The Great Urban Renewal and Affordable Housing

www.clipartpanda.com

As we learned earlier in this chapter, the 1950s meant a big boom for the suburbs and a decline for the city. We see how this happened with Detroit where it is now more or less a ghost town, which is far from the big, bustling city it was in the 1920s and 1930s. As discussed in the book, this made way for the “urban renewal” projects that followed.

Urban renewal was programs that were aimed at creating affordable housing and income earning civic projects. Of course this did not end up working out as planned, out of the about 126,000 houses that were torn down for the project, about 28,000 were built leaving multiple people without the homes they were promised.  The HUD project came into effect in the 1960s and it was increasingly clear that the project did more to segregate blacks and keep them out of the suburbs where the middle class whites were than to really build good affordable housing.

When looking at the HUD website one of the main things they promote is safe and sanitary affordable housing, but how many of the Section 8 houses are actually like that? Even if they are actually clean houses, the wait list can be a mile long, leaving some people homeless until their voucher comes in. The fact that there is so little affordable housing is a result of the urban renewal projects of the late 1940s. It also says on the website that they have had an increase in the amount of funds available, but they are only for people who are renewing their contract, so what happens to the people who are still waiting to get in? 

I personally do not really know the perfect answer to making more affordable housing for people of low income. We can make it easy by just saying that we should just build more housing, but in a city like Chicago where almost every inch is filled, our only option is to rebuild the housing we have now. Now this only solves part of the problem because it does not solve what happens to the housing when the landlords do not keep it up or where to put the people that live in those housing areas while it is being rebuilt. So what do you think is the best way to solve this problem?

Here is the website for HUD:

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/programdescription/cert8

Public Policy That Does Help

Instead of looking at the bad or the downside of public policies, I would like to focus on some of the good that public policies do. All government intervention may not be the best, but some things actually are. I looked at how in 2012 (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/birth-control-and-public-policy/ President Obama has made the public policy that  birth control in all hospitals would be free of charge for religious groups as well.  As many people that could argue against it, I can so many reasons why people would actually understand and be for it. I am not implying that contraceptives should or should not be free of charge to the religious groups but I think that it is important to realize that even those people that are in religious groups, make mistakes as well and sometimes if they were allowed different avenues of help some issues may not happen.

 Obama explained that those places of employment that may be religious that cover insurance would have to also cover for contraceptives free of charge for women. I think that offering free contraceptives is the initiative in some cases to even decreasing the abortion rate. These are two huge things in America; Pregnancy and Abortion. Both leaving either a good or bad taste in someones mouths. I think this policy although it doesn't completely solve something, it puts a huge dent in solving things.
I also looked at how the seat belt public policy is absolutely amazing. I read a article and it expanded briefly on how the seat belt policy has been beneficial ( http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/pdf/PolicyImpact-SeatBelts.pdf)  Look at all the lives that have been saved from something like the seat belt. I read a article to actually give me numbers that explain how the public policy actually has been beneficial. The article says, that in 2009 over 50% of drivers that died in car crashes were not wearing seat belts. I can remember when wearing a seat belt was uncool. I can vividly remember how wearing a seat belt kind of meant that you weren't the coolest person. I can vividly remember when all of that changed and it became mandatory. This policy saved lives. It kept people safe. So although there are some public policies and government intervention that I think we can all do without, there is also some governmental intervention that is needed, and can be extremely beneficial for everyone.

Traditional Liberal or Conservative Solutions?

"Over the past two decades, debate has raged regarding whether traditional liberal or conservative solutions to the urban crisis are more appropriate," (Gottdiener et al. 2015). This debate has gone on for over many years, but is there ever a solution one may ask? In chapter 13 it discusses urban policy and the political debate. Should one go with the liberal side, which they support government intervention or should one go with the conservative side, which they support limited government intervention.

Gottdiener et al. (2015) mentions Edward Banfield, who argued that poor people aren’t motivated to get jobs. Now let’s discuss this for a second, I don’t believe that is true at all. In society today the classes have changed dramatically. It was easy to determine the classes, such as the poor, middle, upper-middle class and the rich or upper class. In society today we have the poor, middle class and upper class. The cost of living has skyrocketed tremendously and it’s hard to afford costly things. People are barely making it which even if you pay your bills on time and barely have enough money left you are barely reaching middle class. As far as the poor not having the motivation to find jobs is simply B.S. I believe now it is hard to find a good paying job because every white-collar job requires a higher degree and a butt load of experience. This is half the reason why poor people can’t find jobs and if they have a job they may have to have more than one to support their family.

