will be certain and massive and will destroy chances for more fundamental and widespread progressive political victories. Winning a battle to lose the war is the story of liberalism. I hope policy makers wake up before it is too late.
22
This plan to mandate a small number of subsidized units in "white" towns almost seems designed to invite the political backlash that the author fears while doing little to help those in need. The perception, right or wrong, is that the federal government's intent isn't altruistic but in some sense punitive. This risks discrediting the entire fair housing enterprise by calling into question its motives. Also, the rhetoric about "affluent white" towns, as though there were no working class white people in Westchester County, nor any affluent people of color, is misleading and divisive.
That's not to say there aren't real problems. Housing costs are out of control partially due to restrictive zoning laws. This harms everyone but the very wealthy and those fortunate enough to already own homes. Towns should bear an obligation to permit a reasonable degree of population increase through housing stock growth. With rents and housing costs where they are, private developers will gladly supply it without subsidy. With respect to the poorest families, why not offer cash rental vouchers so that they have a wider range of rental options that they can choose from themselves? That seems like the simplest and least patronizing option.
That's not to say there aren't real problems. Housing costs are out of control partially due to restrictive zoning laws. This harms everyone but the very wealthy and those fortunate enough to already own homes. Towns should bear an obligation to permit a reasonable degree of population increase through housing stock growth. With rents and housing costs where they are, private developers will gladly supply it without subsidy. With respect to the poorest families, why not offer cash rental vouchers so that they have a wider range of rental options that they can choose from themselves? That seems like the simplest and least patronizing option.
7
Who believes that minorities want to live in all-white neighborhoods?
4
Rather a difficult aspiration if "minority" = non-white, yes?
All families -- even middle class families -- have family members who might need low income housing, the elderly and young people, for example. Having low income housing near by would be a boon -- to the families.
Where I live, for example, a constant complaint is that the young, who grew up here, can't afford to live here, and the elderly too can no longer afford to live where they have lived their lives.
Where I live, for example, a constant complaint is that the young, who grew up here, can't afford to live here, and the elderly too can no longer afford to live where they have lived their lives.
6
Just giving people "stuff" won't solve the issue of inequality - it will just fester resentment towards the takers. Won't really help a group of children moving into a wealthy area if everyone dispises them for their parents not earning their way into the group.
Think of a sports team that works hard to make it to the championship, then on game day the coach moves up a bench player to a starter because the kid did nothing but complain about the "fairness" of playing time. You think the other teammates who worked so hard for their roster spot will be welcoming of this?
Think of a sports team that works hard to make it to the championship, then on game day the coach moves up a bench player to a starter because the kid did nothing but complain about the "fairness" of playing time. You think the other teammates who worked so hard for their roster spot will be welcoming of this?
12
This sounds a lot like the busing that happened in the 70's, another social engineering fiasco brought to you by democrats.
30
new construction is the least efficient way of providing low cost housing--or any housing, for that matter.
there are a host of costs associated with new housing--from construction financing, to permitting and local impact fees, to new utilities and associated infrastructure. labor is more costly than it was one or two generations ago, relatively speaking, due to the rising rates of workers compensation, SS and Medicare, and Federal and State unemployment insurance.
HUD could put more people in homes for fewer dollars, if it could help leverage the acquisition of existing housing stock.
there are a host of costs associated with new housing--from construction financing, to permitting and local impact fees, to new utilities and associated infrastructure. labor is more costly than it was one or two generations ago, relatively speaking, due to the rising rates of workers compensation, SS and Medicare, and Federal and State unemployment insurance.
HUD could put more people in homes for fewer dollars, if it could help leverage the acquisition of existing housing stock.
7
Defund or dismantle HUD - problem solved since no Federal money involved.
8
Here's an idea...instead of "lowering" the quality of life in affluent areas, why not make the high-poverty areas more affluent?
Of course, this would mean having less crime, less graffiti, less trash, more employment, less broken families, more accountable students in schools, and more adult leaders in those communities.
So...get working on those things.
Of course, this would mean having less crime, less graffiti, less trash, more employment, less broken families, more accountable students in schools, and more adult leaders in those communities.
So...get working on those things.
73
That's called gentrification -- and the poor are then forced out.
Yes. And making the correct use of birth control a requirement for any subsidies would be helpful too. Welfare looks less benign when you start seeing the new generation loitering, littering, breaking into houses, and shooting people.
2
I life in a fairly affluent & crime-free suburb -- town square surrounded by late 1800s storefronts turned into boutiques, neighborhoods of 1940s bungalows and 1950s colonials with a few 1920s mansions. A few of the small houses near me -- a neat, tidy and quiet neighborhood -- recently have gone Section 8.
What has been the result? Junky cars packing driveways, screeching domestic arguments right out in the street, ratty kiddie play equipment scattered all over the front lawns, kids playing in the street and not moving for traffic (despite a nice park literally half a block away), garbage cans left at curb (lying on side, mostly) all week long. Being awakened at 3 a.m. as a motorcycle roars up blaring "Sweet child o'mine" or hip-hop at top volume. Cigarette butts and empty pint liquor bottles appearing on neighbors' lawns. Cop cars idling nearby & flashing lights at all hours.
One of the men from these houses has taken to walking a large dog on my street and on Monday tossed his dog's feces into my trash can -- which had just minutes before been emptied for the week by the municipal garbage truck. Apparently I am supposed to be OK with some pit bull's waste festering in my personal garbage can for an entire week before the next pickup. He lives about six houses away across a side street but chose to sully my place instead.
Is it any wonder that otherwise liberal people don't want subsidized low-income transients in their neighborhood?
What has been the result? Junky cars packing driveways, screeching domestic arguments right out in the street, ratty kiddie play equipment scattered all over the front lawns, kids playing in the street and not moving for traffic (despite a nice park literally half a block away), garbage cans left at curb (lying on side, mostly) all week long. Being awakened at 3 a.m. as a motorcycle roars up blaring "Sweet child o'mine" or hip-hop at top volume. Cigarette butts and empty pint liquor bottles appearing on neighbors' lawns. Cop cars idling nearby & flashing lights at all hours.
One of the men from these houses has taken to walking a large dog on my street and on Monday tossed his dog's feces into my trash can -- which had just minutes before been emptied for the week by the municipal garbage truck. Apparently I am supposed to be OK with some pit bull's waste festering in my personal garbage can for an entire week before the next pickup. He lives about six houses away across a side street but chose to sully my place instead.
Is it any wonder that otherwise liberal people don't want subsidized low-income transients in their neighborhood?
135
Your points appear quite valid. Why then do liberal-leaning wealthy voters insist that the middle class put up with such living scenarios in the name of the greater community good?
3
@SW: "Why then do liberal-leaning wealthy voters insist that the middle class put up with such living scenarios in the name of the greater community good?"
They get to feel all better about themselves.
They get to feel all better about themselves.
2
Creating concentrated areas of low income housing is not going to solve a problem for the poor or for the area in which they may be housed. The key in providing "affordable housing" is a relative seamless integration of the lower income families into the area. They should be well disbursed, so that the established neighborhoods don't feel that the value of their homes is going down the tubes when one or two lots in the township are allocated to such cause. It's easier to do so in the cities than in the suburbs where human density is much higher, so there, the developers should pay for providing lower or middle income housing by allocating 30% of the apartments of luxury buildings they build for such tenants to pay back for the tax breaks they are getting from the city and state.
The creation of ghettos wrought a lot of issues for the cities and the people residing in those areas. Everyone around is poor, or on welfare, and crime is a huge issue. When you live surrounded by people of different economic backgrounds different opportunities arise, if not for you, then may-be for your children.
The creation of ghettos wrought a lot of issues for the cities and the people residing in those areas. Everyone around is poor, or on welfare, and crime is a huge issue. When you live surrounded by people of different economic backgrounds different opportunities arise, if not for you, then may-be for your children.
5
And yet you can always move.
In less that 2 years we'll have a new president. If he's a Republican, and congress remains in their camp, this program will go the way of No Child Left Behind. And delaying implementation of this program will not be difficult, given the controversy during this election season.
7
The author and the writers he cites seem to describe a country entirely unfamiliar to me. I have traveled extensively for work and for pleasure; I have never seen the sort of neighborhoods described in this article. My own neighborhood-in Westchester County, NY, where the average home costs about $1 million-we have black, south and east asian, Caribbean and hispanic families. I'd be surprised to find that any of my neighbors would wish to deny anyone who can afford to do so from living here. On the other hand, I'd be shocked to learn that my neighbors are not legitimately concerned over how our already astronomical property tax bills will have to increase in order to provide municipal services to the beneficiaries of a low income housing program.
