Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A lot of white flight (from certain cities) took place in NJ after the '67 riots.
In my town, when a 100 unit public housing project was built in 1960, the Jews who had lived for decades in a small Jewish community that consisted of a few blocks surrounding an apt complex (all Jewish), fled shortly after. The public housing was built maybe 5 blocks (suburban blocks) away. All of sudden this apartment complex and it's residents were being targeted.
That apt complex still stands, as does the surrounding neighborhood and both have been a POS since I was a kid.
That same public housing project (blocks of 2 story units) built in 1960 was recently knocked down. What was rebuilt? Absolutely gorgeous. 70 units (of Phase I) with only 17 public housing units. Hasn't changed the neighborhood at all. More aesthetically pleasing, yes. Crime? No difference (my business sits on the street right in front of this project). The folks who got "kicked out" with vouchers? Moved in to the surrounding neighborhoods - in to private rentals that accepted section 8s. And to the poster who thinks section 8 approved private homes are kept up better due to the HUD yearly inspection? No. Those inspections are a joke. So are the 5 year state inspections LLs have to have if they own a rental property with more than 3 units.
We had our 2 year inspection on one of our properties about two months ago. We had an issue with the front porch after the huge snowstorm we had this winter, and it was bad. You couldn't not notice how bad it was. One support pillar was on a dangerous angle. Inspector didn't say one word about the porch - and we weren't offering any info. Once cited for a violation, you have 30 days to remedy or be fined, daily, by the city.
After one of our tenants told us that we needed to come see how a vertical support (pillar) had shifted after the storm, we did & the next thing we did was call our architect & have him get over there and draw up plans for the porch (city demands architects be involved for everything). That took a few weeks from start to finish. Our contractor had just applied for the permit, but the city moves so darn slow (quick to fine, but moves slow with everything else) we weren't going to mention the plans had been submitted for approval. All the inspector said we had to do was replace something on one of the water heaters.
We bought a 4 family 3 years ago. From a slumlord. All 4 units were rented to section 8s. Annual inspection? One tenant had her oven door duct-taped in order to keep it closed. She said it had been like that since she moved in 3 years previously. The annual HUD inspection check list for "approved" section 8 housing shouldn't have allowed that. The rest of what we found when it came to heating/electrical? Someone looked the other way on their "inspection" tour. Every single year. And not just one inspector from HUD, but the city inspectors as well.
I was speaking about initial inspections.
I have worked with a lot of housing authorities and practically all of them have crazy initial inspection requirements and the application process to become an HCV landlord, but once they are in the program, the authority is very lax on doing the inspections as required by HUD.
From your description, I'm happy I don't own properties in NJ lol. I'd hate to have to get an architect involved in every little thing that a good GC can do. I own property in GA, which is very lax on their housing/building codes. I also own in OH which is not lax like GA and they do have some unnecessary permitting requirements IMO but it is nothing excessive in cost or time like you are describing.
In regards to the development of the new complex as well, many HA's do a poor job in revitalizing specific areas. I have worked with some in the Midwest who think that just because you build a pretty building, things will get better. Oftentimes it does yield slightly better crime statistics, but there MUST be a multi-phased development plan IMO for it to succeed. The plan must include commercial, condo/apartments, and single family homes in order to attract a larger higher income buyer/renter.
The goal of many HAs is to only market to the "affordable" community. When I was a consultant, I commonly told many of them that they need to look at it from a "workforce" community perspective. Basically, when you transform an old public housing site, you have to build for rich people (even though "workforce" housing is supposed to be middle class/moderate income persons, in GA where I worked, families could make in excess of $80K per year, which is a lot there and still qualify as a "workforce" buyer/tenant). You don't build pretty things for poor people and leave it at that. You reinvent a neighborhood and market it to the higher income people and that way the community will do better in the long run. One of the biggest successes in this regard was in Atlanta with the creation of Centennial Place and especially East Lake. East Lake Meadows was once the worse (crime wise) public housing location in Atlanta and was nicknames "Little Vietnam." The public housing was torn down, a new senior facility was built, an apartment community and a commercial district was partly financed by the HA. The HA involved local community action groups whose focus was to build a "village" like area for the neighborhood and today it is one of the most popular and expensive areas to live in the city there. Public Housing residents are still living in the new building in small numbers and the senior highrise was left for the seniors (as stated, they are low risk). More whites have moved into the neighborhood and that area is much more racially and income diverse than it used to be.
ETA: I don't see that Baltimore authority doing a poor job on this if they are building in wealthier neighborhoods. Those who are saying that building multiple units/locations to house 1000 people will drive wealthy whites out just have not ever been involved in this sort of development. The developments built in wealthier neighborhoods are always much better than those built in poor ones. Authorities also will basically partner with a market rate developer and they will not be heavily involved in either the construction (other than the prevailing wage aspect required by the Davis Bacon Act and the HUD program for Section 3 which encourages the hiring of public housing residents for construction projects) or the management of these areas. The pictures I posted above, none of them are managed by the housing authority at all. Big name property management companies run those units. The Housing authority does maintain a slight ownership, usually less than 5% so the development can make them some profit (they get a piece of the rent revenue even from the market rate tenants) and provide the developer/majority owner some tax incentives. So in regards to the OP and the racially and class charged frenzy of most posters, nothing that they think will happen will happen. This notice was not even shown in the "news" section of the Baltimore Housing Authority. This is because they will remain a silent partner and they will let market rate developers (this is the capacity of which I worked BTW, for a development company who had a contract with a housing authority for these services) do everything in order to not have it associated with anything negative like Section 8 or projects/public housing.
