Spanish Lake
Debates and Developments
The End of Public Housing as We Know It: Public Housing Policy, Labor Regulation and the US City
JEFF R. CRUMP
In reality the bourgeoisie has only one method of solving the housing question . . . No matter how different the reasons may be, the result is everywhere the same . . . The breeding places of disease, the infamous holes and cellars . . . are not abolished; they are merelyshifted elsewhere(Engels, 1872 quoted in Harvey, 1973: 143).
New public and assisted housing1 policies are changing the face of cities throughout the United States. According to the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA), the goal of federal public housing policy is to ‘. . . decrease concentrations of poverty in public housing’ (Huntet al., 1998: 2) and to ‘. . . create incentives for residents . . . to work and become self-sufficient’ (ibid.: 2). Specific policy objectives incorporated in the QHWRA include: the demolition of public housing projects and the provision of vouchers that will facilitate the movement of public housing residents into the private housing market; stipulations that demolished public housing be replaced only by mixed-income developments; work requirements which couple continued housing assistance to employment; and a series of demonstration projects that coordinate local welfare reform efforts with the new public and assisted housing policies (Woodet al., 1999; Popkinet al., 2000; Smith and Johnson, 2001).
In many ways, public housing policies in the US echo the discourse of welfare reform and even though there is a great deal of local variation in how public housing and welfare reform efforts are coordinated, there is widespread congruence between the objectives of welfare reform and public housing policy: to privatize social service provision, move people out of public housing, off of welfare rolls and into the labor force.
The rhetoric of residential mobility and self-sufficiency that characterizes US federal public housing policy masks a harsher reality for those displaced by the demolition of public housing: insecure shelter in privatized ghettos, low-wage working poverty, and the constant specter of homelessness and unemployment in deregulated urban labor markets.
In his writings on relief policy, Peck (2001) argues persuasively that welfare reform, with its emphasis on welfare-to-work or ‘workfare’, represents an emerging system of
Volume 27.1 March 2003 179±87 International Journal of Urban and Regional Research
ß Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003. Published by Blackwell Publishing. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA
1 In the United States there are two main types of housing assistance: (1) public housing projects where qualified individuals live in a government-owned housing; (2) the Section 8 housing voucher program that provides partial rent support in privately-owned units. In this article I use the term `public and assisted housing policy' to indicate both programs, public housing to refer to units owned by the government and housing vouchers to denote the use of Section 8 vouchers.
labor regulation. He arguesthat by forcing welfare recipientsinto low-wage work, workfareproducesa labor force suitedto the needsof contingentlabor markets(ibid.). By making former welfare recipientsavailablefor work, workfare also encouragesthe further developmentof contingentlabor markets(Peckand Theodore,2000).
In this article, I shall build on Peck’s(2001) work by advancingthe argumentthat public andassistedhousingpolicy is an overlooked,yet critically importantaspectof a broadeffort to (re)shapeurbanlabor markets.Specifically,I arguethat the objectiveof recent radical changes in public and assisted housing policy is to promote a reconfigurationof urban spacethat facilitates a double movementof housing and labor. On onehand,the demolitionof public housingandthe shift of residentsinto the private housing market will likely force them into the low-wage contingent labor market. At the sametime, the demolition of public housingopensup spacefor new mixed-incomeresidentialdevelopmentsthat will providegentrifiedhousingfor middle and upper-incomeindividuals that form the core of the skilled labor force requiredby the growing producer service sector that favors downtown locations (Wyly and Hammel,1999). By moving the poor out and the middle- and upper-classinto select centercity locations,public andassistedhousingpolicy, in concertwith welfarereform, is intendedto facilitate the spatialreorganizationof urbanlabor markets.