35
I applaud your honesty. Isn't the principle of increasing an individual tax bill to provide for beneficiaries who cannot pay for services one of the central issues of our time? There are tens of millions of middle class ACA policy holders who have seen their premiums for a woefully inadequate bronze plan (aka catastrophic coverage) triple so that money is available to provide silver or gold coverage to those who are subsidized. Why should wealthy Westchester County residents not have to share the financial burden of caring for others instead of just voting for "the rest of us" to do our share?
2
This story reminds me of the old joke: "I read that 90% of car accidents happen within 10 miles of your house. So I moved." Forcing wholesale population shifts will only change the location of the accidents.
Our cities are littered with formerly stable, middle to high income neighborhoods that fell into decay and disrepair as demographic change took place. In Chicago we see this in the inner-ring suburbs - dozens of formerly clean, safe, functioning towns are falling into disfunction as less motivated people move in and bring their value systems with them. And the smart money moves out, leaving the same cycle repeat itself.
Implementing this history on a federal scale will only amplify a crippling dynamic already being played out in many parts of the country.
Our cities are littered with formerly stable, middle to high income neighborhoods that fell into decay and disrepair as demographic change took place. In Chicago we see this in the inner-ring suburbs - dozens of formerly clean, safe, functioning towns are falling into disfunction as less motivated people move in and bring their value systems with them. And the smart money moves out, leaving the same cycle repeat itself.
Implementing this history on a federal scale will only amplify a crippling dynamic already being played out in many parts of the country.
33
The desire to avoid living next door to sociopaths is hardly racist. Anyone of any color who embraces the middle class virtues of education, job stability and hard work is welcome. Those who do not should not receive subsidies from the rest of us so they can move.
99
Really. . ."middle class virtues". . please explain to me the following: how "education, job stability and hard work" are a) virtues and b) are specific only to the middle class? And how do you know that people moving into publicly subsidized housing are sociopaths?
2
Poor people are not sociopaths. Your own children - -or your own parents -- might be poor at one time or another.
2
Funny how when people with money move into poor areas and make it nicer (gentrification), it's called evil by a lot of people.
But then forcing wealthier areas to become poorer with the associated rise in crime is called a good thing. I guess if some people can't afford to live in a low crime area, then we have to make sure no one can live in a low crime area?
Catering to the lowest common denominator isn't progress. It just slows progress down to match the very slowest people.
But then forcing wealthier areas to become poorer with the associated rise in crime is called a good thing. I guess if some people can't afford to live in a low crime area, then we have to make sure no one can live in a low crime area?
Catering to the lowest common denominator isn't progress. It just slows progress down to match the very slowest people.
159
I'm pretty sure you don't want to "get it." Poorer people need decent places to live, and we can help that happen, but not by turning their current homes into places they can't afford. But, then, you're one of those folks who doesn't want to pay your fair share, or ensure general prosperity. Why don't we deport the lower class to some big island outside the country, so you won't have to see them? As long as you have yours, damn them, right?
1
The problem is that when poor neighborhoods are gentrified, rents go up and the poor are displaced.
3
Senator Bernie Sanders is setting the democrat/independent agenda for the next 100 years and he knows how to pay for all the excellent "socialist" ideas that will make America great again. WE can pay for full access to fair housing, effective affordable education and higher education, health care and the other well-managed government services that help 99% of us. Tax every stock market transaction and get back OUR stolen taxpayer treasure with a higher WEALTH tax - not a higher income tax. I would add that we must tax money that has been hidden in overseas accounts fully, with interest and stop giving OUR government grants, vouchers and tax breaks to private for-profit and non-profit educational organizations, including religious organizations, and strengthen our public education system. The "conservative" mantra is keep 99% poor, dumb and scared. The vast majority of Americans disagree.
11
Socialism in every country that tried it failed miserably.
8
@njglea: this is an odd comment given the facts recited in the article reflect that a once Democratic, wealthy bastion is turning its back on its ideals and is now voting GOP. As long as people adhere to a belief that only the GOP favors the rich, nothing will change in America for the rest of us.
3
I dedicate my effective 17% to the cause of general well-being, not to the war machine.
1
I'm 65. I live in a very affluent North Shore Chicago suburb where the average home is over $1 million. There is zero affordable housing in my town because every square inch of property is already built on and because we're a beach community, the land itself is hyper expensive. We have very little crime, excellent schools, parks and recreational areas. It's a delightful place to live. I wish I could have grown up here, but my family didn't have the income to support that dream. A lifetime of hard work and some luck enabled us to be able to afford to live here. There are nine million people in Chicagoland and probably all of them would like to live here in my town. Life is not fair and never will be. I'd like to have a yacht to sail on Lake Michigan but I can't afford it. I'd like my home to be right on the lake shore, but I can't afford it. If you tried to build low income housing here, you'd have to tear down existent structures. Does anyone think the Feds have the right to arbitrarily pick which areas of my town should be torn down to build new affordable housing?
175
So are you saying that the resale value of your property is more important than people getting a chance to have a better life? I hope not.
This is not to suggest that people shouldn't have to work to have a comfortable life. But people need a chance, and apparently moving out of ghettos is an important part of that.
This is not to suggest that people shouldn't have to work to have a comfortable life. But people need a chance, and apparently moving out of ghettos is an important part of that.
I have an idea. How about we put low-income housing right across from the White House? Also perhaps units should be built in Rahm Emanuel's all-White Chicago neighborhood?
22
It may benefit the low-income people being moved in to an upper class neighborhood, but is anybody asking if it will benefit the residents already living in these communities? My guess is no, it will not. This just comes off as another assault on hardworking, law-abiding citizens.
32
What we've worked so hard to escape is now coming to our doors. The low elements of society are now going to get subsidies of our hard-earned money to come in and destroy our neighborhoods. We're paying their way! This is unfair and outrageous.
30
"children under the age of 13 have improved life chances if they move from high-poverty into lower-poverty neighborhoods"....Duhhhh.
Why do you you think responsible parents work so hard to move into these neighborhoods? I busted my butt the last ten years to afford a starter home in a well-regarded town in CT, saved every dime so my kids good grow up in a nice community with good school. Now, the gov't just wants to lower the bar to live in my town down to "ability to procreate"...kind of gives people the wrong incentives doesn't it?
Why do you you think responsible parents work so hard to move into these neighborhoods? I busted my butt the last ten years to afford a starter home in a well-regarded town in CT, saved every dime so my kids good grow up in a nice community with good school. Now, the gov't just wants to lower the bar to live in my town down to "ability to procreate"...kind of gives people the wrong incentives doesn't it?
96
These children, when grown, apparently earn a mere $1,600 more per year, per the studies. Does that justify the use of society's resources to restructure neighborhoods? I'd like to see all Presidential candidates address the issue since SCOTUS has ensured that it will be coming to all our neighborhoods.
This had better be available to ALL poor, not just blacks, but why do I get the feeling it won't be? As someone already said, this will just drive wealthy whites in some towns to move further out and drop the tax base where they left. I know in several really wealthy towns, there isn't a square inch left to build on for precisely this reason.
6
I don't think race matters on this topic. Among the poor, whites are the largest racial demographic and will take advantage of this in greater numbers overall. The bigger concern is cost, crime, and aesthetics of low quality high rises popping up.
1
There is a problem in how we appraise property in that your neighbors have more influence over what a property is valued at than the owner does. This is illustrated in neighborhoods that are being gentrified, where inexpensive, affordable properties are bought by people with money and improved, raising everyone's property values and subsequently, raising everyone's property taxes.Someone who had an affordable house, through no actions of their own, now can't afford the taxes and is forced to move.
And, since the schools are financed by local property taxes, higher property values lead to better schools. If we continue to use property taxes, then they should be pooled and distributed equally to all the schools.
And, since the schools are financed by local property taxes, higher property values lead to better schools. If we continue to use property taxes, then they should be pooled and distributed equally to all the schools.
5
I think a lot of affluent, educated people have been voting for democrats because they've been turned off by the GOPs small minded, borderline hateful positions on many social issues (gay marriage for example), not because they agreed fully with liberal/progressive economic polices. Now that many of these social issues have been settled I could see the appeal of voting for a moderate republican. Especially one who pledges to protect property values (regardless of whether or not this affordable housing plan actually impacts them).
82
Tom asks the wrong question. It assumes that "affordable housing" will be imposed by government on communities, when in fact its only real support is in a HUD that will be transformed soon enough, REGARDLESS of who wins the 2016 presidential contest. In the end, all rides on what CONGRESS is willing to FUND, by one means or another, and an undivided Republican Congress, particularly a Republican House that needs to respond to very local constituent interests, won't tolerate any such impositions.
But liberals focus like a laser on government attempts to artificially balance our communities racially when they've failed so dismally at doing it organically.
