# low-income housing and racism



## hossoso (Oct 9, 2005)

I am working on a project for my Urban Research class where we have 15-20 pages to pose a *research question*, not a research paper - - we are not supposed to answer the question, only present evidence. I was hoping you could help me find some holes in this. If you are in an Urban Studies program or have read Hamnett, Swanstrom, Sugrue or H.L. Taylor it would help a lot. But I welcome all opinions though this is US focused.

My question: Is low-income housing a stepping-stone or a dead end. 

I will be using evidence from mortgage practices, red-lining of African American neighborhoods in Detroit and Chicago, loan trends and investment. I hope to outline an argument for my senoir work, that low-income housing can be used as a mechanism of institutional racism. A sort of race specific trap where anyone can get in but only certain races can get out, those kept in are overwhelmingly African-Americans or Latinos and have paths of egress blocked by CCIs or the unspoken acceptance of red-lining by banks, realtors, mortgage groups, community groups and city government. This is getting long, I will continue if there is any response. I already have all of the academic and peer-review sources I need but I was hoping I could get some advice on how to present it. I submit on friday!


----------



## Bond James Bond (Aug 23, 2002)

It's probably a dead end for some, and a stepping-stone for others.


----------



## Scraper Enthusiast (Oct 4, 2005)

hossoso said:


> I am working on a project for my Urban Research class where we have 15-20 pages to pose a *research question*, not a research paper - - we are not supposed to answer the question, only present evidence. I was hoping you could help me find some holes in this. If you are in an Urban Studies program or have read Hamnett, Swanstrom, Sugrue or H.L. Taylor it would help a lot. But I welcome all opinions though this is US focused.
> 
> My question: Is low-income housing a stepping-stone or a dead end.
> 
> I will be using evidence from mortgage practices, red-lining of African American neighborhoods in Detroit and Chicago, loan trends and investment. I hope to outline an argument for my senoir work, that low-income housing can be used as a mechanism of institutional racism. A sort of race specific trap where anyone can get in but only certain races can get out, those kept in are overwhelmingly African-Americans or Latinos and have paths of egress blocked by CCIs or the unspoken acceptance of red-lining by banks, realtors, mortgage groups, community groups and city government. This is getting long, I will continue if there is any response. I already have all of the academic and peer-review sources I need but I was hoping I could get some advice on how to present it. I submit on friday!


No one is forcing anyone to stay in low income housing. A large percentage of individuals in low-income housing/government-subsidized housing prefer to live there. They're not looking to get out. It's not a matter of discrimination, racism, or whatever you want to call it, but a matter of preference given economic situation. Some choose not to better themselves, as working will render them ineligible for "low income housing", often "forcing" them to move to a less desireable area. I mean, have you seen many of these nicer "Low-income" housing developments? Many of them today are nice, a far cry from the ones that were thrown up in the fifties, sixties, and seventies.


----------



## hossoso (Oct 9, 2005)

Bond James Bond said:


> It's probably a dead end for some, and a stepping-stone for others.


mmm...yeah. That is the focus of my work. Are there any trends that you can identify? Class, race, native, immigrant...anything? I already indentified the focus of my paper as race and low-income housing but I am as interested in any discrediting arguments as I am in supporting arguments. My grade depends on this being incredibly tight on index construction. If I have a source with imcomplete data, I have to throw it out.


----------



## hossoso (Oct 9, 2005)

Scraper Enthusiast said:


> No one is forcing anyone to stay in low income housing. A large percentage of individuals in low-income housing/government-subsidized housing prefer to live there. They're not looking to get out. It's not a matter of discrimination, racism, or whatever you want to call it, but a matter of preference given economic situation. Some choose not to better themselves, as working will render them ineligible for "low income housing", often "forcing" them to move to a less desireable area. I mean, have you seen many of these nicer "Low-income" housing developments? Many of them today are nice, a far cry from the ones that were thrown up in the fifties, sixties, and seventies.