I beginthe article by presentingan overviewof the argumentthat welfareprovision is a systemof labor regulationthat is usedto enforcework normswhenlabor demandis high and contain civil unrestin times of rising unemployment(Piven and Cloward, 1993).Second,I examinehow public housinghasbeenusedin a similar fashionto help regulateurban labor marketsand contain potential civic disorder.Third, I examine recentchangesin US public housingpolicy and demonstratehow policy changesare articulatedwith broadercurrentsof welfarereform.Lastly, I concludeby examiningthe local contradictionsof public and assistedhousingpolicy.
Relief as a system of labor regulation
In their seminalcontributionto ongoingdebateson welfarepolicy in the US, Pivenand Cloward (1993: 3–4) arguethat poor relief is actually a key aspectof capitalist labor regulation:
Relief arrangementsare ancillary to economic arrangements.Their chief function is to regulate labor . . . First, when mass unemploymentleads to outbreaksof turmoil, relief programsareordinarily initiated or expandedto absorbandcontrolenoughof theunemployed to restoreorder;thenasturbulencesubsides,the relief systemcontracts,expelling thosewho are neededto populatethe labor market.Relief also performsa labor-regulationfunction in this shrunkenstate . . . treatmentis so degradingand punitive as to instill in the laboring massesa fear of the fate that awaitsthem shouldthey relax into beggaryand pauperism.To demeanandpunishthosewho do not work is to exaltby contrasteventhemeanestlaborat the meanestwages.
In examiningpost-wardevelopmentsin US relief policy, Piven and Cloward(ibid.) tracethe ‘welfare explosion’of the 1960sto the rapid migrationof African-Americans to northern cities. As the great migration of African-Americans began to fill the industrialcities of the north,housingshortagesled to seriousproblemsof overcrowding in the burgeoningghettoes(Hirsch, 1983). From the standpointof African-American households,the only solution to the lack of affordable housing was to seek shelter beyondthe boundariesof the ghettoandmoveinto previouslyall-white neighborhoods which fiercely resistedintegration(ibid.).
Lack of housing, widespreaddiscrimination, and growing unemploymentproved volatile in the 1960sasurbanghettoseruptedinto violence(PivenandCloward,1993). Urban politicians respondedto the growing civic disorder by initiating large urban renewal programs(Masseyand Kanaiaipuni, 1993). However, insteadof rebuilding
180 Debates and Developments
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research ß Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
existing neighborhoods,urban renewal focusedon ‘slum clearance’resulting in the demolitionof hundredsof housingunits andthe displacementof thousandsof African- Americans(Bickford and Massey,1991).
To addressconcernswith displacementandto maintainpre-existingpatternsof racial segregation,largepublic housingprojectswereconstructedin or on the edgeof existing urban ghettos. Ghetto boundarieswere made visible by highways or other spatial barriersand the designof public housingset it apartfrom the urbanfabric, making it easyto identify public housingresidentsandkeepthemwithin the well-definedborders of ‘the projects’ (Vale, 1995; Zukin, 1998).
As Afri can-Americans moved into inner-city public housing projects, urban deindustrializationproceededapaceas manufacturersfled the inner city. The loss of manufacturingjobs devastatedAfrican-American communitiesand as social problems associatedwith joblessnessspread,the spatialisolationof largepublic housingprojects provedto be an effective methodof containingthe growing reservearmy of labor. In this manner,public housingactedasa spatialcontainmentpolicy andmirroredthe role of welfare by helping to ameliorate the impacts of joblessnessand reducing the potentialfor civic disorder(Vale, 1995).
Territorial stigmatization, concentrated poverty and public housing policy
As the threatof urbandisorderreceded,critics of the public housingprogramworkedto demonize residentsby waging a relentlesscampaign of individual and territorial stigmatizationdesignedto underminepolitical supportfor the program(Vale, 1998). Widely disseminatedmediaimagesof welfaremothersliving in decayedpublic housing projectswereusedto developa linkagebetweenthe morally loadedconceptof welfare dependencyand the material landscapeof public housing(Fraserand Gordon,1994; Zukin, 1998).Thesecampaignshelpedto convincethe public that the only solution to inner-city decayanddisorderis the demolitionof public housing.As BennettandReed (1999: 209) point out in their critique of proposalsto redevelopthe Cabrini-Green public housing project on the Near Northside of Chicago, ‘If we can manageto convince the public at large that Cabrini-Greenis a chaotic jungle . . . then we can proceedwith wholesaledemolition and new, upscaleresidentialdevelopment’.
