Tear down Perkins Homes? (Baltimore, North East: section 8, real estate, apartment)

[Woodlands]

Originally Posted by MrRational

The question (and not just with this specific issues) is what to do with the people...
that won't create different (and often worse) problems like happened the last time.

Moving to Opportunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exactly.. if all of the residents from the Perk are displaced...where will they go? Some will relocate back into any "redevelopment" but most will likely move to NE Baltimore (Belair Edison, Gardenville, Waverly, Overlea and the garden apartments and boarding homes that dot their landscape... It has been noted that when many low income residents are displaced from a neighborhood..they follow the bus line up to the next "affordable" neighborhood and set up residence. This is what happended in West Baltimore with the Highway to Nowhere that resulted in the creation of Park Heights.. The same thing is happening (though albeit slower) on the Eastside with Hopkins EDBI. Those residents are moving North and Northeast... The good ones and the bad ones. The spike in violence on Greenmount Ave over the summer was in part because Crew X that lives in the area is now dealing with newcomers displaced from East Baltimore.. Both the dealers and their costumers have moved and thus the conflict along Greenmount in Barclay, Four Square, Belair Edison, and Waverly. So.. there is probably neighborhood and political pressure to maintain the status quo unless someone with real deep pockets can come in and force the alternative. There are way more viable areas for developers to spend their money.. Station North, Charles Village, Fells Point, Canton/Highlandtown...and even the CBD. So.. there is no real push to do anything with the Perk other than having these types of planner conversations on these Boards...

[Woodlands]

I saw some yuppie types parking next to the Perk one afternoon.. clearly they were heading down to Harbor East and were giddy to find a parking spot next to the Perk.. A bunch of guys hanging around the Perk were watching them and the gent and his three gals hopped on their merry way towards Central and down to Harbor East...I am surprised at the number of people that park in the Perk and go to Harbor East of Fells Point.. I usually park in the City Garage on Central or on Fleet.. They only $3 and when you come back to your car at say 1am.. there isnt someone sitting on it waiting for you......

[baltplanner]

Originally Posted by Woodlands

Exactly.. if all of the residents from the Perk are displaced...where will they go? Some will relocate back into any "redevelopment" but most will likely move to NE Baltimore (Belair Edison, Gardenville, Waverly, Overlea and the garden apartments and boarding homes that dot their landscape... It has been noted that when many low income residents are displaced from a neighborhood..they follow the bus line up to the next "affordable" neighborhood and set up residence. This is what happended in West Baltimore with the Highway to Nowhere that resulted in the creation of Park Heights.. The same thing is happening (though albeit slower) on the Eastside with Hopkins EDBI. Those residents are moving North and Northeast... The good ones and the bad ones. The spike in violence on Greenmount Ave over the summer was in part because Crew X that lives in the area is now dealing with newcomers displaced from East Baltimore.. Both the dealers and their costumers have moved and thus the conflict along Greenmount in Barclay, Four Square, Belair Edison, and Waverly. So.. there is probably neighborhood and political pressure to maintain the status quo unless someone with real deep pockets can come in and force the alternative. There are way more viable areas for developers to spend their money.. Station North, Charles Village, Fells Point, Canton/Highlandtown...and even the CBD. So.. there is no real push to do anything with the Perk other than having these types of planner conversations on these Boards...

I think the bold section is probably right on the money. Downtown is already receiving a lot of developer interest.

http://www.godowntownbaltimore.com/m...elinemap13.pdf

[remstone]

Originally Posted by baltplanner

Developers like the idea that their projects fit into a bigger picture (this can make them more eager to invest). The Downtown Partnership seems to sell a vision for redevelopment better than the Baltimore Planning department.

You might have more personal experience with the relevant people on both sides to inform this. But it is an unfair comparison: the two of them have radically different constituencies. DP doesn't even have to pretend that it's concerned about a low-income population, while everything Planning does has to be viewed through a political lens. DP can encourage large property owners to work together to do things they really should be doing (update the Inner Harbor, duh) while much of what Planning does is either technical (a new Comp plan) or politically reactive. Planning can't be too obvious about serving property owners or developers, while Housing (which does more obviously serve them) doesn't get as deep into the planning function.

But for those actual goals that you'd like to see in transformational master planning ... wholesale moving out of a low-income population so that the wealthy can move in isn't something that's EVER put forward publicly in this town, not if a mayor wants to get re-elected. Not really in other cities either. It's a recent innovation just to get them to say that a very low-income area can use some "market forces." Developers want to make money and they have more certainty of making money if they know rents and sales prices are going to keep going up, and if there will be less of those pesky low-income people around that scare away rich people. Yes developers would have a lot of "certainty" if only the city could declare its intent to remove Perkins Homes. And that's not going to happen. Sure, there is a mechanism where public complexes get neglected and federal money shows up that allows a Perkins Home to go on the chopping block. But I don't see it here if HABC just put a bunch more money into rehab and there's no massive pots of redevelopment money.