How have liberals failed at desegregating our communities so BADLY over the past half-century? They've directed monumental resources to merely subsidizing people's lives, instead of using the resources to empower our future. Increasingly, we're consuming so MUCH of what we produce to support this pyrrhic end that we have little left to do ANYTHING else. Saturn, consuming his children. Feeding the multitudes, instead of teaching them to feed themselves.
If we were to bring education in ALL our communities to a minimum quality and effectiveness, eventually our disadvantaged would largely invade our middle classes and be able to afford NON-SUBSIDIZED housing; and our communities would organically take on a less pasty-faced complexion. But we don't do that, because we can't AFFORD to while paying for food and Band-Aids.
But liberals focus like a laser on government attempts to artificially balance our communities racially when they've failed so dismally at doing it organically.
How have liberals failed at desegregating our communities so BADLY over the past half-century? They've directed monumental resources to merely subsidizing people's lives, instead of using the resources to empower our future. Increasingly, we're consuming so MUCH of what we produce to support this pyrrhic end that we have little left to do ANYTHING else. Saturn, consuming his children. Feeding the multitudes, instead of teaching them to feed themselves.
If we were to bring education in ALL our communities to a minimum quality and effectiveness, eventually our disadvantaged would largely invade our middle classes and be able to afford NON-SUBSIDIZED housing; and our communities would organically take on a less pasty-faced complexion. But we don't do that, because we can't AFFORD to while paying for food and Band-Aids.
12
You are assuming that there are living wage jobs for all educated people.
2
Zegee:
No, I'm assuming that similarly-well-educated people will compete for the good -- not merely "living wage" -- jobs that are available. In such an instance, we'd see black and Hispanic underemployment and poverty shrink dramatically and approximate the national average; and we'd see the browning of once-white communities as others could now AFFORD to live there WITHOUT help and without a demeaning "leg-up" by a paternalistic HUD that dictates that people MUST live together irrespective of class.
No, I'm assuming that similarly-well-educated people will compete for the good -- not merely "living wage" -- jobs that are available. In such an instance, we'd see black and Hispanic underemployment and poverty shrink dramatically and approximate the national average; and we'd see the browning of once-white communities as others could now AFFORD to live there WITHOUT help and without a demeaning "leg-up" by a paternalistic HUD that dictates that people MUST live together irrespective of class.
Reading through some of the comments I am appalled at the attitudes. Did it ever occur to anyone that living in bad areas is not good for people and that if they are living in decent housing where there are decent schools their attitudes and behavior might be different? And what about your children? Do you think that your children are going to be able afford the lifestyle many of you now have and worked hard for? It's becoming more and more difficult to have jobs that pay enough to live in decent areas whether you rent or own. As a single adult who has tried live under her means for years I'm getting priced out of decent housing in my area. I can't move to another state unless I want to travel a few hours each way to work which will eliminate any money I save.
The answer is to extend affordable housing up the income ladder so that more people rather than fewer are eligible. The other answer is to stop building McMansions and luxury condos. How big does a single family house need to be for 3-4 people? I don't care who lives next door to me as long as they are clean, quiet, and neighborly. Too many people in Westchester County are not quiet, not neighborly, and have no problem putting on an I'm entitled attitude even when they aren't.
The answer is to extend affordable housing up the income ladder so that more people rather than fewer are eligible. The other answer is to stop building McMansions and luxury condos. How big does a single family house need to be for 3-4 people? I don't care who lives next door to me as long as they are clean, quiet, and neighborly. Too many people in Westchester County are not quiet, not neighborly, and have no problem putting on an I'm entitled attitude even when they aren't.
9
"Did it ever occur to anyone that living in bad areas is not good for people and that if they are living in decent housing where there are decent schools their attitudes and behavior might be different?"
Low rent housing, not sure if they had Section 8 back then, was built a few blocks away from our middle class neighborhood when I was small. No, I'm sorry to report, behavior of the residents didn't change. As soon as the residents, white and black, moved in, the crime rate rapidly increased and has stayed high all these years.
" I don't care who lives next door to me as long as they are clean, quiet, and neighborly. " EXACTLY how most of us feel. If the residents were carefully screened, few would mind having them in the neighborhood.
Low rent housing, not sure if they had Section 8 back then, was built a few blocks away from our middle class neighborhood when I was small. No, I'm sorry to report, behavior of the residents didn't change. As soon as the residents, white and black, moved in, the crime rate rapidly increased and has stayed high all these years.
" I don't care who lives next door to me as long as they are clean, quiet, and neighborly. " EXACTLY how most of us feel. If the residents were carefully screened, few would mind having them in the neighborhood.
2
You sure are good at telling other people what to do. It's a good thing you're such a well-intending person. Really exemplary.
Apparently if you work hard, save and buy the suburban tract home of your dreams and speak one iota of negative when a 750 unit low income apartment complex is proposed next to you then you are a racist. I can't think of a single thing more polarizing in this country then the constant laying down of the race card on the table, talk about things that drive the middle class into the arms of the Republican party!
114
The 750 units are supposed to be scattered throughout the county in small doses in jurisdictions with little or no affordable housing.
For some reason, I did not come away from this article with the notion that those opponents were being called racist, just that they might vote republican. Does being a republican make you a racist?
I wish our liberal betters would leave us alone. I'm black, worked hard through school and am finally seeing the payoff. I have no interest in living next to Section 8 voucher holders. I grew up and went to school with kids from such a household. It's not a picnic. I can only assume that those that romanticize the urban poor must not have any intimate experience with them.
No matter, I will exercise my vote against any politician that forcibly places people that don't share proper values and pose a threat to the harmony of the community. Unlike the Democrats in Westchester, that includes candidates running for President.
No matter, I will exercise my vote against any politician that forcibly places people that don't share proper values and pose a threat to the harmony of the community. Unlike the Democrats in Westchester, that includes candidates running for President.
126
The question asked in the title of the article "Who Will Pay the Political Price for Affordable Housing?" is easily enough answered; The people of Westchester County but since this is a Federal mandate it means every citizen of this country bears some form of responsibility in seeing that this law is carried out. This article refers to the 1968 Fair Housing Act. The government is doing now what it should have been doing for the past 47 years; Enforcing laws. This may sound simplistic but in this country's governmental system we know nothing ever is simple or even quick. We need to focus on enacting the law of this country and stop supporting those that fail to do so. Be they Republican or Democrat, they need to go. Now that would set a precedent.
3
But if you try to 'enforce laws' in a town where 10% of the population are elite lawyers from top firms, you will soon discover what 'the law' really means. If you have enough money and lawyers, anything is possible.
Sit back and enjoy litigation, litigation, and more litigation for the next 20 years. These guys don't have big offices on Park Avenue for nothing.
Sit back and enjoy litigation, litigation, and more litigation for the next 20 years. These guys don't have big offices on Park Avenue for nothing.
1
First- I have lived in Northern Westchester for many years. Most of the area, due to the topography, is not suited for multi-family housing where you would need lines for water, electricity and sewage.
Second- I don't care, and neither do most people, if my neighbors are black, brown or yellow so long as we share values, manners, and standards. The accusations of racism are bunk.
The government should assist people in creating opportunities for themselves and their families, not give them something the rest of us have to earn.
Second- I don't care, and neither do most people, if my neighbors are black, brown or yellow so long as we share values, manners, and standards. The accusations of racism are bunk.
The government should assist people in creating opportunities for themselves and their families, not give them something the rest of us have to earn.
101
most readers will not remember the battles over low income housing in Forest Hills, Queens ,NYC in the early 1980's.
the NYT tried to put its own shine on the successful push back by the community in an article in 1988.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/15/nyregion/forest-hills-from-rage-to-tra...
the great compromise was that the low income housing was reserved for the elderly and was mainly white rather than black.
the government, through its constant expansion over our lives , can push social engineering down people's throats but they can't stop us from moving,yet.
the NYT tried to put its own shine on the successful push back by the community in an article in 1988.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/15/nyregion/forest-hills-from-rage-to-tra...
the great compromise was that the low income housing was reserved for the elderly and was mainly white rather than black.
the government, through its constant expansion over our lives , can push social engineering down people's throats but they can't stop us from moving,yet.
6
Since Edsall presents Chappaqua as an example he might have done the work to learn the history of this project. It is to be on a site turned down twice by our planning board as not habitable for market rate housing. So the owner made a deal to use it for affordable housing. Stinks to high heaven.
The developers were insistent on a very large building for that spot, completely out of character with the town. They said that it was not financially viable for them to make a smaller building. They are paying nothing for the construction or the land which all comes from government coffers. Once this project is built they will have a guaranteed return with no investment from them for the life of the project from our taxes. It is the definition of a boondoggle.
What Mr. Edsall should investigate is the cesspool / slush fund that is HUD.