Fueling the territorial stigmatizationof public housingis the widely usednotion of ‘concentratedpoverty’. The allegedrole of concentratedpovertyin fosteringinner-city socialpathologywashighlightedin the work of Wilson2 (1987;1996)who claimedthat the concentrationof poverty exacerbatedmany of the social problemsevident in the inner city. As he states,‘there may be a ‘‘critical mass’’ of young personsin a given community such that when that massis reachedor is increasedsuddenly. . . a self- sustainingchain reactionis set off that createsan explosiveincreasein the amountof crime, addiction and welfare dependency.This hypothesisseemsto be especially relevant to inner-city neighborhoodsand even more so to those with large public- housing projects’ (Wilson, 1987: 38). The spatial concentrationof poverty is also claimed to lead to social isolation and social pathology (Wilson, 1987). Focusing attentionon the personalhabitsof the poor, it is arguedthat social isolation keepsthe poorfrom exposureto themiddle-classrole modelsneededto counterthe‘shiftlessness’ of inner-city residents(Jencks,1992).
Even though the root causeof ‘concentratedpoverty’ was the desire of urban plannersand politicians to maintain residentialsegregationand saveon land costsby building at high densities,this fact is ignored in favor of theoriesthat focus on the alleged‘contagion’ effectsof populationdensity.Among the mostpopularof solutions
2 For a well-aimed critique at the Chicago School perspective on urban ghettos exemplified by Wilson, see Wacquant (1997).
Debate 181
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research ß Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
under considerationis the demolition of public housingand dispersalof residentsto ‘non-concentrated’locations (preferably in the suburbs)that are claimed to provide bettereducationaland job opportunities
Advocatesof demolition-deconcentration-dispersalusethe resultsof the Gautreaux project to lend empirical supportfor their position (Rosenbaum,1991; 1995; Newman and Schnare,1997).The roots of the Gautreauxproject lie in a landmarklawsuit filed on behalfof public housingresidentsin 1966,whereinthe plaintiffs chargedthat HUD and the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) had practiced discriminatory housing policiesby purposefullylimiting African-Americansto public housingprojectslocated in existing ghetto locations (Rosenbaum,1995). In a 1976 SupremeCourt ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, the Gautreauxsettlementprovided for the dispersalof public housingresidentsthroughthe provisionof Section8 vouchersthat would facilitate the plaintiff’s residentialmobility.
The emphasison promoting geographicmobility was basedon the idea that the personalhabitsof African-Americanpublic housingresidentswould be remadeif they weremovedout of the environmentof the urbanghettoandexposedto white suburban middle-classrole models(Rosenbaum,1995). To this end, the residentialchoicesof African-Americanrelocateeswere strictly regulatedand the vouchersprovidedby the Gautreauxsettlementcould only be usedin locationswhere the minority population was below 30% (Newman and Schnare, 1997). According to the advocatesof relocation, these restrictions were needed to prevent African-Americans from ‘reconcentrating’after their removalfrom public housing(Rosenbaum,1995). Sucha reconcentration,it wasargued,would limit the desiredsocialinteractionbetweenlow- income African-Americansand their white middle-classrole models.As one of the principal researchersconnectedwith the GautreauxProgramcommented,‘The greater easeandcomfort of segregatedinteractionmay keepnew moversfrom reachingout to white middle-classneighbors’(ibid.: 263).