Also to say that "most people" like relocating the poor into new buildings elsewhere ... kinda depends on the elsewhere. The only elsewhere neighborhoods that seem to like having more low-income units added to them are the ones that are already quite poor (this is one of the saddest things about urban politics and redevelopment) while middle income and above neighborhoods are happy to see the poor move further away. Look where LIHTC gets built after all. But most of the planning profession is more in favor of a mixed-income approach, instead of further concentrating the poor. At the moment the mixed-income mechanism that was supposed to be in Baltimore's Inclusionary Zoning law has been exposed as a giant joke by the Harbor Point process. (Not that I would require him to sell $500k condos for $200k - better to make him pay $200k into a fund for each affordable unit he doesn't build). The other displacement mechanism which has been used extensively is to give out vouchers when eliminating a unit. That hasn't turned out too well either but it's not as obviously bad as warehousing the poor. Lots of middle class people are totally happy with warehousing the poor, of course.

It's not like the master planning around a Perkins Home site is difficult in terms of buildings and income mixes. You're welcome to speculate though I don't think it's interesting. The difficulty is in figuring out how you'd get to that point politically, and the related question of how you pay for it all.

[baltplanner]

Originally Posted by remstone

Planning can't be too obvious about serving property owners or developers, while Housing (which does more obviously serve them) doesn't get as deep into the planning function.

But for those actual goals that you'd like to see in transformational master planning ... wholesale moving out of a low-income population so that the wealthy can move in isn't something that's EVER put forward publicly in this town, not if a mayor wants to get re-elected. Not really in other cities either. It's a recent innovation just to get them to say that a very low-income area can use some "market forces." .......

Baltimore's Inclusionary Zoning law has been exposed as a giant joke by the Harbor Point process. (Not that I would require him to sell $500k condos for $200k - better to make him pay $200k into a fund for each affordable unit he doesn't build). The other displacement mechanism which has been used extensively is to give out vouchers when eliminating a unit. That hasn't turned out too well either but it's not as obviously bad as warehousing the poor. Lots of middle class people are totally happy with warehousing the poor, of course.

Excellent analysis of Baltimore City politics! Also, I completely agree that any new/ replacement low income housing units should be included in mixed income developments vs. all low income developments which only concentrate poverty and social problems.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by baltplanner

Excellent analysis of Baltimore City politics!

That need for a "wholesale moving out of a low-income population" dynamic is not exclusive
to Baltimore. What about the similar population everywhere else in the country.
Where will they all go? (remember we're talking about 20 Millions or more in all)

Shifting their address five or ten miles doesn't fix anything and only attempts to fix the most
acute of symptoms... it does nothing abut the underlying problem.

I completely agree that any new/replacement low income housing units should be included
in mixed income developments vs. all low income developments which only concentrate poverty
and social problems.

The issues here are 1) the innocent phrasing of the term "any" and 2) the implication that the
poverty and social problems are there because of low income. They aren't.

[baltplanner]

Originally Posted by MrRational

The issues here are 1) the innocent phrasing of the term "any" and 2) the implication that the
poverty and social problems are there because of low income. They aren't.

Would you please explain what you mean by these two comments. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

[dogpark]

Originally Posted by baltplanner

Would you please explain what you mean by these two comments. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

I'll take a stab at #2 -
Moving to opportunity doesn't have a significant impact on the culture of poverty. Here's a fun read from The Atlantic in 2008:
American Murder Mystery - Hanna Rosin - The Atlantic

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by baltplanner

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

I'm trying to make the same basic points raised in your last thread about the same basic issues.
//www.city-data.com/forum/balti...altimores.html

[Woodlands]

Originally Posted by baltplanner

Excellent analysis of Baltimore City politics! Also, I completely agree that any new/ replacement low income housing units should be included in mixed income developments vs. all low income developments which only concentrate poverty and social problems.

There was an editorial written several years that described the theory that some polticos want to keep their districts at a certain income level and demographic. I cant for the life of me recall it.. but it used Baltimore as an example. It was the notion that some politicians want to keep their districts poor and in this case predominately African American because if favored their incumbancy. Gentrifying neighborhoods tend to be more politically active..especially around issues such as trash and crime and thus make life a living hell for some politicos who have built a loyal following surrounding certain segments of the populations by simply doing cursory political favors and symbolic things like going to XYZ church or getting grants for XYZ not for profit or taking a tough stance by making statements like "I am fighting for you..because you know who wont..so you better elected me" and related divisive statements. In higher income often non native gentry.. these types of stunts dont resonate and they may likely pick one of their own or someone who they feel represents their collective interests and field them as a candidate... Therefore what long term Baltimore Politico wants their neighborhood to be 'redeveloped' and thus potentially lose their $80,000 year job and all the perks to and outsider? Most dont..So the word "redevelopment" is thrown around as a poltical buzz word because it sounds good and gets good press...... but like Remstone says.. the politics behind those bold statements are more passive aggressive ..and many politicos will speak them then turn around and quietly work behind the scenes to stifle or stop redevelopment by controlling the Planning Dept., the BDC, Baltimore Housing ,or related agencies...since things like redeveloping the Perkins may resonate with developers and the like but not with people renting in the crumbling rowhomes in neighborhoods across from the Perk nor with Perk Residents......