The developers Conifer were offered other more appropriate sites but they would not budge.
It is stupid to offer this up as an example of resistance to affordable housing.
In fact, it is downright dishonest.
The developers were insistent on a very large building for that spot, completely out of character with the town. They said that it was not financially viable for them to make a smaller building. They are paying nothing for the construction or the land which all comes from government coffers. Once this project is built they will have a guaranteed return with no investment from them for the life of the project from our taxes. It is the definition of a boondoggle.
What Mr. Edsall should investigate is the cesspool / slush fund that is HUD.
The developers Conifer were offered other more appropriate sites but they would not budge.
It is stupid to offer this up as an example of resistance to affordable housing.
In fact, it is downright dishonest.
21
This is a classic case of trying to solve a problem by moving it. Far more constructive to eliminate the overwhelming bias in enforcement of drug possession laws only in black and Hispanic areas. Also needed are self-sustaining local businesses in those areas, owned and operated by residents of the community. Once citizens have regained their dignity they will naturally become more compatible with surrounding communities.
This is akin to attempting to solve the Greece problem by shipping Greeks to Germany.
This is akin to attempting to solve the Greece problem by shipping Greeks to Germany.
3
Or, shipping Germans to Greece?
I'm not really a "better-off," but I would help to support the costs of these measures, to further the cause of equality in our country.
26
"Such a development has potential political ramifications. It may drive some middle-income and other whites into the arms of the Republican Party."
Hmmm, this isn't news. The liberal agenda is full of ideas on how others should spend/do things. In this case, the concern is that they got what they want ("housing equality") but it will affect them, directly --- and if that happens, it will drive democratic voters into the arms of the Republicans.
"Do as I say, not as I do...."
Hmmm, this isn't news. The liberal agenda is full of ideas on how others should spend/do things. In this case, the concern is that they got what they want ("housing equality") but it will affect them, directly --- and if that happens, it will drive democratic voters into the arms of the Republicans.
"Do as I say, not as I do...."
9
So many facts were left out of this article. Such as that Northern Westchester is relatively rural and surrounded by the NYC watershed. Thus nearly every house built is reviewed for its impact on water run off. Impervious surfaces such as paved parking and large buildings are the enemy. There are NO municipal services; no water, sewers, sidewalks or transportation. Wells and septic tanks can only handle individual homes and many areas require two acres per unit due to soil conditions. Then there is the high land cost. The result is multi-family housing costs per unit are 3 and 4 times the price if build where services already exist and land costs are low. What is the goal? to create better housing opportunities or to destroy lifestyles the current administration doesn't like?
12
I believe you provided your own answer!
It's not race, it's behavior. (my lovely next door neighbors are black) You can't "house" people without a wholesome family background or education and expect a change in behavior. It's not the lumber and cement, it's the concentration of toxic human interaction that makes a "bad" neighborhood. The focus should be on going into the existing "housing", forming education social groups to teach people how to live successful lives. How to be parents, how to be spouses, how to be community members.
And NYTimes, can you stop making everything about being white or black and start talking about the choices people make?
And NYTimes, can you stop making everything about being white or black and start talking about the choices people make?
115
A friend (from Westchester) and I spoke about this 2 years ago; he is not against blacks (there are a number of blacks in his (expensive) neighborhood. He worked hard to be able to afford the area he lives in and simply does not want his neighborhood to become a high density lower middle class neighborhood; this is pretty much without regard to skin color.
I wish I could afford to live where he does and I am not sure that he is wrong. He worked hard, made his money and wants the trees, open spaces, good schools, etc., that he has paid for.
He has lived in middle class neighborhoods (we were roommates for while) and I never heard a racist word from him.
What is the purpose of placing low income housing in the 31 most affluent neighborhoods? They will not remain the way they are. The term "White Flight" comes to mind. I can only assume that the wealthy blacks and hispanics who live there now will also leave. They too worked to be in an upper class area (trees, open spaces, schools and fellow wealthy neighbors).
You can force the construction of the housing. You cannot force the current home owners to remain.
I wish I could afford to live where he does and I am not sure that he is wrong. He worked hard, made his money and wants the trees, open spaces, good schools, etc., that he has paid for.
He has lived in middle class neighborhoods (we were roommates for while) and I never heard a racist word from him.
What is the purpose of placing low income housing in the 31 most affluent neighborhoods? They will not remain the way they are. The term "White Flight" comes to mind. I can only assume that the wealthy blacks and hispanics who live there now will also leave. They too worked to be in an upper class area (trees, open spaces, schools and fellow wealthy neighbors).
You can force the construction of the housing. You cannot force the current home owners to remain.
35
Housing is affordable. You live where you can afford to pay rent or a mortgage. This isn't a difficult concept. I'd love to live in 3000 square foot loft in Tribeca, but guess what? I can't afford it, so I live in a lower cost of living city.
This issue is really more about class than it is race. Those who live in middle and upper middle incomes areas generally have vastly different social norms when it comes to education, family, etc. This is why they choose to live in these areas and work extremely hard so they can afford it.
The focus needs to be on helping those at the lower income scale make better life decisions and providing real economic opportunity to move up through their own efforts, not trying to force feed this liberal utopia down everyone's throats.
This issue is really more about class than it is race. Those who live in middle and upper middle incomes areas generally have vastly different social norms when it comes to education, family, etc. This is why they choose to live in these areas and work extremely hard so they can afford it.
The focus needs to be on helping those at the lower income scale make better life decisions and providing real economic opportunity to move up through their own efforts, not trying to force feed this liberal utopia down everyone's throats.
43
As an individual working to provide affordable homeownership to low income folks in Maine's non-coastal, poorer region, I continue to find that HUD's concentration to have communities build complexes for the 'poor', almost always more rental housing, in white suburbs to be the wrong approach. Rather than subsidize developers and their investors with tax credits and building inappropriate structures in communities as described by some of the comments from Westchester County, we should be helping the poor afford their own homes and requiring that those homes will remain perpetually affordable, as under the classic community land trust model. Why should public and private money become a gain for a developer rather than remain in the public trust as perpetually affordable? And why should we build more 'projects' for the poor, to alienate them inside these new structures, clearly not the same as neighbors? Provide more vouchers so that poor children can attend better schools and help their parents with affordable homeownership, instilling pride of ownership and providing neighbors with new stakeholders.
151
I'm impressed with Habitat for Humanity's housing efforts. Why can't we make this a broad, nationwide program with more volunteers? Seems like whole neighborhoods could be built this way. Also, small apartment buildings and duplex-type "row houses."
4
We recently had an affordable housing complex built in which each small studio / 1 bedroom rental unit pretty much cost north of $300,000! They could have simply given vouchers or subsidized a mortgage for the residents to actually go out a decent sized single family home in our community!
2
Sadly, this won't work very well in areas where each acre of land is worth $1 million. The poor would have to be pushed way out into areas where there is no transportation or jobs - what good would that be?
As a homeowner in Westchester County, I am vehemently opposed to these appalling requirements. I worked hard - damn hard - to buy my house and pay huge taxes for good schools. I deliberately chose to leave NYC to escape my children having to see poverty on a daily basis, and avoid having ill-prepared and disruptive children in class and now Obama is forcing me to pay to transplant these people next door? He hasn't seen what backlash can look like.
110
A true American, and probably a Republican. Lovely.
1
Ah, there's that good old-fashioned racism.
1
@tbulen - No, it's not racism. Race has nothing to do with it. It's about economics, class and proper behavior. Why should I be forced to import poverty into my own neighborhood, and pay for the privilege? I live in a community where virtually everyone is an upper-middle class professional, is focused like a laser on education, and generally shares the same sensibilities about proper behavior.
4
I can see why people wouldn't want apartment complexes going up in next to their home simply for aesthetic reasons. That will be a tough nut to crack as homes for Americans are a major source of status and self-esteem. Additionally, and maybe I didn't read this article carefully enough, but I think it is not just an issue just for minorities. In my family there is a lot of distrust and fear of poor people, period. There are more poor whites in this country than poor blacks, hispanics, etcetera. I believe they are also being excluded from these neighborhoods. I mean actively excluded. I wish this article had shed some light on the role of classism in this struggle.
89
'...There are more poor whites in this country than poor blacks, hispanics, etcetera...'
Not when compared to percentages in the population.
Not when compared to percentages in the population.