It was hypothesizedthat as contact with middle-class role models increased, relocateeswould be encouragedto seekwork and their children would try harderin school(Rosenbaum,1995).Post-movesurveysdid indicatethat,comparedto thosewho stayedin the inner city, educationaloutcomeswere slightly improved and a higher percentageof suburbanmoverswereemployed.3 However,becausewagesremainedat the poverty level, suburbanresidencedid not meanan escapefrom poverty (Popkin et al., 2000). And although the theory behind the relocation program gave primacy to middle-class role models, the higher employment among suburban movers was attributedmainly to the greateravailability of jobs (albeit of the low-wagevariety) in the suburbs(Rosenbaum,1995).
Although the results of the Gautreaux experiment have been widely used in promoting the view that the residentsof public housingwill benefit from demolition and dispersal,significant flaws in the researchdesignlimits the generalizabilityof the results(Popkinet al., 2000).First, participantswereself-selectedand,giventhebarriers facedby low-incomeAfrican-Americansin finding suburbanhousing,it is likely that only the most highly motivatedindividuals actually succeededin procuringshelterin the suburbs(ibid.). Second,only thosewho found suburbanhousingparticipatedin the post-movesurveysusedto evaluatethe program,whilst thosewho werenot successful in finding housing(80%) were left out. Consequently,the reportedpositive outcomes (modestasthey were)werelikely inflated (ibid.). Third, the majority of the participants werenot actually former public housingresidents;insteadmanywerefamily members of the original litigants who were nonethelesseligible for the vouchers.Given these flaws, Popkin et al. (2000: 929–30)concludethat ‘ it would be a mistaketo view this researchas conclusiveevidenceof the potential benefitsof dispersalprograms’.
3 The finding that suburban movers were employed at a higher rate than those remaining in the city was actually the result of a decline in employment among the city group (see Rosenbaum, 1995: 238). Thus, the highly publicized finding of greater employment among the suburban group is completely illusory (for a detailed critical analysis of Gautreaux, see Welfeld, 1998).
182 Debates and Developments
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research ß Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
Anotherambitiousprogramintendedto demonstratethe benefitsof moving public housingresidentsto suburbanlocationsis the Moving to Opportunity Demonstration Program(MTO). By facilitating residentialmobility, MTO intendsto deconcentrate poverty while simultaneously ‘moving public housingfamilies to self-sufficiency’ (Goeringet al., 1999).Initiated in 1994,MTO providedhousingvouchersthat could only be used in low-poverty census tracts. Of the 4,610 families selected to participate,approximately829 were able to find housingin the suburbs(ibid.). In order to facilitate their relocation, extensive‘mobility counseling’ serviceswere provided.Despiteintensiveassistance in finding suburbanhousing,only 50% of the suburbangroupactuallyfound shelterin the suburbs(ibid.), asa generalshortageof low-incomehousingin the suburbs,combinedwith the reluctanceof manylandlords to acceptformer public housingresidents,madeit very difficult to locateplacesto live.
The low ratesof successfulmovesmeantthat the costper family who movedto the suburbswas over $3,000(Goeringet al., 1999). Moreover,an early evaluationof the MTO programfound that althoughthosewho moved to the suburbswere employed, there was no significant increasein the poverty-level wagesearnedby the former residentsof public housing.
The resultsof thesedemonstrationprojectsindicate how expensiveand difficult it canbeto integratethesuburbsvia programsthatsupporttheresidentialmobility of low- income African-Americans. For example,the MTO programwas broughtto an early halt when suburbanresidentsof Baltimore protestedthe relocationof 285 inner-city residents(Welfeld, 1998). Led by Maryland SenatorBarbaraA. Mikulski, a Senate Committeenot only rejecteda requestfor additionalMTO funding, it took previously allocatedMTO funding and reallocatedit to the generalSection8 voucherprogram, effectively curtailing the MTO effort (seeWelfeld, 1998: 233).
Currently, the consensusamong academics is that the demolition of public housing accompanied by programs that foster residential mobility and self - sufficiency are the best way to improve the lives of public housing residents (Turner,1998).Yet, while the academic community debatesthe costsandbenefitsof residentialmobility programsa là Gautreaux,local public housingauthorities,with the supportof federalpolicy-makers,aremoving quickly to demolishpublic housing projectsthroughoutthe United Statesand move residentsinto the private job and housing market. Their efforts are supportedby the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998.