Now back to the topic at hand, which one would be beneficial to society, conservative or liberal? In my opinion I believe that liberal would be the best choice because government intervention have ups to it. “Poverty and associated problems of uneven development are the inevitable consequence of the fact that economic rewards and social opportunities are not equally available to all citizens,” (Gottdiener et al. 2015). I completely agree with this statement because in reality certain people such as a black woman for example have to work harder than a black man and especially harder than the white man. I say this because my mom has to work extremely hard at her job and even though women are working and have high paying jobs we still have to work twice as hard because we are not a man. Liberals also believe that government programs keep individuals from falling. Which I believe that is also true because even though you may have people that use the government system just because it’s there, you have a lot of individuals that are barely paying the bills and barely putting food on the table. Also the people who can’t afford insurance for their children they get help with that also. All in all I believe that government help is necessary in some cases.

Welfare Programs Work

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwj4neaS_6nMAhWHuoMKHZVzCZMQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fmoney%2Fus-money-blog%2F2014%2Fnov%2F12%2Fsocial-welfare-programs-food-stamps-reduce-poverty-america&usg=AFQjCNF7k9LIpQ2Yz3GH1w-fE1mgJjl3LA&sig2=MAFvKf-UCdWTFTmwpM-mgw&bvm=bv.119745492,d.amc 

Is Government Intervention Good or Bad

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwj-j6nP_6nMAhWjnIMKHZrxCS4QFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.economicshelp.org%2Fblog%2F5735%2Feconomics%2Fshould-the-government-intervene-in-the-economy%2F&usg=AFQjCNGdThJlIXT04GyBkbUeA-sqmtrKBg&sig2=kRsZ3k8p9WgzZar4z6Khfw&bvm=bv.119745492,d.amc 

Slum Removal

Chapter 13 of "The New Urban Sociology" explains the historical timeline of the removal of "slum" areas in urban areas of The United States.  Gottdiener, Ryan, and Hutchinson state that one of the largest goals of the post WWII era was the revitalization of major downtown areas.  The aim was to clear downtown areas of slums and blighted living areas.  The programs enacted sought to clear areas and replace it with affordable housing and income-earning civic projects.  5 million low income housing units were set for destruction and replacement.  By the end of 1961 only 28,000 revitalized areas were completed, as opposed to 126,000 units destroyed (Robertson and Judd, 1989:307).  The result of this was increased housing prices in poorer areas, and a large decline in the number of low-income housing units.

We have seen destruction of public housing projects all over the United States, most notably in Chicago.  We have seen thousands of individuals cast out of their homes with little to no living options.  I have a hard time believing that the government really even cares for the individuals living in these poorer areas, because we have seen them be extremely mistreated spanning across multiple decades.  Why does the government decide to knock down buildings, with no intention to help people reallocate?  Gottdiener, et. al give the statistics of the expenditures in the revitalization efforts, showing that more money was spent every few years, resulting in a 500% increase spanning from 1960-1970.

Part of the reason as to why the government kept spending more, was because of the de-urbanization that occurred in the 1950s.  Highways were built which gave access to other areas previously untouched by urbanization.  Housing development companies capitalized upon the land to create suburbs, and introduced the concept of the "American Dream".  While this was happening, cities were left to die.  Businesses located in downtown areas suffered immensely as they watched all their customers move away.  The government spent tons of money to try and build up the cities to entice people to stay.

The higher class families and individuals were the ones who left the cities, while individuals with little to no upward mobility were forced to remain.  Many of the individuals who could not leave the city were forced out of their homes because the urban renewal project was initiated by private real estate companies which cleared the slums and used the land to generate profits.  The real estate companies built up the downtown areas for the middle and high classes, and aimed to build shopping malls, plazas, and civic centers.  Observers of the slum removal noted that this program seemed to be more effective at removing African American families and individuals from desirable real estate markets, rather than replacing slums with affordable housing.  Over 75% of all persons removed by the renewal projects were black, thus dawning the term of "Negro Removal" (Robertson and Judd 1989:3).

My question is how can the government effortlessly spend billions of dollars to tailor to the higher class people, but cannot allocate a fraction of a percentage of that to take care of the lower, poorer, and most likely African American populations.  It is because there is an extreme amount of racism built into the many institutions the we have in place in America today.

This first link details why the Housing Act of 1949 is considered highly controversial, and it also covers data from a study conducted by Collins and Shester.

http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/30/the-controversial-legacy-of-slum-clearance/

This second link is David Smith's blog, and entails various steps that took place during the slum-clearance era to rid housing units of unsustainable renters.

http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/2008/10/history-of-us-public-housing-part-3-the-slum-clearance-era.html

Sweet & Sour Policies

“Let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years –- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college.” 