1
Keith, it's easy to hide behind the "classism" argument as some type of moral failing for much of society. The alternative view sees individual's aspirational desires for a better life to include better housing, schools, income, etc. This is the American dream and it is evidenced in many other countries. It is far easier to default to collective terms for racism and so-called classism without ever looking at the underlying causes. Since the beginning of organized communities, people have engaged in differentiating themselves by economic class. Only a top down, heavy handed communism can seek to prevent this and, as history tells us, even the ruling class will have special privileges. Empathy for the poor and less fortunate does not mean we want to destroy what we have built. Most citizens want to help the poor by giving them better opportunities in education and housing, but do not want these same poor people next door if they exhibit radically different cultural values. I grew up poor in an apartment and know the difference. The neighborhood and schools were not excellent, but they were decent. The majority of residents took advantage of the limited resources to get their children educated and into the middle class. Most made it, some didn't. There are poor with strong cultural values and those without them. This has never been about race to me, but it will always be about class. Individuals don't change their values because they move next door to you.
If an exburb/suburb town's zoning is not intentionally designed to discriminate (i.e. it simply calls for large lots, single family house, etc.) I still can't be convinced that forcing a town to change its zoning laws to what some bureaucrat deems acceptable is fair. What if it changes the entire feel of the town. Capitalism is by its nature, not fair. If you want to live in a nicer community but can't afford it AND that community's zoning is not intentional discriminatory - too bad. More money should be spent on education, job training, etc., so that more people have the opportunity to move up in the world. Successful people in wealthy communities should not be punished.
14
racial equality does not mean a free ride for something you did not earn. let Mayor De Blasio show his commitment by renting out his house to two poor black families. It will never happen.
85
Only black families are poor?
Make him rent it as "affordable" dwellings he seems to be so fond of.
We are subjects, not citizens. We do not control the pols, they literally control us.
We are subjects, not citizens. We do not control the pols, they literally control us.
1
Here in the South, when law mandated that real estate be sold fairly to any buyer- black or white- the white flight phenomenon took over. New developments built, with higher price tags, and the whites lost money selling out in their old neighborhoods, to pay a high price to live the way they wanted to live, without black neighbors. Now they have black neighbors, but in costly, covenant-protected developments. This could happen again in the North, even if not for the exact same reason.
The stats are sad but true. The economic class-based differences translate into social differences as well. You can't just free three million slaves with nothing but the clothes on their backs and expect all of them to suddenly molt into the upper middle-class a few generations later. We missed our big opportunity for revolutionary change when we- the north- abandoned radical Reconstruction.
Maybe it would be better for HUD to finance whole new developments, of nice, small, efficient homes in the lower middle-class cost range that blacks, whites, latinos and whoever- of limited means- can afford to buy. Like it or not, nearly everyone, whatever the race, seems to have a social prejudice that shows itself in class bigotry, looking down the nose at that poor old so and so.
And now, for the environment, we all need to be downsizing.
The stats are sad but true. The economic class-based differences translate into social differences as well. You can't just free three million slaves with nothing but the clothes on their backs and expect all of them to suddenly molt into the upper middle-class a few generations later. We missed our big opportunity for revolutionary change when we- the north- abandoned radical Reconstruction.
Maybe it would be better for HUD to finance whole new developments, of nice, small, efficient homes in the lower middle-class cost range that blacks, whites, latinos and whoever- of limited means- can afford to buy. Like it or not, nearly everyone, whatever the race, seems to have a social prejudice that shows itself in class bigotry, looking down the nose at that poor old so and so.
And now, for the environment, we all need to be downsizing.
63
The Democratic Party (of which I am a member) has even more to lose from its position on mass immigration. I predicted before the midterms that we were driving working class whites into the arms of the Tea Party. And all the new Republican senators campaigned on amnesty as terrible labor policy for American workers, and swept the senate, while blue state Oregon voted two to one to kill drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants despite the fact that proponents of drivers licenses outspent opponents by TEN TO ONE.
The Senate immigration bill, supported by every Democrat except for one of the Udalls, would have tripled legal immigration, to 1.5 New York State population equivalents per decade, while doing nothing to stop illegal immigration.
There is nothing wrong with immigration, but the numbers are crazy, and it's not the least bit surprising to me that counties like Westchester are voting for Republicans in order to stop or slow the implementation of the HUD regulation.
Compassion towards working class whites, who really are losing jobs to immigrants, and if you don't believe that, you're the left's equivalent of a global warming denier, would go a long way towards helping our native minorities (and poor whites) climb up the ladder.
The Senate immigration bill, supported by every Democrat except for one of the Udalls, would have tripled legal immigration, to 1.5 New York State population equivalents per decade, while doing nothing to stop illegal immigration.
There is nothing wrong with immigration, but the numbers are crazy, and it's not the least bit surprising to me that counties like Westchester are voting for Republicans in order to stop or slow the implementation of the HUD regulation.
Compassion towards working class whites, who really are losing jobs to immigrants, and if you don't believe that, you're the left's equivalent of a global warming denier, would go a long way towards helping our native minorities (and poor whites) climb up the ladder.
65
As usual the true upper class will be exempted from this process; they have the money to move on a dime, own multiple houses, live abroad, live in deeply protected gated communities, hire private guards. Not so fortunate the middle class, squeezed between an increasing rapacious upper class / plutocracy and an often dysfunctional lower class. For example, I don't see the Obama children going to DC's public schools; no, they avoid all the middle class troubles.
144
A lot of the Westchester communities where the HUD settlement units are "proposed" to be built are distinctly not middle class. How this will sort itself out I do not know.
2
No, not the upper class. Much worse. Those who impose this arrogant stupidity on successful working people - the politicians. Find one (1) who has an unregulated project near his/her dwelling. One.
3
"For example, I don't see the Obama children going to DC's public schools; no, they avoid all the middle class troubles."
That example doesn't help your argument. If I were a DC parent, I wouldn't want the Obama children in my school. The security required would be stifling. Far better that they be educated in a place where security can be provided with minimum intrusion.
That example doesn't help your argument. If I were a DC parent, I wouldn't want the Obama children in my school. The security required would be stifling. Far better that they be educated in a place where security can be provided with minimum intrusion.
Two things.
One is that what this will do is ensure that every neighborhood will have increased crime and violence. No more good or bad neighborhoods, they will all be bad.
The second is a matter of why some people should get a place to live in an area that they cannot pay for.
White people in those areas have comeup with the huge downpayments and have paid the exorbitant real estate taxes.
Why should others get for free what the current residents had to pay for?
All this does is devalue my work and lower the desirability of where I live.
One is that what this will do is ensure that every neighborhood will have increased crime and violence. No more good or bad neighborhoods, they will all be bad.
The second is a matter of why some people should get a place to live in an area that they cannot pay for.
White people in those areas have comeup with the huge downpayments and have paid the exorbitant real estate taxes.
Why should others get for free what the current residents had to pay for?
All this does is devalue my work and lower the desirability of where I live.
54
Fair housing should mean fair to everyone, not simply to a particular class of people.
Fair housing should mean: I buy land, build a house on it, and sell it to the person I want to sell it to. How is this fair? Because I am entitled to the freedom promised by the Declaration of Independence to my rights to liberty and pursuit of my happiness, with no qualification on either of those.
If my freedom is painful to you because I choose to not sell my property to you, you are not denied any of those same rights for yourself - and that is both fair and just. Claiming anything else is a denial of those rights to me - something that is, and should be, invalid.
Freedom: It's what this country was built on, and it's what Mr. Edsall and all activists are desperately trying to take away.
Fair housing should mean: I buy land, build a house on it, and sell it to the person I want to sell it to. How is this fair? Because I am entitled to the freedom promised by the Declaration of Independence to my rights to liberty and pursuit of my happiness, with no qualification on either of those.
If my freedom is painful to you because I choose to not sell my property to you, you are not denied any of those same rights for yourself - and that is both fair and just. Claiming anything else is a denial of those rights to me - something that is, and should be, invalid.
Freedom: It's what this country was built on, and it's what Mr. Edsall and all activists are desperately trying to take away.
12
Accommodating the whites is not the only issue. Accommodating the minorities will also cause problems. A nearby mall with a Nordstrom's is just a nuisance. Those in public housing need Dollar Stores. A supermarket without Spanish goods and not geared toward WIC is pretty much useless. Being cut off from friends and relatives and inferior bus service are also substantial problems. And schools with teachers untrained or unhappy teaching the underprivileged could make for an educational disaster. When we talk about integrating Weschester and public housing, we need to remember that the whites are not the only ones who may be unhappy.
9
It seems to me that if a majority of voters in a county oppose low-income housing being built in their neighborhoods, then their wishes must be honored. But the concept of majority rule, as embodied in our constitution, is being weakened by the relentless expansion of laws that protect minorities, causing us to drift minority rule. If the majority of people in a given locale vote "no" to something, and then the federal government says, "yes", and threatens them, then what are they to do? Those who wrote our constitution had direct, intimate experience with an oppressive central government, understood what is needed, and they added a clear and simple amendment to the constitution saying that we all have a right to defend themselves.