Transforming the inner-city landscape: the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998
The passageof the Quality Housingand Work ResponsibilityAct of 1998 (QHWRA) wasa landmarkeventin US public housingpolicy. The QHWRA hasthreemain goals: first, to deconcentratepoverty in public housingby requiring the demolition of public housingunits;second,to coordinatepublic andassistedhousingpolicy with thegoalsof welfarereform; andthird, to develop,throughpublic-privatepartnerships,new ‘mixed- income’ neighborhoods.
The QHWRA explicitly prohibits the concentration of poverty in public housing; deconcentration-dispersal is to be accomplishedby the demolition of low-income public housingprojectsandthe provisionof vouchersto be usedin securinghousing in the privatemarket.Codifying the 1995suspensionof the one-for-onereplacement rule, local Public HousingAuthorities(PHAs) areexplicitly encouragedto demolish public housingprojects(Popkinet al., 2000).Demolition is the major policy tool of QHWRA and any public housingproject designatedas ‘severelydistressed’can be torn down.To be classifiedas‘severelydistressed’,a building mustmeetfour major criteria (Hunt et al., 1998: 12–13): (1) any public housingproject which requires
Debate 183
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research ß Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
work to correct original design deficiencies (including inappropriately high population density); (2) that contributesto public or private disinvestment; (3) is ‘occupied predominantly by families who are very low income families with children,areunemployed,anddependenton variousforms of public assistance’;and (4) hashigh ratesof crime. In other words, QHWRA allows the demolition of any housingproject that was poorly designedin the first place, contributes to private disinvestment, andis occupiedby low-incomefamilies who areunemployedandon welfare.It is hardto imagineany largepublic housingprojectin the US that doesnot meetthesecriteria!
In additionto facilitating demolition,QHWRA requiresthat any new public housing constructedmustbe ‘mixed-income.’Here,the goal is to alter the classcompositionof public housing (and the city). And although what constitutesmixed-incomeis not clearly definedin the bill, in most casesonly between10% and 20% of any new units are reservedfor carefully screenedlow-income people. The demolition of public housingprojectsandtheir replacementby mixed-incomedevelopmentsis resultingin a significant reductionin the amountof low-incomehousingavailable.For example,in Chicagoit is estimatedthat therewill be a net loss of over 14,000units of affordable housing(Popkinet al., 2000).In sum,theserequirementsmeanthat manythousandsof units of public housingarenow beingdemolished,constitutinga significantlossin the nation’s affordablehousingstock.
Labor market regulation: coordinating public housing policy with welfare reform
I arguethat a major goal of demolition-deconcentration policy is to force recipients of public and assistedhousing aid into private housing and to facilitate their employmentin low-wage jobs. Indeed, although public housing and welfare are administeredby separateagencies,there is substantial overlap (estimatedat 50%) betweenthe welfarepopulationandthe recipientsof public andassistedhousingaid, aswell asthegoalsof bothprograms(Newman, 1999).To facilitate themovementof inner-city recipientsof public and assistedhousingaid to the world of low-wage work, active coordination betweenpublic housingpolicy and welfare reform is now being implemented.
One exampleof suchan effort is the Welfare to Work HousingVoucherProgram (WtW) (Smith and Johnson,2001). The WtW program requires that local Public HousingAuthorities coordinatethe provision of housingaid with workfare programs. TenantsusingWtW housingvouchershavework requirementswritten into their leases; thosewho violate such stipulationsmay be evicted (Smith and Johnson,2001). The power of this threatis enhancedby the shortageof affordablehousing,largely due to the demolition of the public housingstock.
