Right, and the move to vouches is also predicated on an ideal: that living closer to model families will instill/rub off on folks that used to live in ph; that is, behavior modification can and will occur, allowing previous PH residents to resolve their issues and come out of poverty. Never mind that moves into mixed income neighborhoods often happen in the middle of the night to conceal family status, or that members of PH might have once been middle-income themselves. Never mind, as well, that public housing often sits on desirable land.

The problem is that the perception is by and large true: public housing projects were a failure at all levels. The middle class projects, like Stuy Town and Coop City, were built at the expense of improving lower-income neighborhoods, and became hotspots of resentments for poor people; Jane Jacobs tells the story of a cop who shooed two Puerto Rican boys away after they sat on a bench in Stuy Town. The lower class projects were a lot more socially isolating than the neighborhoods they replaced, directly contributing to the rise in crime rates in the 1960s. Even in France, where the government spends far more resources on welfare services, the public housing projects are hotbeds of social alienation and resentment, which contributed to the riots in the suburbs in 2005.

Perhaps we confuse the true purpose of public housing: to ensure that low-income individuals have access to decent housing. If we're expecting the projects to solve all of the social ills that accompany poverty, perhaps we're asking too much. Public housing cannot necessarily solve the problems of crime, social alienation and resentment, but it can ensure that large segments of the population are not homeless. It can provide permanence and stability to households that would otherwise be moving from house to house.

The projects didn't merely fail to solve problems of alienation - they made them worse. They destroyed established neighborhoods; the substitutes they created are weak not just because of poverty, but also because of their urban form. For example, housing is strictly income-segregated, and historically was strictly racially segregated too.

Project-based urban renewal was advertised as cheap housing for the working class, but the working class already had cheap housing in the tenements the projects replaced, which had no big homelessness or transience problem. To the extent that they're making housing more affordable now, projects are effective mostly at making their surroundings so undesirable that local housing prices are low. To the extent that cities that are relatively project-free, like San Francisco, have big homelessness problem, it's because they offer a lifestyle people want, pushing out the poor.

Alon- Yes, but. We still have to consider how many people were leaving cities like NY as projects were constructed. Highways and projects go together in time and development, as does massive suburban expansion (and federally subsidized loans post wwii mostly in the burbs)... these and other variables played a large role in the flail and subsequent downfall of housing projects (in the typical tower style we see in places like the south side of chicago or the bronx) as well.

I was on a waiting list for 9 years before receiving a housing voucher. Those nine years were really tough (2 evictions and utilities shut off) in overpriced Los Angeles.

The housing help lasted for about 8 years and helped so much easing financial stress while I attended college.

This 'debate' s really not an arguement about what is 'best' for low income tenants. It is a ploy which has been used before, and is currently being used by republican administrations to re-route money {and a lot of it} from direct services into the private sector. The 'arguement goes that 'public' means of less quality, wher as 'private' means 'pulled up'. The problem with this contrast is that it is built upon two false premises.
The first false premise is that privatly owned establishments are best represented by establishments catering to upper-income patrons. Look again. The 'slums' of both rural and urban america are not primarily qwmned or operated by any government entity. That is why there are those 21,00 applicants in Atlanta still hoping to get into public housing. The non-emergency wait list in NYC is at least 3 years long....officially. As bad as public housing may be, it is superior to the low income housing being provided in the private sector to low-income tenants. !
The second false premise is that the goverment is unable to provide appropriate services, and that the red-tape and poor service the goverment provides is because it is 'the government'. This is not the case either. as has been pointed out many times, the US congress has health insurance at a superior level to that provided by the HMO's to which the citizenry is subjected. Yet, as with the argument for private housing, the no choice, poor quality care and substandard medical services provided in the private sector is never used as the contrasting example.
Progrssives need to stop being bamboozled by the false comparisons. The republicans are the very folks who refuse to put a nickel into public housing, thus causing its deterioration. They are the architects of the HMO system, and the drain on funds for the education of medical personel etc.. etc..
The struggle against privatization is a struggle for superior services.It must be said that way. The public sector can provide better services at less cost. .