There are well-known case studies where populations are not *forced* to stay in low-income housing but are *prevented* from leaving through economic or political manipulation. Actually, I disagree with a few of your statements but if you know of an example (preferably a study) where people chose to stay in low-income housing for personal or economic reasons, I would love to know about it. If my professor knows of a case that backs-up what you say and I don't know about it, I could be in for a lot of trouble and tons of work. Sorry we disagree, all opinions are appreciated.

edit: Yes, I have seen nicer low-income housing developments recently. Low-income housing in urban environments has been the focus of my study for a couple of years now. I have not studied developments on the periphery of metropolitan areas unless they have cheap, affordable public transport to the urban core. There may very well be five-star low-income housing out there but if it does not have quick city access, it is not really my subject right now.


----------



## Third of a kind (Jun 20, 2004)

As someone whose grown up in a set of Public Housing projects I will say it's a Dead End.

new or old its a trap.


----------



## marites4 (Aug 12, 2005)

Can you elaborate on how one is forced to stay in low income housing through economic or political manipulation? If that's the case how come immigrants were able to acquire property? IN fact the recent housing boom was fueled by immigrants fr everywhere acquiring houses. I think there is racism in AMerica but immigrants just work harder and have to raise there level of tolerance for discrimination and racism. Native born AMericans are just too lazy to work hard and try to get out of their economic situation. If other peoples from different countries who don't speak the language as well, faced with discrimination and racism ,are able to get out why can't native born Americans do the same as well.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Third of a kind said:


> As someone whose grown up in a set of Public Housing projects I will say it's a Dead End.
> 
> new or old its a trap.


It's according to the career you choose. Nas grew up in the PJs and now has a successful rap career


----------



## hossoso (Oct 9, 2005)

Third of a kind said:


> As someone whose grown up in a set of Public Housing projects I will say it's a Dead End.
> 
> new or old its a trap.


I am sure that you already know that I agree but if you could elaborate at all, I would appreciate it. I am really interested in the race aspect of it. After reading all this research, low-income housing reminds me of a type of fishing net that was developed to preserve protected species. It catches all types of fish but only retains a certain species as the net was designed to let the rest of the fish swimming at that depth slip through. So, I understand CCIs are not race specific but they only monitor who is accepted into low-income housing, why are some ethnic groups more likely to remain than others. Keep in mind that these numbers are large enough to invalidate stereotypes and generalizations. Intelligence, initiative and ability don't factor into this, everyone starts equally. Why don't they end up that way?


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

I believe that in 2006, it is more an issue of not making the "right" decisions. 

However, it is hard to argue what came first, the chicken or the egg. For example, Boston in the 1960s had extremely racist zoning policies, to the point even banks were essentially allowed to persistenly **** over African Americans, so the fact that formal discrimation only ended 40 years ago does not help. Yes minority groups in general have issues, but rarely was it as official and as brutally omnipresent as it was for African Americans, and we are only 1 or 2 generations removed from that. :runaway:


----------



## hossoso (Oct 9, 2005)

marites4 said:


> Can you elaborate on how one is forced to stay in low income housing through economic or political manipulation? If that's the case how come immigrants were able to acquire property? IN fact the recent housing boom was fueled by immigrants fr everywhere acquiring houses. I think there is racism in AMerica but immigrants just work harder and have to raise there level of tolerance for discrimination and racism. Native born AMericans are just too lazy to work hard and try to get out of their economic situation. If other peoples from different countries who don't speak the language as well, faced with discrimination and racism ,are able to get out why can't native born Americans do the same as well.


I'm glad you asked, but this answer may be brief as I have a mid-term tomorrow. Your question doesn't directly relate to mine. My question concerns the housing policies born out of rust-belt decentralization in places like Youngstown, Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland etc... In these areas there was a policy adhered to by realtors, mortgage lenders, banks and city governments that was called red-lining. Any community or neighborhood with one or two African-American households would be red-lined. This meant investment and loans would be cut-off to that neighborhood. When facing a potential black neighbor, residents often resorted to violence or intimidation to keep them out because it would drive down their property value. On the other side, African-Americans were denied loans or even the service of realtors if they attempted to move out of specific areas of the city. The areas that they were stuck in were neglected by property owners because US tax law encourages the neglect of buildings with reduced taxes on the property over a graduated span of 30 years. 