Local public housingagencieshavea greatdeal of latitude in how the programs are implemented. However, public housing authorities participating in the WtW programare closely coordinating their version of workfare with the needsof local labormarkets.In somecases,newlabordemandscreatedby welfare reformarebeing met by public and assistedhousing recipients. For example, in San Joaquin, California, the forcedmovementof welfarerecipientsinto the low-wage labor force createda growing needfor childcareservicesthat would accommodate the evening andweekendwork schedulesof theworkers(Smith andJohnson,2001).To meetthis demand,the San JoaquinPublic Housing Authority required those holding WtW housingvouchersto providein-homechildcarefor workfareparents.In severalother cities, for exampleClearwater,Florida or Detroit, Michigan, the needfor workersto fill low-wagepositionsin the healthcareindustry drives the WtW housingvoucher program(Wood et al., 1999).In Los Angeles,California, the WtW programworked to increasethesupplyof labor availableto local childcarecenters,homehealthaides,
184 Debates and Developments
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research ß Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
day careprovidersand securityguards4 (ibid.). Although the WtW programdid put public housingresidentsto work, it did little to improvetheir financial well-beingas wages ranged from $6.30 to $7.50 per hour (Smith and Johnson, 2001). Notwithstanding their continued poverty, programssuch as WtW are a way to coordinatehousingassistancewith the needsof low-wage,contingentlabor markets. Ratherthan being an escapefrom poverty, WtW is a labor regulation policy.
In this manner,employersare to be suppliedwith a screenedand compliant low- wage labor force. Their personallives monitored by landlords and living under the threatof eviction,public housingrelocateesrepresenta potentiallymajor additionto the low-wage labor force. Meanwhile, their former homesin inner-city public housing projects are transformed into townhouses intended to bring white, employed suburbanitesbackto a fully gentrifiedcity wherethey canenjoy the cultural attractions of aninnercity now cleansedof the stigmatizedbuildingsandpeopleof public housing.
Labor regulation and public housing policy: local contradictions
In this article I havearguedthat public housingpolicy is part of a still emergingsetof institutional initiatives intendedto move the recipientsof public and assistedhousing aid into the low-wage,contingentlabor market.Sharingthe goals of welfare reform, public housingpolicy intendsto remakethe personalhabitsof its clienteleandprovide docile employeeswhoselife choicesarerestrictedto working povertyor homelessness. In addition,asthe widespreaddemolitionof inner-city public housingprojectsproceeds throughoutthe United States,the built environmentof the inner city is being remade. Public housing is rapidly being replacedby new urbanist townhouses,intended to reengineerthe classandracial structureof the city by bringing middle-classEuropean- Americansback to the inner city.
Yet, the very stigmathat facilitated the demolition of public housingprojectsmay threatenthe viability of the new mixed-incomedevelopments.Thereis little doubtthat it will take a great deal of effort to convince white, middle-classsuburbanitesthat former ‘no-go’ zonesof the inner city arenow safeplacesto invest.Only time will tell, if the eradicationof the physicalstructuresof public housingwill also erasethe social stigmaassociatedwith suchlocations.
Anotherimportantaspectof currentpublic andassistedhousingpolicy is the notion of deconcentratingpoverty by moving former public housingresidentsto the suburbs. Suchrelocationschemesfaceformidablebarriers.For years,policy-makershaveargued that the problemsof inner-city public housingprojectsare the result of the socially pathological behavior of welfare dependent,drug-using residents.And whilst the successfuldemonizationof African-American public housing residentshas made it politically palatableto demolishpublic housingprojects,it also makesthe proposed suburbanrelocationunpalatableto manyfrightenedsuburbanites.The ideathat middle- classsuburbancommunitiesshouldbethenewhometo thesameindividualsblamedfor destroyingthe inner city has(not surprisingly)sparkedprotestsin nearly all suburban communitieswheresuchplansbecomeknown.And they lashout at mobility programs that might exposeupstanding,hard-working middle-classwhite people to the social pathologyof thepoor.As MacDonald(1997:758)states,‘amongthe voucherrecipients will not only be victims of poor neighborhoodquality, but the perpetratorsaswell. By what right do (we) inflict crack-using mothers, their drug-dealing relatives and
4 Given the stigmatization of public housing residents, it is somewhat surprising to note that they are now in charge of providing childcare and security services. Can these be the same socially pathological welfare mothers and gang members vilified in the media and academic literature? If so, the personally transformative nature of low-wage work must indeed be powerful. Perhaps the successful implementation of rigorous screening procedures and continual at-home monitoring that these self- selected individuals are willing to undergo transforms them from demons to responsible individuals.