10
Yes Bill, we have reached a point where a still relatively small minority manages to dictate to the majority. Can't call this a true democracy any longer. What will be next? Mob rule?
1
It may be time to do away with single family zoning and embrace integration. Large suburban houses can safely accommodate a lot of people and it should not matter who is married to whom. This solution is far better and far less stigmatizing than constructing a large poor house/apartment building in Chappaqua owned by the government for the next 100 years. Single family zoning has always been enforced by complaints from neighbors so "illegal" rentals discriminate against minorities in white communities to minimize the likelihood of a complaint to the authorities. This hypocrisy is the main reason why New York State is the most discriminatory and segregated in the country.
If zoning by family relationship were eliminated throughout the state, there would be no reason to expect a massive change in any particular community or school district. Fears of "white flight" and reduced housing values would be minimized. Of course, the Clintons might find a combination of blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, gays and Italians renting the large house next door in Chappaqua. Now, if there were only a way to keep Republicans out.
If zoning by family relationship were eliminated throughout the state, there would be no reason to expect a massive change in any particular community or school district. Fears of "white flight" and reduced housing values would be minimized. Of course, the Clintons might find a combination of blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, gays and Italians renting the large house next door in Chappaqua. Now, if there were only a way to keep Republicans out.
1
Depressing. We "white liberals" need to show that our beliefs are AT LEAST skin deep...in other words, stop freaking out about the prospect of a few hundred poor minority children entirely destroying the good life in Scarsdale or equivalent. One of the persistent drivers of inequality, in my mind, is the inherent deep unfairness of financing schools through property taxes. If a few black and brown children can benefit from the wonderful schools those taxes are paying for in white suburbia, then that is a small good thing. A larger good thing would be equitable financing and a true commitment to educational excellence in every community, but wow what a crazy dream THAT is.
18
The schools in these suburbs are great......for the top students.
Even when I went to school in an elite town in Connecticut in the sixties, all they cared about was how many kids they could get into the best colleges. "This year, we have four accepted at Harvard and three at Yale!"
If you were not an intellectual star, or wanted to work with your hands instead of your brain, you got very little support from these schools.
Even when I went to school in an elite town in Connecticut in the sixties, all they cared about was how many kids they could get into the best colleges. "This year, we have four accepted at Harvard and three at Yale!"
If you were not an intellectual star, or wanted to work with your hands instead of your brain, you got very little support from these schools.
13
The real problem is zoning laws. Zoning laws are racist; they intentionally inflate the cost of housing to keep poor people (especially poor minorities) out. Get rid of zoning laws and the problem will be solved. This should also appeal to conservatives, since this is a pro free-market reform. Zoning laws are big government at its worst.
1
Look to the South for the future: Hundreds of new private schools.
3
Important to educate folks about how we came to have high concentrations of African American poverty in the first place. It was by design, willful and deliberate government policy at all levels, for decades. Some of the covenant language exists in government documents to this day. See for example this article, chronicling this history in Ferguson, a representative example.
Note especially the photographs posted within the article:
http://prospect.org/article/making-ferguson-how-decades-hostile-policy-c...
Note especially the photographs posted within the article:
http://prospect.org/article/making-ferguson-how-decades-hostile-policy-c...
9
What is stopping people from moving out of poor neighborhoods again?
4
As a longtime resident of Westchester County, let me assure you that Astorino's win over Spano, and 4 years later over Branson, had little if anything to do with affordable housing.
Spano, a long-time incumbent, was ousted over widespread disgust at his crony capitalism -- raising county taxes not to improve our schools, parks, roads etc but to do sweetheart deals with his campaign donors in leasing unneeded/overpriced office space, in further subsidizing rather than cleaning-up an ineffective county bus system, and in manifesting a constant aura of entitlement. Branson, four years later could not articulate the benefits that would accrue from raising taxes, only that they "needed" to be raised.
Westchester will again have a Democratic County Executive when the Democrats can put forward a candidate who can articulate how increased taxes will improve quality of life; until then, expect a Republican in office.
Spano, a long-time incumbent, was ousted over widespread disgust at his crony capitalism -- raising county taxes not to improve our schools, parks, roads etc but to do sweetheart deals with his campaign donors in leasing unneeded/overpriced office space, in further subsidizing rather than cleaning-up an ineffective county bus system, and in manifesting a constant aura of entitlement. Branson, four years later could not articulate the benefits that would accrue from raising taxes, only that they "needed" to be raised.
Westchester will again have a Democratic County Executive when the Democrats can put forward a candidate who can articulate how increased taxes will improve quality of life; until then, expect a Republican in office.
24
Reading this, as a 53-year-old white male raised in suburbia in the '70s, I wonder about the parallels with school busing for integration, and how it not only backfired but cost the Democratic party its white working class, male and female. The heirs of the New Deal stopped trusting government when it stuck their kids on buses and hauled them across town to elementary and secondary schools that weren't in their neighborhoods -- in fact "protecting your neighborhood" became a strong catchphrase. Mr. Esall's example of Mr. Astorino and Westchester county reminds me of Frank Rizzo in Philadelphia and the "neighborhood" speech he gave just as he switched from Democrat to Republican.
32
Giving up working class whites was one thing. Giving up wealthy whites, including the elite lawyers and financiers who are the top contributors to the national Democratic party, is something else.
If you look at Hillary's campaign and probable administrative staff, it is chock-full of people like this and their children. I'd like to see her run her machine and foundation with low-income minorities who studied at community colleges.
If you look at Hillary's campaign and probable administrative staff, it is chock-full of people like this and their children. I'd like to see her run her machine and foundation with low-income minorities who studied at community colleges.
23
"...who studied at community colleges..." is another way of saying those who did not have the income security to study full-time or even part-time at a local higher education institution. I used to teach at one of those community colleges and observed many promising students whose only issue was an inability to focus on such education due to a low income and need to work (usually in a low wage job). It ain't their brains, its just about income.
5
Taxing 529 plans is another sure fire way to guarantee that upper middle class whites will vote GOP. I am saving money for my children to go to a decent college. I would be very disappointed if they went to community college. Under no circumstances whatsoever do I want to sacrifice my kids best shot at a middle class lifestyle so that someone else's kid can go to a community college.
3
'For generations, working- and middle-class opponents of anti-discrimination laws have argued that more affluent whites support such laws without having to bear any of the costs.'
No one is in favor of discrimination. Just against using tax dollars and special programs to build or subsidize more housing.
Ensuring access is not the same as engineering outcomes.
No one is in favor of discrimination. Just against using tax dollars and special programs to build or subsidize more housing.
Ensuring access is not the same as engineering outcomes.
37
Here's a better solution- get rid of public housing AND get rid of zoning laws. Too many suburbs violate people's right to use their own property as they see fit to ensure that poor people can't afford to move in. The market could provide affordable housing at no cost to tax payers, if only it was legal to build affordable housing.
2
I am a white progressive who lives in the same town as the Clintons did not vote for Astorino. What this op Ed does not say, however, is that the HUD requirements do not limit construction of affordable housing to parameters that would conform to existing zoning. Hamlets such as Chappaqua – which has already approved 28 affordable housing units in an area close to town – are being inundated with plans by developers, who are attempting to manipulate the HUD regulations to build cheap, low-quality housing developments in middle-class residential areas or, as in the case of Chappaqua, on sub-code properties on the "wrong side of the tracks."
If the media continues to depict the problem as resistance to and backlash against racial integration, people are going to throw their hands up in frustration and vote for candidate such as Astorno. Communities in Westchester County have been inundated with plans by greedy developers who are pointing the finger of racism at those communities when they try to reduce those projects to a reasonable scale – reasonable meaning consistent with the community zoning laws – or reject the plans because, as in Chappaqua, the land on which they would be built has been declared unfit for residential use.
Mr. Edsall's op-Ed on the benefits of, and resistance by whites to, racial integration misses the real point and actual issues - at least those here in Westchester. We will have more Astorinos if people continue to be so willfully blind.
If the media continues to depict the problem as resistance to and backlash against racial integration, people are going to throw their hands up in frustration and vote for candidate such as Astorno. Communities in Westchester County have been inundated with plans by greedy developers who are pointing the finger of racism at those communities when they try to reduce those projects to a reasonable scale – reasonable meaning consistent with the community zoning laws – or reject the plans because, as in Chappaqua, the land on which they would be built has been declared unfit for residential use.
Mr. Edsall's op-Ed on the benefits of, and resistance by whites to, racial integration misses the real point and actual issues - at least those here in Westchester. We will have more Astorinos if people continue to be so willfully blind.
89
Zoning laws are racist. Towns use zoning to artificially limit the supply of housing to raise the price to insure that poor minorities can't afford to move in. Common tactics include height restrictions and minimum lot sizes. These laws are fascist. They keep people from being able to live in a given area; since you must be a resident to vote, zoning laws are actually a poll tax.
