There is hope for housing yet.
A public housing complex in Yonkers, image courtesy the New York Times
A dilemma of low-income housing in America is that it often is associated with blighted inner cities or, oppositely, suburban sprawl. This is not difficult to understand, as both locations are of the lowest real estate value, making them sensible areas for low-income residents to inhabit. However, these locations each have their problems. In order for the government to remedy the failures of housing policy, it needs to look to the future without ignoring the past. No single housing policy fell out of favor because it was a bad idea. Each proposition that has been suggested in housing policy history has deteriorated for particular reasons which have stood in the way of effective, long-lasting resolutions. For example, public housing largely failed due to poor design, criminal management, and lack of funding. However, when the task is given to review the downfall of public housing, the result tends to point the blame at public housing itself, despite the fact that done correctly, public housing could be entirely effective. Public misconception about the successes and failures of housing policy has also become a major stumbling block in the path of progress for housing in America.
As the Green Movement in America is becoming prominent, it seems logical to fuse the benefits of low-cost, environmentally-friendly, and healthier housing with housing for low-income residents. Yet the key quandary of this ideal situation is that because the market is driving the consumeristic aspects of the Green Movement, it is largely leaving low-income consumers in the dust. A change ought to be made to have more governmental intervention into the environmental progress in order to make “green” living more affordable to both the average consumer and the low-income resident. Many elements of environmentally-friendly housing, like geo-thermal heat pumps, solar panels, and gray water systems are expensive for the upfront cost and installation, despite their long-term benefits and cost-saving attributes. This makes them unattainable to a majority of the general public, and even more so to low-income citizens.
As of now, the government has picked and chosen subsidies for research of particular solutions for the energy crisis that is facing America. Nonetheless, little attention is given to the research and experimental design of affordable solutions specifically geared for low-income residents. This is left to the market to determine not only the costs and supply of earth-friendly products, but also the advertising for education about the benefits. In using this laissez faire system pertaining to the Green Movement, there is a small minority of people who are able to afford the lifestyle or even understand the less expensive aspects due to lack of education about it. The paradox is that those who can afford the more beneficial features of the movement are not likely to care as much about the money-saving results and thus the demand does not increase enough to lower the prices significantly enough for widespread use. In addition, the lack of demand has led to very little education about the larger-scale, pricier changes that have greater money-saving results in terms of energy use. Whereas stores like Home Depot can advertise their money- and environment-saving “Eco Options”, they refer almost exclusively to CFL light bulbs and other miniscule consumer options and do not add to the bigger picture.
A solution for the disparity of the green movement for low-income residents would be to have the government fund a new strain of public housing that incorporates experimental green measures. This could not come at a better time considering the state of the economy and the growing unemployment rate. New green collar jobs could be opened for both new construction as well as retrofitting of public housing units in order to provide housing for low-income residents. The new jobs could be offered to the future residents in order to provide them with skills that would be valuable in the future. Habitat for Humanity, the non-profit, international organization that is based on volunteer hours to provide homes to those in need, is an excellent model for what the American government is capable of doing on a larger scale. In the Habitat program, future residents pay for their houses (at a price which is under market rate) and also commit a number of hours to volunteering their time for hands-on construction in their future home or the home of another resident. This not only provides low-income residents with skills in the construction field, but it also makes them invested (beyond their financial obligation) in the house they will own. Habitat for Humanity has been effective for thirty years in providing affordable, quality housing to residents of many countries, but primarily in America. The United States government could adopt the Habitat tradition and incorporate its components into a larger-scale housing solution for America.
Additionally, the economy could use a direct stimulus to increase production and consumer spending. This could occur as a result of government spending for construction, research, and design of environmentally sustainable structures geared towards low-income residents. This large-scale operation would spur the production of green construction materials as well as jobs and economic growth in general. An essential aspect of this process would be transparency, not only because of the use of tax dollars, but also for public education pertaining to products and methods used in green construction and lifestyle that would be incorporated into the buildings’ designs. That alone could jumpstart more production of greener products, thus lowering the price of production and making them more widely accessible.
Currently, the trend towards “traditional neighborhood development” does not include low-income housing in its scheme. This is, again, because it is driven by the private market and the high demand therefore makes it highly expensive for the most part. If the government were to be more involved in this arena, it would be possible to merge private market office and retail with public housing in units above. The combination of revenue from private rented spaces with the amount of volunteer hours from the residents in the actual construction and the implementation of green practices would enable the actual costs on the government’s part to be kept to a minimum. Further, the long-term payoff of the incorporation of environmentally-friendly products and construction materials would aid the program in funding prospective developments, providing liquid resources for the future.
The government’s trend of decentralization has been a self-fulfilling prophecy of American disinterest in housing policy. Now that it is a responsibility largely left to localities or non-profits, it would be quite a task to gain the trust and political will to turn around the American view of how to solve the problems. At the same time, few believe that the central government is capable of achieving results, as past attempts have not been entirely successful. Despite the reservations about increased government involvement, it seems that a return to public housing and other such programs would have the best and most efficient results, if they are done correctly.
The Gautreaux program, an experimental exercise in low-income resident mobility, proved to be highly effective, yet did not catch on nationally due to a lack of funding and public relations issues. Additionally, the program encouraged a flight to the suburbs, further drawing life out of inner cities, and public schools, in particular. However, the program provided a kind of social capital by diluting the concentration of poverty that residents faced in the traditional public housing of inner cities. Thus, the involved residents were able to pull themselves out of cyclical poverty. This is an essential part of the problem in the former public housing units – not only were they were put up cheaply and quickly, but also in highly concentrated areas of poverty. The alternative is to provide a mixed income development, where a number of units in the city were subsidized to keep rates affordable, while the others are sold at market rate. Currently, this concept is confined to private development, and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit is involved to enable developers to do this. However, if the government were to run these units, there would be more regulation and more capital to make decent and affordable housing. This would mimic the mixed-income capabilities of the Gautreaux program and garner the social capital that made the program worthwhile. Yet in keeping the development dense, it would not encourage sprawl by pushing low-income residents to the suburbs. It would also have the potential to change the image of inner city living and keep tax revenue in the public school system as well.
Certain elements of both public housing and the Gautreaux program were enormously successful in meeting specific needs regarding housing problems in the United States. Tying these two concepts together, along with green practices in design and particular aspects of the non-profit Habitat for Humanity, allow for inexpensive but quality public housing. An important feature of this new way of looking at public housing is that there is mixing of social, racial, and economic backgrounds. Also, the transit-oriented development of government-run housing would lend itself to low-income residents not having to rely on providing their own transportation to the workplace. It is unfortunate that the current standard is to pass the responsibility away from the central government, despite the fact that centralizing housing can provide efficient and widespread results.
Housing policy in the United States is in need of an overhaul. In the 1990’s, the HOPE VI program attempted to be that change for the face of public housing. However, that effort did not go as smoothly as was intended, and many lost faith in the possibility of the government to effectively and efficiently meet the needs of low-income citizens. Switching the focus of the problem has done little to solve it though, and the country is back to the beginning in terms of requiring a solution to housing affordability and access. If the government does not intervene soon to bring the country forward in a consistent and appropriate program, then the disparity of housing will only become worse. Looking to the promise of environmental, social, and economic sustainability seems the only viable answer to the question that so many citizens beg: How can the American Dream become accessible by all Americans?
Leave a Reply