My point was that white flight was not social engineering. Actually, the system that created segregation was social engineering.
I am a history buff, especially of the Midwest and Great Lakes region in regards to black American history and prior to the 1910s segregation was not heavily entrenched in any of the major cities of the Midwest I mentioned above. It wasn't until local government started declaring neighborhoods to be for "whites" and "negros" that segregation became heavily entrenched in our country. These designations, created by local government, occurred due to the movement of a large amount of black people from the south to the industrialized north. Even though the north did not have the sordid racial history of the south, they did have an inferior view of black people and as such, black people moving into an area was seen with alarm and whites wanted to protect themselves from a black take over.
Funny how history repeats itself. The influx of Irish was seen in much the same way in the 1800's and the current influx of Hispanics is likewise demonized and feared. It's a mistake every time it happens, but humanity never seems to grow out of these tendencies. There is always pressure from existing residents to not hire the "evil outsiders" and the fears of working class Americans that the newcomers will take all their jobs is not easily assuaged. I don't know of a solution for it -- though we've certainly made a lot of progress. You used to see, "No dogs, blacks or Irish" signs and nobody did anything about it. Such discrimination is no longer tolerated and anti-discrimination organizations are always expanding the number of groups the advocate for.
You're right that segregation was social engineering. It is also true that attempts to undo segregation are most certainly social engineering. The social engineering -- both segregation and desegregation -- that occurred in the Midwest, Rust Belt and almost everywhere in the nation a long time ago was most often along racial lines.
Quote:
White flight was not social engineering. It was a panic of white people that they were going to lose property value due to middle income black people living in their neighborhood. Many realtors took advantage of that panic and fear and saw the opportunities to make money off of the black population if they could get the whites to sell low and the blacks to buy high. Black people in many areas could not get traditional mortgages and as a result they had crazy purchase terms on homes and they usually paid 1.5-3 times what the house was really worth.
White flight itself is was never social engineering, but all to often it was the result of social engineering attempting to desegregate. White flight naturally led to profiteering. That's no surprise.
But fast forward to today. The social engineering being proposed in Baltimore is purely along the lines of income, making it a very different animal. It also makes the predictable bad outcomes a lot more pronounced IMHO. There are a lot more wealthy black families in America these days and there's nothing stopping them from moving into whatever rich neighborhood they want as long as they can afford it. Any community attempting to keep them out will get absolutely mauled in court over it.
Despite the wrongheadedness of the racism involved, the desegrationalist social engineering programs of decades long past provide a decent model to predict how income-based desegregation programs will work. The problem with these high-minded programs is that they fail to realize that low-income areas are not terrible places to live because of their geographical location. Their problems come from the people living there. Changing their geography doesn't change the people. An influx of people living in high crime areas into a low crime area is going to result in rapid escalation of crime and bad things. Everything that made the low-income area schools bad will transfer as well. Everything that made the low-income area crappy transfers with the people.
If you're wealthy and feel your nice little community is about to be wrecked by such an influx, what would you do? Do you stay put even though you know that your children are going to be increasingly more at risk? If you stick around, your daughter's chances of getting raped and/or killed are going to increase dramatically. Your son's chances of being the victim of violent crime also go way up. Both of them will encounter a lot more bad influences at school. Drugs, gangs, more teenage pregnancy -- things that you believed were problems somewhere else are now moving in. You can afford to move somewhere else. Can you honestly tell me you wouldn't?
Funny how history repeats itself. The influx of Irish was seen in much the same way in the 1800's and the current influx of Hispanics is likewise demonized and feared. It's a mistake every time it happens, but humanity never seems to grow out of these tendencies. There is always pressure from existing residents to not hire the "evil outsiders" and the fears of working class Americans that the newcomers will take all their jobs is not easily assuaged. I don't know of a solution for it -- though we've certainly made a lot of progress. You used to see, "No dogs, blacks or Irish" signs and nobody did anything about it. Such discrimination is no longer tolerated and anti-discrimination organizations are always expanding the number of groups the advocate for.
You're right that segregation was social engineering. It is also true that attempts to undo segregation are most certainly social engineering. The social engineering -- both segregation and desegregation -- that occurred in the Midwest, Rust Belt and almost everywhere in the nation a long time ago was most often along racial lines.
White flight itself is was never social engineering, but all to often it was the result of social engineering attempting to desegregate. White flight naturally led to profiteering. That's no surprise.
But fast forward to today. The social engineering being proposed in Baltimore is purely along the lines of income, making it a very different animal. It also makes the predictable bad outcomes a lot more pronounced IMHO. There are a lot more wealthy black families in America these days and there's nothing stopping them from moving into whatever rich neighborhood they want as long as they can afford it. Any community attempting to keep them out will get absolutely mauled in court over it.
