One of the issues
discussed in William Julius Wilson’s The
Truly Disadvantaged is that of concentration effects. This phenomenon
occurs when, in this case, jobless severely poor people are forced
(economically, oftentimes) to live in a confined geographic location; the lack
of resources and networks leads to increased ‘negative’ behaviors such as teen
pregnancy, crime, violence, etc. (The quote around negative is to indicate that
these are not looked upon positively by the general population but could include
stigmas such as teenage pregnancy or female headed households that hold no
inherent or legal value.) This is a documented phenomenon, and Wilson provides
support in his publication. While he may suggest that economics and class are
at the root of the issue, others (such as brought up in class in videos and
discussion) would look for policy and informal solutions on bringing people out
of these poor-only concentrated areas. One of these proposed solutions is ‘mixed-income’
housing.
Mixed income
housing presents an interesting alternative to class-based segregation (formal
or not.) The idea behind mixed income housing is that a certain amount of
housing would be reserved for individuals or families who would normally be
confined to government public housing like projects, due to their inability to
pay higher rent or mortgage. A middle portion would be available to those with
lower-middle class incomes, who could afford something more than public
housing, but are not in the upper-middle class range that could afford to move
out to an expensive suburb. The rest of the housing would be available to the
highest bidder. This would create a smorgasbord of class demographics, and
would likely lead to diversity in age, race, family makeup, etc. Ideally, this
would create harmony, diversity, understanding of others, and economic benefits
for almost all involved. The implementation of this plan, however, may have
hidden flaws that denigrate the benefits.
The video watched
in class profiled a mixed income housing property and interviewed different
residents on their experience. Many of the middle class (who happened to be
white) tenants found the experience ‘inspiring’ and beneficial to all-they got
to meet people from other classes/races, live in an ‘up and coming’ area, etc.
While their sincerity is not questioned, the perspective of the ‘underclass’
living in the buildings is much different. The rules in place for the housing
units do not match with the norms that were in other, predominantly poor
public housing projects, such as the example about barbequing. A good barbeque
goes past 8 p.m. (and even I say that, being a vegetarian) yet the mixed-income
housing has rules to shut down gatherings at 8 p.m. While it is branded as for
the good of the ‘community’ and building, there is a somewhat underlying stigma
in regards to what is acceptable and from
whom. I could see how the measures in place would seem as targeting the lower
class/minorities, and I would say that I would agree that there is something a
bit more sinister behind the ‘rules.’
If the rules in
place call into question the purpose of the establishment of this housing, how
effective can the program truly be? If living together should foster
understanding and community, yet one community is treated differently, there is
a power differential on some level that cannot be remedied simply through forcing
people to live together. More thought, and input from residents, should be put
into these programs if their developers truly wanted them to succeed.
See also:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/05/the-problem-with-mixed-income-housing/
No comments:
Post a Comment