As for your question about immigrants, they are rarely subjected to the same intensity of racism as African Americans (unless they are from a country that Bush is currently at war with). European Americans and African Americans have a long, convoluted, strange relationship. The dimensions of that relationship are so complex that I can't even begin to answer it now.


----------



## sale (Apr 12, 2006)

wow. i'd neevr heard of red lining. sounds like a back door to apartheid. however you are assuming that african americans have to move out of black naighbourhoods to better themselves. why can they stay in their neighbourhood and develop it into somehting bette then the white neighbourhoods?


----------



## hossoso (Oct 9, 2005)

DonQui said:


> I believe that in 2006, it is more an issue of not making the "right" decisions.
> 
> However, it is hard to argue what came first, the chicken or the egg. For example, Boston in the 1960s had extremely racist zoning policies, to the point even banks were essentially allowed to persistenly **** over African Americans, so the fact that formal discrimation only ended 40 years ago does not help. Yes minority groups in general have issues, but rarely was it as official and as brutally omnipresent as it was for African Americans, and we are only 1 or 2 generations removed from that. :runaway:


This is exactly the heart of my question and where my research sources taper off. The overtly racist policies are gone but the demographics and census data haven't. I know individual racism persists but institutional racism is supposed to be a thing of the past, outlawed as far as I know. The parameters of my research question have no room for racist speculation or generalization unless I find evidence of it. Why have the trends persisted after the policies died? Why is low-income housing still a dead-end for African Americans and a stepping-stone for other races?

*I am fairly certain this topic would never come before an Institutional Review Board for research (it's just an internet forum) but, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a white, native born American, albeit with a liberal bent


----------



## hossoso (Oct 9, 2005)

sale said:


> wow. i'd neevr heard of red lining. sounds like a back door to apartheid. however you are assuming that african americans have to move out of black naighbourhoods to better themselves. why can they stay in their neighbourhood and develop it into somehting bette then the white neighbourhoods?


There were no loans, no outside investment in their neighborhoods. Businesses did not open here, in fact, the businesses that were there left in droves after the city turned its back on them. The city didn't factor them into block-grant spending and waited for the property to devalue enough for them to be able to afford to to raize the neighborhoods through eminent domain and build freeways, displacing the residents without providing a place to go. These black neighborhoods would have liked nothing more than to better their communities but with what capital? The coalition(previously mentioned) ensured that there was no incentive to invest in these neighborhoods, this also contributes to gentrification and urban renewal. Pretty far off my topic but if you want to discuss that, I'm game.


----------



## sale (Apr 12, 2006)

hmmm.. you topic seems pretty narrow.
you said earlier that everyone starts off equal. does thta mean you are assuming in your paper the total intellectual equality of all poeople?

and BTW, is it racist to look at the combined GDP of all majority white countries and compare it witht the combined GDP of all the majority black countries and draw any conclusions?

just wondering what the "left" view is on that, not saying it should be done or anything


----------



## hossoso (Oct 9, 2005)

sale said:


> hmmm.. you topic seems pretty narrow.
> you said earlier that everyone starts off equal. does thta mean you are assuming in your paper the total intellectual equality of all poeople?
> 
> and BTW, is it racist to look at the combined GDP of all majority white countries and compare it witht the combined GDP of all the majority black countries and draw any conclusions?
> ...


My topic needs to be *very* narrow. Some of the research I have turned up is amazingly narrow, Cambodian Single Mothers Living in Two-Story Houses in Oslo- -kind of narrow. 

Yes, I do assume total intellectual equality of all people. I have no reason to think otherwise. If an entire people were resoundingly dumb, they would be gone by now. I don't think it is explicitly racist to compare the GDP of predominantly white countries with predominantly black countries but I do think it is a bit short-sighted. To compare current situations as evidence of intellectual, economic, or any other kind of superiority would be to ignore the cyclical nature of civilization. Western, Eastern and African countries have all held positions of dominance in history and they all will likely do so again.