Debate 185
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research ß Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
boyfriendsandgun-totingteenson eitherworking classor affluent neighborhoods?’As David Harvey (1989:122) remindsus, ‘The Americansuburb,formed asan economic responseto problemsinternal to capitalist accumulation,now forms an entrenched barrier to social and economicchange’.
Indeed, many local policy-makersare now quite circumspectin suggestingany relocationto the suburbs.Instead,demolitionis proceedingextremelyrapidly with little or no considerationof whetherthe living conditionsof former public housingresidents actually improve.
Thereis little evidenceto suggestthat currentpublic and assistedhousingpolicies will actually lift thosein needout of poverty. As Rosenbaumand DeLuca (2000: 8) point out:
thousandsof families are being movedout of public housingprojectsacrossthe country. In their hasteto empty buildings,manyofficials arenot giving muchthoughtto wherefamilies aremoving. Officials contendthat thesemoveswill improveresident’slives, but . . . families are being moved into low-income, mostly black areas, which are very similar to the neighborhoodsthey left . . . rapid willy-nilly movesout of public housingseemto be merely displacingfamilies into equally bad neighborhoodsthat will havelittle benefit.
In the end, public housingprojectsare being clearedfrom the landscape,yet the former residentsof public housingarenot simply going to evaporate.Rather,manyare beingforcedinto privately-ownedhousingof dubiousquality in existingurbanghettos or inner-ring suburbs.Regrettably,it may take another round of ghetto explosions before policy-makersadmit that there are no quick fixes to the legacy of systematic discriminationthat hasshapedthe Americancity.
Jeff R. Crump (jrcrump@che.umn.edu), Housing Studies Program, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN 55113, USA.
References
Bennett,L. and A. Reed(1999) The new face of urbanrenewal:the Near North redevelopmentinitiative and the Cabrini- Greenneighborhood.In A. ReedJr. (ed.), Without justice for all, the new liberalism and our retreat from racial equality, WestviewPress,Boulder, CO.
Bickford, A. and D.S. Massey(1991) Segregationin the secondghetto:racial and ethnic segregationin Americanpublic housing,1977.Social Forces69.4, 1011–36.
Fraser,N. and L. Gordon(1994) A genealogyof dependency: tracing a keyword of the U.S. welfare state.Signs: Journal of Womenin Culture and Society 19.21,309–36.
Goering,J., J. Kraft, J. Feins,D. McInnis, M.J. Holin and H. Elhassan(1999) Moving to Opportunityfor Fair Housing DemonstrationProgram. US Department of Housingand Urban Development, Washington,DC.
Harvey,D. (1973) Social justice and the city. EdwardArnold, London.
—— (1989) The urban experience. Johns
Hopkins Press,Baltimore, MD. Hirsch, A.R. (1983) Making the second
ghetto: race and housingin Chicago, 1940–1960. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge,MA.
Hunt, L., M. Schulhofand S. Holmquist (1998) Summaryof the Quality Housing and Work ResponsibilityAct of 1998 (Title V of P.L. 105-276). Office of Policy, Programand Legislative Initiatives, Office of Public and Indian Housing,Washington,DC.
Jencks,C. (1992) Rethinkingsocial policy: race, poverty,and the underclass. Harvard University Press,Cambridge,MA.
MacDonald,H. (1997) Commenton Sandra J. Newmanand Ann B. Schnare’s‘. . . And a suitableliving environment’:the failure of housingprogramsto deliver on neighborhoodquality. HousingPolicy Debate8.4, 755–62.