This 'debate' s really not an arguement about what is 'best' for low income tenants. It is a ploy which has been used before, and is currently being used by republican administrations to re-route money {and a lot of it} from direct services into the private sector. The 'arguement goes that 'public' means of less quality, wher as 'private' means 'pulled up'. The problem with this contrast is that it is built upon two false premises.
The first false premise is that privatly owned establishments are best represented by establishments catering to upper-income patrons. Look again. The 'slums' of both rural and urban america are not primarily qwmned or operated by any government entity. That is why there are those 21,00 applicants in Atlanta still hoping to get into public housing. The non-emergency wait list in NYC is at least 3 years long....officially. As bad as public housing may be, it is superior to the low income housing being provided in the private sector to low-income tenants. !
The second false premise is that the goverment is unable to provide appropriate services, and that the red-tape and poor service the goverment provides is because it is 'the government'. This is not the case either. as has been pointed out many times, the US congress has health insurance at a superior level to that provided by the HMO's to which the citizenry is subjected. Yet, as with the argument for private housing, the no choice, poor quality care and substandard medical services provided in the private sector is never used as the contrasting example.
Progrssives need to stop being bamboozled by the false comparisons. The republicans are the very folks who refuse to put a nickel into public housing, thus causing its deterioration. They are the architects of the HMO system, and the drain on funds for the education of medical personel etc.. etc..
The struggle against privatization is a struggle for superior services.It must be said that way. The public sector can provide better services at less cost. .

Rachel, what does health care have to do with the failure of public housing? These are two separate issues, both with empirical answers. On health care, we can compare quality of care in private and public systems, and conclude that private systems cost too much and deliver too little. On housing, we can compare quality of private, neighborhood-style housing, and public housing projects, and conclude that public housing projects destroy communities and cause social alienation.

i have to say something. public housing did serve its purpose for decades. anybody arguing against that is lying to themselves or ashamed at what is the truth. it kept crime and low-life living "concentrated" to main designated areas and that is a good thing. as it's been, those ghetto people have a slum mentality and they don't dare think outside of the gates that surround their housing units. destroying their communities and dispersing them throughout the entire country will do a ton of harm which "white folks in power" will soon find out.

those people fight, shoot, and kill each other weekly for sport. the girls start having babies at 13 like they are competing in a contest. the young men began at about the same age on their criminal careers and go back and forth to jail like it's the shopping mall. not only that, they will steadily attract more and more "recruits" (mostly young, silly individuals and borderline bad-a**es) into their sub-level living. it's kind of hard to describe what im trying to say other than unleashing and dispersing "them" is the equivalent of stirring up a hornets nest or unleashing a plague.

those in power know that the projects around the entire globe have served their purpose. they know ghetto is not a place, it's not a building, but a frame of mind. those rich people living in north atlanta w/ their glass doors and floor to ceiling windows better watch out!

i see this as being the beginning of a master plan. i believe there is no replacement housing available for all of the low income individuals. i know there isn't. they are expected to be homeless and pitiful, to go out and do crimes, be put in jail, and later transported to the concentration camps they are building all around this country. know that any plan to harm anyone always affects the poor and weak first. the end of the world is near and this is the beginning of the end right here for you.

don't lose sight of any war going on on this planet: white against black, rich against poor, man against woman. know that there is only ONE war that you should keep your sights on and that is the spiritual war that wages here on earth. god is coming back soon and everything is steady being lined up for the new world order and the antichrist to take his position and God's return to claim his kingdom. line up for god people. don't let bs divert your attention.

This is the reason why the waiting lists are so long. People contact me daily in dire need of housing and being put on to waiting lists for public housing that never materialize is a crime in itself.

Wall Street makes billions while millions of young children and families suffer without even having a chance at bettering their lives.

This is the reason why the waiting lists are so long. People contact me daily in dire need of housing and being put on to waiting lists for public housing that never materialize is a crime in itself.

Wall Street makes billions while millions of young children and families suffer without even having a chance at bettering their lives.