----------



## sale (Apr 12, 2006)

well something has to be responsible for the inability of some nations to feed themselves. many will argue their intellectual capacity and an absence of organisational skills. others will just blame europe or america or big corporations

just for my benefit.. what black african civilisation has held a position of dominance in history?


----------



## marites4 (Aug 12, 2005)

Wow I never knew there was such a term as red lining in the 60s. I just knew there was segregation. But isn't that practice unlawful now. I just thought even if there is still individual racism that the overall greed of these banks would look past colors in deciding who to grant loans to. And also the chicken and egg maybe because they started out poor it was impossible to establish credit worthiness to be eligible for housing loans.


----------



## marites4 (Aug 12, 2005)

sale said:


> well something has to be responsible for the inability of some nations to feed themselves. many will argue their intellectual capacity and an absence of organisational skills. others will just blame europe or america or big corporations
> 
> just for my benefit.. what black african civilisation has held a position of dominance in history?


I don't think this is relevant to his topic. and where your line of thought is heading just proves there is individual racism .


----------



## hossoso (Oct 9, 2005)

sale said:


> well something has to be responsible for the inability of some nations to feed themselves. many will argue their intellectual capacity and an absence of organisational skills. others will just blame europe or america or big corporations
> 
> just for my benefit.. what black african civilisation has held a position of dominance in history?


Egyptians, Phoenicians, Carthiginians, Queen of Sheeba....

It sounds like you're really interested in the complexities of all things urban. Maybe we could establish a thread to answer questions regarding race & class, deindustrialization, suburbanization, globalization, devolution and other commonly misunderstood or not frequently discussed issues on this forum. I think students and professionals in Urban Studies are in a better position to clarify the sociological aspects of city life than architects or urban planners. And, for the benefit of those in Urban Studies, learning about the concerns and questions that people interested in the field have would also help discover new subjects for research.


----------



## hossoso (Oct 9, 2005)

marites4 said:


> Wow I never knew there was such a term as red lining in the 60s. I just knew there was segregation. But isn't that practice unlawful now. I just thought even if there is still individual racism that the overall greed of these banks would look past colors in deciding who to grant loans to. And also the chicken and egg maybe because they started out poor it was impossible to establish credit worthiness to be eligible for housing loans.


There was a common and shameful practice of red-lining in the mid-20th (and long before) century in the US. While the practice is officially outlawed, the statistics haven't changed much from the days when they were still in effect. I want to know why. Stereotypes and racist generalizations fall apart under any scrutiny. What's happening in the US? I have started getting beyond myself with arguments, I would still love to hear responses to my original post. Thank you!


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

..nothing


----------



## sale (Apr 12, 2006)

marites4 said:


> I don't think this is relevant to his topic. and where your line of thought is heading just proves there is individual racism .


i didnt know that facts could constitute racism. i better not bring up any more facts. i am sorry. and ill get out of here beofre it gets out of hand. bye


----------



## hossoso (Oct 9, 2005)

sale said:


> i didnt know that facts could constitute racism. i better not bring up any more facts. i am sorry. and ill get out of here beofre it gets out of hand. bye


I don't know how long you've been interested in cities and urbanization but we are all on this forum to learn. I started this thread for help on a school paper! Don't get discouraged so easily. You are obviously curious and I will gladly answer your questions to the best of my ability. I am sure most others will too. After a time your questions will be better formulated and thought out. What you asked didn't sound well thought out and could have been constued as racist, but I also guess that you aren't too well versed in globalization or world history (sorry, if that's not true). Remember that questions are valid in almost every context, because they are learnings tools-assertions and arguments are not.