If you don't like the fact that your neighbor is building a 10 story building ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY you have the right to remain silent. People should have the right to use their own property as they see fit.
If you don't like the fact that your neighbor is building a 10 story building ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY you have the right to remain silent. People should have the right to use their own property as they see fit.
1
This is also happening in the Park Slope, Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park neighborhoods in Brooklyn.
2
Wrong. Zoning laws protect the community from rapacious individuals and environmental hazards. Zoning, for example, prevent me from harboring lions and tigers in a residential area, or installing a septic tank too close to the street. They prevent someone from building a sewage treatment plant next to a school.
Any law can be abused. Height restrictions keep someone from building a 20 story office building next to my two story home.
You are arguing against fascism but, the truth is that individuals who ride over the rights of others are "fascists" in their own way. We live in communities. Communities can't discriminate by race, gender, etc. -- and ours does not do so -- but can control property for the benefit and safety of all.
Any law can be abused. Height restrictions keep someone from building a 20 story office building next to my two story home.
You are arguing against fascism but, the truth is that individuals who ride over the rights of others are "fascists" in their own way. We live in communities. Communities can't discriminate by race, gender, etc. -- and ours does not do so -- but can control property for the benefit and safety of all.
39
One thing not covered by "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)" is the innate racial prejudice in most humans. Couple that with the issue of declining home values when poor minorities are moved into middle class white neighborhoods, and it is clear that AFFH has an uphill path to fruition.
It would be better, on several levels, to first integrate the upper-class bastions such as those places in Manhattan which the elites call home. For example, give vouchers to minorities to move into the Upper East Side and the Upper West Side. Move them into the co-ops, condos and townhome areas of the elites. After all, the forced integration plans are usually written by "limousine liberals" who, curiously, are never affected. This should also extend to the private schools where elites send their children. Tuition and housing expenses for the children of elites could be raised to provide free tuition and housing for poor minorities at the boarding schools of the elites. Also, there ought to be an "affirmative action" curve on entrance exams, so that low test scores do not prevent poor minorities from entering these elite schools.
It would be better, on several levels, to first integrate the upper-class bastions such as those places in Manhattan which the elites call home. For example, give vouchers to minorities to move into the Upper East Side and the Upper West Side. Move them into the co-ops, condos and townhome areas of the elites. After all, the forced integration plans are usually written by "limousine liberals" who, curiously, are never affected. This should also extend to the private schools where elites send their children. Tuition and housing expenses for the children of elites could be raised to provide free tuition and housing for poor minorities at the boarding schools of the elites. Also, there ought to be an "affirmative action" curve on entrance exams, so that low test scores do not prevent poor minorities from entering these elite schools.
19
Racial prejudice is a learned social disease, not innate. Little kids often have close friendship across races; it's just a matter of putting them together and letting them have fun.
Contrary to your supposition, most elite private boarding and day schools make substantial efforts to build a racial, ethnic, and socio-economically diverse community including students, teachers and administrators. And they do so because all involved have discovered that the school is a better place because of it, and students are prepared to be leaders in a world where ignorance and racial prejudice is a serious handicap. In my town, Loomis Chaffee leads the way with 26% students of color. Lots of wealthy whites are still eager to shell out over $53k/yr for the privilege of sending their kids to live there.
Contrary to your supposition, most elite private boarding and day schools make substantial efforts to build a racial, ethnic, and socio-economically diverse community including students, teachers and administrators. And they do so because all involved have discovered that the school is a better place because of it, and students are prepared to be leaders in a world where ignorance and racial prejudice is a serious handicap. In my town, Loomis Chaffee leads the way with 26% students of color. Lots of wealthy whites are still eager to shell out over $53k/yr for the privilege of sending their kids to live there.
1
I note 2 things. First, the elections Astorino won were in 2009 and 2013. There were no federal offices on the ballot in either of those years. Second, turnout in the Clinton's area was pitiful for both elections, even for an area that is probably overwhelmingly older and affluent.
Off-year elections are typically low information elections featuring issues that aren't particularly sexy. That's part of the reason Democrats typically win in Presidential years and lose at every other time.
You have to wonder what might have happened had these elections taken place when Obama was on the ballot.
Off-year elections are typically low information elections featuring issues that aren't particularly sexy. That's part of the reason Democrats typically win in Presidential years and lose at every other time.
You have to wonder what might have happened had these elections taken place when Obama was on the ballot.
3
That photo showing the location for the proposed housing in Chappaqua pretty much says it all. Whoever you are, ask yourself whether this is a fair and reasonable location to pile people. Just the noise, not to mention the isolation, would drive any normal person mad. I wonder whether the proposal also includes high fences.
8
All the good land in these towns is already taken up by giant mansions.
So maybe the government should buy Hillary's estate for $20 million, and demolish it to make way for affordable housing?
So maybe the government should buy Hillary's estate for $20 million, and demolish it to make way for affordable housing?
3
What you say is not true. You do not know this town.
2
It would still be better than living in a cardboard box. Its probably better than having 90% of your income going to rent.
Getting rid of height restrictions and minimum lot sizes would make housing more affordable for everybody. Zoning laws are an extremely regressive tax and big government at its worst.
Getting rid of height restrictions and minimum lot sizes would make housing more affordable for everybody. Zoning laws are an extremely regressive tax and big government at its worst.
I owned a home in a mixed, mid-low income neighborhood. It was a nice experience mostly but we had a section 8 area with a lot of trouble. It was a constant worry. I'm not sure what the most compassionate posture should be. The crime is there, we just didn't want to be shot or robbed. Recognizing this quandry and expressing concern about it is not racism, and no one is going to scold me into believing that.
204
I have also lived in a mixed housing area. This situation led to burglaries, drug dealing, gun shots and other crimes happening in the middle class neighborhoods that bordered the section 8 apartments. It was not about race, this particular middle class neighborhood was largely hispanic with a few African Americans. Having the government force this on people who have worked hard to move up is unacceptable. I hope this becomes an issue in the 2016 election, because if its carried out it will ruin good neighborhoods across America.
16
Everyone has a right to seek personal safety and not be chided for it. However, crime is not the enemy, race is not the enemy; poverty is the evil that most inexorably creates what you fear.
The government decides that people who can't afford to live in a neighborhood have a right to live there anyway. They require the town to build housing which may be totally out of character with the existing homes. The current residents who have worked hard to afford this neighbor aren't happy with this, I can't image why. They must all be racists.
199
No, the federal government decided that if a municipality wants to recieve funds reserved for low income housing, that these funds cannot be used to create projects / ghettos.
Noone is forcing municipalities to take the funds, and if the municipal government decides it is not in their best interest (such as Westchester)--either for political or social reasons--they can forgo the funds.
Noone is forcing municipalities to take the funds, and if the municipal government decides it is not in their best interest (such as Westchester)--either for political or social reasons--they can forgo the funds.
1
They are racists or at least classists. They voted for zoning laws that intentionally make it impossible for lower income minorities to live there.
You have the right to control your own property. You DO NOT have the right to control your neighbor's property.
You have the right to control your own property. You DO NOT have the right to control your neighbor's property.
Somehow, in small towns, the right side and wrong side of. The tracks are not that far apart. Somehow, in cities, the checkerboard of rich and poor neighborhoods manage to coexist. Why is it only the suburbs that expect to stay "uncontaminated" across economic boundaries? Could they be living in a brief middle class fantasy? No worries. We're seeing the last convulsions of the middle class anyway.
1
In many areas, schools have run out of white children to integrate other children with.
Similarly, as demographics change, the amount of needed "affordable housing" required to make localities "look like America" will grow exponentially as America's population grows larger and more diverse.
The expense could be extraordinary, since generally affordable housing built with federal money is in fact very expensive, given government contracting and wage mandates and approval rules. It is "affordable" to the end recipient, but other taxpayers who may have even lower income are helping to do the affording, and it makes their own lives less affordable. And thus emerges the birth-rate gap between the beneficiaries of these programs, and middle-class women and families who must continue working rather than having children in order to pay the taxes that pay for this.
I don't believe in eugenics, but I don't believe in dysgenics either, certainly not if it is funded by federal tax dollars and conscripted state and local funds.
Similarly, as demographics change, the amount of needed "affordable housing" required to make localities "look like America" will grow exponentially as America's population grows larger and more diverse.
The expense could be extraordinary, since generally affordable housing built with federal money is in fact very expensive, given government contracting and wage mandates and approval rules. It is "affordable" to the end recipient, but other taxpayers who may have even lower income are helping to do the affording, and it makes their own lives less affordable. And thus emerges the birth-rate gap between the beneficiaries of these programs, and middle-class women and families who must continue working rather than having children in order to pay the taxes that pay for this.
