Door May Close on Housing Program

[MountainLaurel]

Yet another service to the poor eliminated so that Bush's "base" can make a few more billion in defense contracts.

:grr:

There are times, Jacqueline Massey said, when the quiet of her Anacostia neighborhood reminds her of the dark days of nearly a decade ago, when only eight families remained at the public housing development of Valley Green, huddled in the center of a virtually deserted complex of 34 crumbling buildings.

But it is not the silence of the ghost town it was back then, when it was abandoned by the residents, the police and even the drug dealers. Now, the 58-year-old said, the silence she feels on those same streets is the calm of a community at peace.

snip

The journey that turned the blighted apartments of Valley Green and nearby Skytower into the bucolic development of Wheeler Creek appears to exemplify the promise of President Bush's ownership society. Yet the Bush administration is seeking to eliminate the program largely responsible for Wheeler Creek's creation, known as Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere, or Hope VI.

"This is truly an opportunity without a handout," said Ronald Jones, 47, a consultant at the defense contractor Whitney, Bradley & Brown Inc. and one of the higher-income homeowners who bought into Wheeler Creek at market rate. "Hope VI meets you halfway, and then you want to do away with it? The president has never visited Wheeler Creek."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062001450.html

[MadHound]

1. Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick! This fucking idiot has no shame!

This has been a very successful program nationwide, it has taken neighborhoods that were either on the brink, or completly wasted, and made them vibrant vital communities again. I took advantage of this program back in '93, as did a couple of other people on my block. With a solid core of home owners, we became organized into an association that drove out the crack houses and drug dealers, put a stop to running gunfights up and down the street, and lifted families that were in abysmal poverty up into becoming solid middle class citizens.

I used this opportunity to get into my first home, which in turn allowed me to move out to the country ten years later. I in turn took my old house, after having fixed it up over ten years, and sold it to a young couple just starting out, and they got a nice house for a reasonable price.

This is just insane. Take a program that is successful, and wipe it out all to put the money into the pockets of the already filthy rich. This is absolutely disgusting, especially at a time when affordable low cost housing is becoming increasingly scarce. Goddamn fucking idiot chimp:grr:

I'd better stop here, otherwise I'll rant all day. It just burns me no end that this fucking fool would scrap a program that is doing what other programs can't, reclaim blighted inner city neighborhoods, and turning them into prosperous, peaceful communities. These fools have no shame, nor sense.

[MountainLaurel]

2. It's pitiful, isn't it

I could rant as well: I live in DC, where the cost of housing has doubled over the past two years.

Which, goes to the heart of the problem. Why redevelop inner-city areas to make housing available to low- and middle-income residents when developers can knock down a housing project and make a mint by developing a gated community of McMansions, a commercial district of boutiques and cafes where the staff can't afford to buy, or an office building for yet another defense contractor?

[Gormy Cuss]

3. HOPE VI is a limited scope program

HOPE VI funding is restricted to developments that meet the definition of severely distressed. Typically these are places with half of the units boarded up and no funding available to rehab, often because the housing authority has recognized that the development would never be a success because of design flaws such as too high a density for family communities. There aren't that many developments that were candidates for this HOPE, and after ten or so years of implementation the viable candidates may have been addressed*

There was considerable controversy early on because of HOPE VI plans that called for exchanging highly valued land in commercial districts for larger parcels in less accessible parts of town. The thinking was this would allow for a 1:1 unit replacement ratio, rather than a significant reduction on the existing parcel. Everyone wins in that case except the tenants who have been displaced from their communities.


* dirty little secrets: most public housing is in better condition that the privately owned housing in the same rental market; many of what people call "the projects" aren't public housing, they're privately owned, Federally subsidized developments. With the except of a few badly run or even corrupt public housing authorities, these agencies do a great job with limited resources. If HUD would get back in the business of building rental public housing stock it would solve a lot of housing insecurity problems.

[Sugarbleus]

4. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here but....

**There was considerable controversy early on because of HOPE VI plans that called for exchanging highly valued land in commercial districts for larger parcels in less accessible parts of town. The thinking was this would allow for a 1:1 unit replacement ratio, rather than a significant reduction on the existing parcel. Everyone wins in that case except the tenants who have been displaced from their communities.


* dirty little secrets: most public housing is in better condition that the privately owned housing in the same rental market; many of what people call "the projects" aren't public housing, they're privately owned, Federally subsidized developments. With the except of a few badly run or even corrupt public housing authorities, these agencies do a great job with limited resources. If HUD would get back in the business of building rental public housing stock it would solve a lot of housing insecurity problems.**
.........................................

My take is that building/reclaiming buildings for the lower income and poor citizens is the best idea I can think of. I've driven past some of these new "projects" in my liberal community. They are gorgeous though inadequate for ALL family types. I'm at least happy that something was tried and accomplished through the redevelopment agencies around here. HUD has little to do with these developments. Some are for sale, some are for rent and will accept section 8. There are at least five such developments throughout my county that I'm aware of.

What I would like to see coming from HUD, or whatever agency, is housing reclaimed from older neighborhoods (or new developments) that are in the midst of regular neighborhoods---NOT push people into "poor only" districts.

I drive down the older, tree lined streets in my town and see a falling down house; no one is living in it. Why not have the community or HUD buy that property, remodel it so it's fit for habitation, then rent it to the very low income or low income buyer? Why can't they reclaim older buildings for apts with sole purpose of renting to low income people? Why can't the program make it easy for low income, perhaps disabled WHOLE families, people rent-to-buy? Not all low or poverty stricken families can come up with down payments and all the rest that goes with home ownership.

There are so many ways the states and the agencies could improve housing for those left dangling in the wind.