----------



## hossoso (Oct 9, 2005)

sale said:


> i didnt know that facts could constitute racism. i better not bring up any more facts. i am sorry. and ill get out of here beofre it gets out of hand. bye


I don't know how long you've been interested in cities and urbanization but we are all on this forum to learn. I started this thread for help on a school paper! Don't get discouraged so easily. You are obviously curious and I will gladly answer your questions to the best of my ability. I am sure most others will too. After a time your questions will be better formulated and thought out. What you asked didn't sound well thought out and could have been constued as racist, but I also guess that you aren't too well versed in globalization or world history (sorry, if that's not true). Remember that questions are valid in almost every context, because they are learnings tools-assertions and arguments are not.


----------



## HirakataShi (Feb 8, 2004)

Low-income housing = concentrating poor people in neighbourhoods where by definition there will not be a large enough market to lure any substanital business investment. Obviously it is a dead end. Why would a business move into a neighbourhood with one-tenth the purchasing power of another neighbourhood across town? A business might have an interest in employing the people who work there and lower wages though - assuming the law allows it. I think people in lower income neighbourhoods are screwed over as much by well-intentioned feel-good government policies as they are by intentional discrimination (whether it is economic discrimination or racial discrimination). 

Eg; 
(1)Walmart plans to open a store in an economically depressed Chicago neighbourhood.
(2)The City of Chicago decides to pass a "living wage" law.
(3)Walmart decides not to open a store in Chicago afterall.
(4)The people in the economically depressed neighbourhood remain neglected and unemployed.


----------



## sbarn (Mar 19, 2004)

hossoso said:


> There was a common and shameful practice of red-lining in the mid-20th (and long before) century in the US. While the practice is officially outlawed, the statistics haven't changed much from the days when they were still in effect. I want to know why. Stereotypes and racist generalizations fall apart under any scrutiny. What's happening in the US? I have started getting beyond myself with arguments, I would still love to hear responses to my original post. Thank you!



This is true, however red-lining also was the impetus for the Community Reinvestment Act in which the federal government forces banks to spend a specified portion of money in low-income (generally inner city) neighborhoods.

An interesting think to look at if you're interested in low income housing is the Community Development Corporation (CDC) movement across the U.S. and their role in building affordable housing. 

Another thing to look at is the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and its effect on producing affordable housing. 

You could follow how this capital is being spent, and the demographics of who receive it. I think this would be a far more interesting paper than public housing and racism; in which there is an undisputable and clear connection.


----------



## sbarn (Mar 19, 2004)

In any case, here are some interesting readings on public/ affordable housing that I've read in a few of my classes pertaining to the subject at Columbia.

Husock, Howard , "How Public Housing Harms Cities", City Journal, Winter 2003
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_1_how_public_housing.html

Alexander Von Hoffman, High Ambitions, “American Low Income Housing Policy; Housing Policy Debate” ;
Volume 7, Issue 3, FannieMae Foundation; 2003 http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hpd/pdf/hpd_0703_hoffman.pdf

Orlebeke, Charles J. "The Evolution of Low-Income Housing Policy. 1949-1999" Housing Policy Debate,
Vol. 11, Issue 2, 2000, pp. 489-520
http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/scholarly_article/ relfiles/hpd_1102_orlebeke.pdf

This document by Popkin and Katz is a 10 year evaluation of the HOPE VI program sponsored by the Urban Institute. I know it's a bit lengthy, but it is an easy read.

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411002_HOPEVI.pdf


----------



## arzaranh (Apr 23, 2004)

hossoso said:


> ...
> 
> My question: Is low-income housing a stepping-stone or a dead end.


given those two choices and judging by my own personal experiances in a family in the system i would say dead end. granted things may have have changed in the 15 years or so since i've lived in the projects but all low income housing means is "rent that poor people can afford". there is no part about it that tries to help these people leave the poverty cycle. 
now as for the rascism aspect of the discussion, i don't know if i see any there but i would be very surprised if i'm right. 
as for the dominant civilizations question, the phoenicians were in asia (lebanon) the queen of sheba was a person not a civilization and you should wiki ancient mali, ancient ghana, and axum.


----------