Massey,D.S. and S. Kanaiaipuni(1993) Public housingand the concentrationof poverty. Social ScienceQuarterly 74.1, 109–22.
Newman,S.J.(1999) Introductionand
186 Debates and Developments
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research ß Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
overview. In S.J.Newman(ed.), The homefront: implicationsof welfare reform for housingpolicy, The Urban Institute Press,Washington,DC.
——, and A.B. Schnare(1997) ‘. . . And a suitableliving environment’:the failure of housingprogramsto deliver on neighborhoodquality. HousingPolicy Debate8.4, 703–41.
Peck,J. (2001) Workfarestates. Guilford Press,New York.
—— and N. Theodore(2000) ‘Work First’: Workfare and the regulationof contingent labour markets.CambridgeJournal of Economics24, 119–38.
Piven, F.F. and R.A. Cloward (1993) Regulatingthe poor: the functionsof public welfare. Secondedition, Vintage Books,New York.
Popkin,S.J.,L.F. Buron, D.K. Levy and M.K. Cunningham(2000) The Gautreaux legacy:what might mixed-incomeand dispersalstrategiesmeanfor the poorest public housingtenants?HousingPolicy Debate11.4, 911–42.
Rosenbaum,J.E. (1991) Black pioneers— do their movesto the suburbsincrease economicopportunityfor mothersand children?HousingPolicy Debate2.4, 1179–213.
—— (1995) Changingthe geographyof opportunityby expandingresidential choice:lessonsfrom the Gautreaux program.HousingPolicy Debate6.1, 231–69.
—— and S. DeLuca(2000) Is housing mobility the key to welfare reform? The BrookingsInstitute, Washington,DC.
Sard,B. and J. Lubell (1998) How the statutorychangesmadeby the Quality Housingand Work ResponsibilityAct of 1998 may affect welfare reform efforts. Centeron Budgetand Policy Priorities, Washington,DC.
Smith, R. and J.E.H.Johnson(2001) Welfare to Work HousingVoucherProgram: early implementationassessment. Office of Policy Developmentand Research,US Departmentof Housingand Urban
Development,Washington,DC. Turner, M.A. (1998) Moving out of poverty:
expandingmobility and choicethrough tenant-basedhousingassistance.Housing Policy Debate9.2, 373–94.
Vale, L.J. (1995) The imaging of the city: public housingand communication. CommunicationResearch22.6, 646–63.
—— (1998) Commenton JamesE. Rosenbaum,Linda K. Stroh,and Cathy A. Flynn’s ‘Lake ParcPlace:a study of mixed-incomehousing’.HousingPolicy Debate9.4, 749–56.
Wacquant,L.J.D. (1997) Threepernicious premisesin the study of the American ghetto.International Journal of Urban and RegionalResearch21, 341–53.
Welfeld, I. (1998) Gautreaux:baby stepsto opportunity.In D.P. Varady,W.F.E. Preiserand F.P. Russell(eds.),New directionsin urban public housing,Center for Urban Policy Research,New Brunswick, NJ.
Wilson, W.J. (1987) The truly disadvantaged, the inner city, the underclass,and public policy. University of ChicagoPress, Chicago,IL.
—— (1996) Whenwork disappears:the world of the new urban poor. Random House,New York.
Wood, M., G.P. Locke, B.H. Shulevitz,D.M. Porcari,S. Nolden and J. Amendolia (1999) From welfare to work, using HUD’s programsto help families in transition. Office of Policy Development and Research,US Departmentof Housing and Urban Development,Washington, DC.
Wyly, E.K. and D.J. Hammel(1999) Islands of decayin seasof renewal:housing policy and the resurgenceof gentrification.HousingPolicy Debate 10.4, 711–71.
Zukin, S. (1998) How ‘bad’ is it?: Institutionsand intentionsin the study of the Americanghetto.International Journal of Urban and RegionalResearch 22, 511–20.
Debate 187
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research ß Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003