A very Dormont post

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Herodotus

What would impact places like Bellevue, would be if Northview Heights, and Allegheny Dwellings were done away with. The complex on Spring Hill is another one. I doubt if they would be dumb enough to do away with Northview, but I'd be pretty nervous about Allegheny Dwellings, as the Central North Side would likely really take off if it weren't there anymore, and I'm sure there is some pressure from NS interests to put the wrecking ball to it.

I've heard from my wife that the Housing Authority is starting to consider designs to turn Allegheny Dwellings into a mixed-income, privately managed complex. Presumably this will displace a considerable number of the current residents, at least until infill housing targeting this group is built elsewhere. I still expect the spillover population to affect city neighborhoods (Fineview, Observatory Hill, and Spring Hill mostly) more than inner-ring suburbs.

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

How do you explain Belzhoover and all the other black neighborhoods in their vicinity?

These weren't black neighborhoods until the 1960's.

Beltzhoover is the only southern neighborhood with a substantial black history. By 1940 it was already 15% black, which doesn't sound like much now, but it was a lot for a still very segregated era in Pittsburgh history. Nearby Knoxville went into slow decline as Beltzhoover depopulated, although it was just last decade that Knoxville became majority black.

The other southern black populations came about because the city built projects in Arlington Heights and Saint Clair. The closure of most of Arlington Heights in the 1990s, and Saint Clair in the 2000s, resulted in a further dispersal of the low-income black population around the southern hilltop. But nearly the entire population either is originally from Beltzhoover or one of the two projects.

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

But even ignoring river crossing, why would a section 8 renter live in any of those areas if they could instead use the voucher in a first ring suburb?

Because it's a quicker commute into town from a city neighborhood than a first ring suburb?

[Goinback2011]

Most of Belzhoover was repopulated when the Civic Arena project displaced them. I had great aunts and uncles living there at the time. The displaced crossed the river.

And I doubt most people with Section 8 housing vouchers have much need to go downtown. First Ring suburbs do have grocery stores, however. And the T and busses go to shopping areas.

[Herodotus]

The destruction of the Lower Hill is what tipped the scales for Beltzhoover, and Homewood as well. Plus, blacks were still coming out of the South in large numbers, so the overall black population was growing rapidly. Those people displaced from the Hill had to find new homes in a short period of time, and they tended to move to places where blacks already had a foothold. Hill residents tend to be an exception to the won't cross a river rule, as the Hill is not part of one of Pittsburgh's "ends", or "sides", and there really weren't many options adjacent to the Hill. The construction of Arlington Hts., and St. Clair Village also played a large role in the decline of Beltzhoover, as they resulted in a large population of the underclass moving south of the river. When these folks moved from the projects, Beltzhoover is where they tended to move. When crack hit, the St. Clair dealers sold crack on the streets of Beltzhoover, as opposed to their own neighborhood, as Beltzhoover was considered "a soft hood". This continued until they began shooting the Beltzhoover guys, at which point, the guys in Beltzhoover got guns, and ran them out. This is when the violence began, around 1991 or so. Beltzhoover then went from a slow decline, into a freefall.

[PghYinzer]

This thread makes it sounds as if Section 8 is only used by lower income blacks, when in Pittsburgh it is split pretty evenly at 47% White, and 52% Black.

[Goinback2011]

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

This thread makes it sounds as if Section 8 is only used by lower income blacks, when in Pittsburgh it is split pretty evenly at 47% White, and 52% Black.

One of the stated goals of the legislation cited earlier has to do with eliminating racial disparities across neighborhoods. The goal is to eliminate poor black neighborhoods by dispersing them to housing elsewhere. Since people in such neighorhoods tend to be renters, and many are Section 8 renters, I posited they will be dispersed to inner ring suburbs like Dormont as they have high rental densities and and other amenities.

You could also have figured this out by reading the thread.

[PghYinzer]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

One of the stated goals of the legislation cited earlier has to do with eliminating racial disparities across neighborhoods. The goal is to eliminate poor black neighborhoods by dispersing them to housing elsewhere. Since people in such neighorhoods tend to be renters, and many are Section 8 renters, I posited they will be dispersed to inner ring suburbs like Dormont as they have high rental densities and and other amenities.

You could also have figured this out by reading the thread.

It seems that this legislation is meant to make areas that receive HUD funding to build housing that is affordable to all income levels. I do not see where it is going to force any changes to existing rental units.

If a developer applies for funding, and then is forced to do this extra analysis and subsequent low income rentals and is unhappy about it, they could just not take the government funding.

Anyone know where previous HUD funding amounts is available? I would like to actually see how much HUD funding has ended up in Dormont or Mt. Lebo.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

It seems that this legislation is meant to make areas that receive HUD funding to build housing that is affordable to all income levels. I do not see where it is going to force any changes to existing rental units.

I was about to reply something about this. As far as I can tell, the new administration rules (which follow on the supreme court ruling) basically say that the government will penalize cities which do not attempt to place mixed-income developments in such a way as to reduce racial segregation. Section 8, although funded by HUD, is another thing entirely. Given municipalities cannot force local landlords to take Section 8 tenants, I don't think the new ruling will change anything at all here.

[PghYinzer]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I was about to reply something about this. As far as I can tell, the new administration rules (which follow on the supreme court ruling) basically say that the government will penalize cities which do not attempt to place mixed-income developments in such a way as to reduce racial segregation. Section 8, although funded by HUD, is another thing entirely. Given municipalities cannot force local landlords to take Section 8 tenants, I don't think the new ruling will change anything at all here.

And in order to be even considered for this government penalization you have to accept HUD funding for a project. So if you don't like it don't take the money.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by PghYinzer

And in order to be even considered for this government penalization you have to accept HUD funding for a project. So if you don't like it don't take the money.

Indeed.

Honestly, while it's clear how this will work to reduce segregation in southern and western cities, where a huge proportion of the metro is within core city limits, I don't know how it's really going to affect metros like Pittsburgh, with high degrees of municipal fragmentation, given somewhere like Mount Lebanon isn't going to be applying for HUD funding anyway. I guess they could force HACP to build a project in Squirrel Hill or something however.

[Goinback2011]

Let's revisit the topic in a few years and see how it plays out.