– President Barack Obama, January 27, 2010

Sweet & Sour Policies:

Public policies have always caused a lot of controversy. In Chapter 13 of "The New Urban Sociology" we learned about the importance but lack of public support for certain public policies. It talked about policies such as recycling and the meaning behind each one. Policies are essentially made for a reason and the ones that are enforced more than others are usually done so because it serves a greater good. As the book mentioned, we typically don't like a lot of regulations and policies but we do believe that they are necessary. A policy might start off as being "sweet" with great incentives but could end up "sour" when the public doesn't respect it or instantly rejects it.

We all know things that are bad for us and still proceed to do whatever it is we feel/ believe is the best option for US. A lot of us are very individualistic and self centered. Without policies I believe that a lot of individuals would continue to be even more individualistic and only worry about themselves and their surroundings. This could then become an issue as everyone must work together for certain policies to work. 

Another example are student loans. This is a very conflicting topic as many agree and disagree with a "need" for a higher education. Some believe that college isn't necessary, that it simply puts you in debt. Sadly, yes most of us will be in debt upon graduation but in this case, you must look at the bigger picture. President Obama created a forgiveness program where after 20 years your student loans will be paid off. I have added a link at the bottom of the page for you to read into it a little bit more. This would be an example of a public policy that has been put in place to help those of us who have chosen to receive a higher education. 

Then again, there are those who believe that this policy is no good. Some argue that this will encourage more people to attend college, and let's be honest, not everyone is fitted for college. They argue that this might cause individuals to attend college who are not really qualified and in return only become a distraction for others who are here to learn. As you can see, there are arguments for and against and the list simply goes on. There seems to never be a happy medium when it comes to policies.

There will also always be those who abuse the system and therefore ruin it for those who are doing everything to follow it. Policies will continue to evolve and we will continue to learn from each and every one of them. Policies might start as a great idea and might end up backfiring afterwards. It simply depends on the way the public interprets them. Policies that thrive are usually those that have the PUBLIC in mind....   

-These are informative links on student loans:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education/ensuring-that-student-loans-are-affordable

http://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1219&context=empl_research

-This link is to a website that talks about successful policies and how they are formed. 

http://www.slideshare.net/andrewdeen14/what-is-good-public-policy

-Here is a video that talks about some "Bad" policies. 

https://youtu.be/FdiQl7urd2w

Governance or Government?

In chapter 13 of the book The New Urban Sociology, by Gottdiener, Hutchison, and Ryan, they discuss regional governance. They believe that during debates of urban problems two main premises are overlooked. The first is the limitations of local government as administrative structures and the second is the particular relationship among the federal, state, and local levels that have always worked against adequate planning and public policy in the United States. Basically what this means is that within metropolitan areas, there are so many levels of government with their own specific purposes which makes their authority fragmented and weakly applied. 

 Well what would happen if government control was consolidated into fewer parts? The authors of The New Urban Sociology argue that there needs to be an understanding of the relationship between spatial and social levels in the study of policy to better sort out who should solely responsible of certain issues in order to address the problems of social justice and uneven development, hence regional governance. they argue that this is possible using Toronto as an example. In 1953, thirteen independent municipalities merged into six. They are responsible for local affairs and the metro council handles area affairs and metro-wide planning. 

Toronto's is seen as a success of regional government because they have low crime rates, they have a very diverse mix of residents compared to any major American city, and their metro-wide government binds resources in the entire region and coordinates the growth of central cities and suburbs, which has allowed them to avoid issues created by uneven sociospatial development. So now my question is can this be done in the United States? Or if not the United States, Illinois or any other state? I would argue that it could work across the United States, but it may still not be effective. We already have a government system in place that makes decisions and policies and administers them, but they still fail to include equity among other things, so it really may not make a difference if the United States utilized governance or not. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Grh2XPGNlg

The video above explains the history of governance in Canada. This video also explains that governance structures are somewhat outdated and need to be reevaluated in order to make sure they maintain good governance. For example, effective representation of diverse populations, aging citizens, integrating transportation networks, new technology, are all challenges of governance, along with the fact that 80% of Canadians now live in urban areas. As expectations grow, the relationship between government and citizens changes. Just like any other system, Canada's system must learn to cope and adapt to demands of the people. Do you think governance is effective or can be effective?

http://www.goodgovernance.org.au/about-good-governance/what-is-good-governance/

The link above is to a website that defines governance and its components