I don't believe in eugenics, but I don't believe in dysgenics either, certainly not if it is funded by federal tax dollars and conscripted state and local funds.
27
As a Brooklynite for over 60 years, I never thought seriously about crime -- although heaven knows I lived through the 1970s and 1980s, saw what happened to once-lovely buildings and whole neighborhoods when Section-8 came in, and had my car broken into at least half a dozen times in various parts of the city -- until my last move, to Flatbush. Now I take crime very seriously.
In Flatbush, I have in a dozen or so years heard more police, fire, and ambulance sirens than in all the rest of my life. And in the last eleven months, my neighborhood has had more shootings than I ever recallI elsewhere.
We have had two shootings on the same corner in a month, a block from where I live, and many more on other corners in this same month.
Why? The perpetrator is always, at least here in Flatbush, a black male of a certain class. I call it the trash class, since my other neighbors, many of whom are low-income blacks, are hard-working family people.
One thing is for sure: If I ever decide to leave NYC and could afford to purchase a home elsewhere, I would find it mighty hard if, a couple of years down the road, subsiduzed low-income housing -- subsidized in part by me -- were built within even a couple of miles from me and some trash came to visit one of the residents.
It might be white trash or black, but the result is the same.
Because they end up staying. And with them come noise and strewn garbage and crime. I've seen it happen in Brooklyn.
In Flatbush, I have in a dozen or so years heard more police, fire, and ambulance sirens than in all the rest of my life. And in the last eleven months, my neighborhood has had more shootings than I ever recallI elsewhere.
We have had two shootings on the same corner in a month, a block from where I live, and many more on other corners in this same month.
Why? The perpetrator is always, at least here in Flatbush, a black male of a certain class. I call it the trash class, since my other neighbors, many of whom are low-income blacks, are hard-working family people.
One thing is for sure: If I ever decide to leave NYC and could afford to purchase a home elsewhere, I would find it mighty hard if, a couple of years down the road, subsiduzed low-income housing -- subsidized in part by me -- were built within even a couple of miles from me and some trash came to visit one of the residents.
It might be white trash or black, but the result is the same.
Because they end up staying. And with them come noise and strewn garbage and crime. I've seen it happen in Brooklyn.
164
Thank you for pointing out that Edsall wrapping this up as a race issue to force it down everyone's throats is a red herring. All this will do is create a new division in housing - communities that can refuse federal funding and those that cannot and have to accept socially engineered bliss.
3
Of course there will be pushback. There always is, to social change. I'm not sure what Edsall thinks ought to happen: leave things as they are? If so, I disagree.
A simpler way to open up housing for low and middle-income people in affluent areas is to mandate that communities allow homeowners to add an accessory apartment to their house. Not only would this create some moderate rentals, it would allow the elderly in these communities to age in place, now able to afford the high property taxes.
15
Tom, this looming issue demonstrates why it's still "the economy, stupid".
Let me strongly suggest that race become far less of a factor once one moves up the economic ladder. Unfortunately, due to voodoo economics, more Americans are moving down that economic ladder, not up.
Instead of attempting to move poor people into middle and upper class neighborhoods, which is always an unpopular solution, wouldn't a more palatable approach be to expand economic opportunity - by first, doing whatever is necessary to replenish Americas' job base, and second, by tweaking the tax code so that everyone who works receives a housing allowance that would make the cost of keeping a roof over one's head more affordable, not just "home owners".
What I'm specifically proposing here is that we transform the home mortgage deduction into a housing allowance, available to every American to pays taxes. This allowance would make it easier for working Americans of every race to afford housing.
In contrast, the home mortgage deduction is it currently exists is an invitation to moral hazard - inasmuch as it incentivizes a purchase that may not make long-term economic sense for many lower- and middle-class Americans, as it did not during the recent real estate bubble. Furthermore, inasmuch as there is no free lunch, the current home mortgage deduction provision is tantamount to asking Americans who rent to subsidize others' purchase of a house, condo, or co-op with their tax dollars.
Let me strongly suggest that race become far less of a factor once one moves up the economic ladder. Unfortunately, due to voodoo economics, more Americans are moving down that economic ladder, not up.
Instead of attempting to move poor people into middle and upper class neighborhoods, which is always an unpopular solution, wouldn't a more palatable approach be to expand economic opportunity - by first, doing whatever is necessary to replenish Americas' job base, and second, by tweaking the tax code so that everyone who works receives a housing allowance that would make the cost of keeping a roof over one's head more affordable, not just "home owners".
What I'm specifically proposing here is that we transform the home mortgage deduction into a housing allowance, available to every American to pays taxes. This allowance would make it easier for working Americans of every race to afford housing.
In contrast, the home mortgage deduction is it currently exists is an invitation to moral hazard - inasmuch as it incentivizes a purchase that may not make long-term economic sense for many lower- and middle-class Americans, as it did not during the recent real estate bubble. Furthermore, inasmuch as there is no free lunch, the current home mortgage deduction provision is tantamount to asking Americans who rent to subsidize others' purchase of a house, condo, or co-op with their tax dollars.
11
The Pease phaseout in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 has already put a major dent in the value of the home mortgage interest deduction. It is now of little value to high-income taxpayers.
9
I think you might be on the right track, but you missed one key detail; 47% of Americans don't pay any income taxes. Are they entitle to this to?
7
If there is one thing these affluent liberals care about, it is their kids and the schools. In Westchester, they pay gigantic property taxes to make sure they have the finest schools. Any threat to this way of life is going to result in a big fight.
In any case, it does not make sense to put poor, or even lower-middle-class people, in these towns. Everything is set up for the affluent. Social life revolves around expensive country clubs, the grocery stores are full of gourmet and organic food, and the car dealers sell Range Rovers and Infinitis. The schools are intensely competitive, and oriented towards children who come in highly educated at age five. The poor people would find the whole thing oppressive and highly alien.
In any case, it does not make sense to put poor, or even lower-middle-class people, in these towns. Everything is set up for the affluent. Social life revolves around expensive country clubs, the grocery stores are full of gourmet and organic food, and the car dealers sell Range Rovers and Infinitis. The schools are intensely competitive, and oriented towards children who come in highly educated at age five. The poor people would find the whole thing oppressive and highly alien.
48
So this is your excuse why the down-trodden should not come to your area -- that they wouldn't feel comfortable?
Do you think they feel comfortable in a solid middle-class neighborhood, albeit without the fancy stores?
I see one area, the well to do, using everything at its disposal to push such a settlement into the middle-class neighborhood which does not have the political clout to object. If their property values go south, that's just too bad. There are winners and losers, and in this case, it's the people who worked hard for a nice house and see it's value plummet because of a HUD development.
If such developments must exist, then put them in everywhere. I mean, put several in the Hamptons and other tony areas around this country.
Do you think they feel comfortable in a solid middle-class neighborhood, albeit without the fancy stores?
I see one area, the well to do, using everything at its disposal to push such a settlement into the middle-class neighborhood which does not have the political clout to object. If their property values go south, that's just too bad. There are winners and losers, and in this case, it's the people who worked hard for a nice house and see it's value plummet because of a HUD development.
If such developments must exist, then put them in everywhere. I mean, put several in the Hamptons and other tony areas around this country.
1
Edsall misses that the SCOTUS decision is just catching up with much of American opinion and policies regarding low-income housing, as revealed in the suburbs of Dallas, in red/purple voting precincts:
http://keranews.org/post/low-income-housing-high-income-frisco-breaking-...
While such stories may not be typical, they certainly demonstrate community support for racial equality beyond " lowering the Confederate flag " - even in red/purple areas not to mention blue areas - and should be studied instead of ignored :)
It is too often forgotten that much of the civil rights battle improved economic equality (regardless of race) as well as racial equality; that unifying economic equality message was feared more by the plutocracy than the civil rights message.
http://keranews.org/post/low-income-housing-high-income-frisco-breaking-...
While such stories may not be typical, they certainly demonstrate community support for racial equality beyond " lowering the Confederate flag " - even in red/purple areas not to mention blue areas - and should be studied instead of ignored :)
It is too often forgotten that much of the civil rights battle improved economic equality (regardless of race) as well as racial equality; that unifying economic equality message was feared more by the plutocracy than the civil rights message.
13
As I've said before, this new rule is less about moving poor blacks into rich white areas as it is about making sure that when the government subsidizes housing, it does so in a manner that does not discriminate against minorities. In other words, if you build subsidized housing in a decent part of town that happens to be predominantly white, you can't engage in shenanigans that have the effect of restricting residency only to low-income white families. That's not only unfair, it's unconstitutional. The race of the applicants should not hold them back from obtaining subsidized housing in any areas where it is available.
Are people really opposed to that?