Despite the wrongheadedness of the racism involved, the desegrationalist social engineering programs of decades long past provide a decent model to predict how income-based desegregation programs will work. The problem with these high-minded programs is that they fail to realize that low-income areas are not terrible places to live because of their geographical location. Their problems come from the people living there. Changing their geography doesn't change the people. An influx of people living in high crime areas into a low crime area is going to result in rapid escalation of crime and bad things. Everything that made the low-income area schools bad will transfer as well. Everything that made the low-income area crappy transfers with the people.
If you're wealthy and feel your nice little community is about to be wrecked by such an influx, what would you do? Do you stay put even though you know that your children are going to be increasingly more at risk? If you stick around, your daughter's chances of getting raped and/or killed are going to increase dramatically. Your son's chances of being the victim of violent crime also go way up. Both of them will encounter a lot more bad influences at school. Drugs, gangs, more teenage pregnancy -- things that you believed were problems somewhere else are now moving in. You can afford to move somewhere else. Can you honestly tell me you wouldn't?
The implementation of Fair Housing Laws were not social engineering. It basically ended the segregation social engineering policies and laws from the 20th century.
Now anyone can move wherever they want to move. There is no undue burden put on any demographic based on gender, ethnicity, or skin color.
The project in Baltimore, IMO it is a form of social engineering because it is a government agency using its clout to pursue specific goals related to income diversity. FWIW, within the housing industry, housing authorities now do realize the negative associations they have created in various urban areas especially, including Baltimore and all the cities I mentioned in the Midwest. They are attempting to "un-do" the social engineering of the past with new social engineering. It is all ridiculous IMO but, as stated, in regards to moving the poor to wealthier places, it is proven to have a better outcome for the residents and especially the children of residents who formerly lived in the socially engineered public housing projects.
Also, FWIW, none of these tax incentives or "project based units" are there forever. They usually have a 15-30 year time period. After that the ones that in the wealthier neighborhoods will revert to market rate.
And it has been shown that in wealthy neighborhoods, those residents do not move out as a result of these developments. In middle class neighborhoods though, they do, which is why less of them are usually planned in working to middle income neighborhoods. Those areas become destabilized as a result of increasing poverty and the middle income people will move and then that neighborhood will become majority poverty stricken.
I personally am always in the middle on whether to support not support these initiatives. IMO there is no right or wrong options and doing something is looked at negatively by some while not doing something is looked at negatively by others. But of all the agencies in government, I do feel housing has the widest reach because it affects so many individuals whether they be public housing/Section 8 residents, vendors/contractors, residents of neighborhoods, and even schools. They touch everything and knowing he history of HUD and housing authorities it is interesting to see just how much their initiatives have contributed to the social landscapes of nearly every community in this country as they do have rural housing authorities/development corporations as well.
ETA: In general the bold/blue are not really issues like they used to be and in regards to drugs, wealthier kids are much more likely to abuse drugs and even engage is risky sex than lower income children.
Funny how history repeats itself. The influx of Irish was seen in much the same way in the 1800's and the current influx of Hispanics is likewise demonized and feared. It's a mistake every time it happens, but humanity never seems to grow out of these tendencies. There is always pressure from existing residents to not hire the "evil outsiders" and the fears of working class Americans that the newcomers will take all their jobs is not easily assuaged. I don't know of a solution for it -- though we've certainly made a lot of progress. You used to see, "No dogs, blacks or Irish" signs and nobody did anything about it. Such discrimination is no longer tolerated and anti-discrimination organizations are always expanding the number of groups the advocate for.
You're right that segregation was social engineering. It is also true that attempts to undo segregation are most certainly social engineering. The social engineering -- both segregation and desegregation -- that occurred in the Midwest, Rust Belt and almost everywhere in the nation a long time ago was most often along racial lines.
White flight itself is was never social engineering, but all to often it was the result of social engineering attempting to desegregate. White flight naturally led to profiteering. That's no surprise.
But fast forward to today. The social engineering being proposed in Baltimore is purely along the lines of income, making it a very different animal. It also makes the predictable bad outcomes a lot more pronounced IMHO. There are a lot more wealthy black families in America these days and there's nothing stopping them from moving into whatever rich neighborhood they want as long as they can afford it. Any community attempting to keep them out will get absolutely mauled in court over it.
Despite the wrongheadedness of the racism involved, the desegrationalist social engineering programs of decades long past provide a decent model to predict how income-based desegregation programs will work. The problem with these high-minded programs is that they fail to realize that low-income areas are not terrible places to live because of their geographical location. Their problems come from the people living there. Changing their geography doesn't change the people. An influx of people living in high crime areas into a low crime area is going to result in rapid escalation of crime and bad things. Everything that made the low-income area schools bad will transfer as well. Everything that made the low-income area crappy transfers with the people.
If you're wealthy and feel your nice little community is about to be wrecked by such an influx, what would you do? Do you stay put even though you know that your children are going to be increasingly more at risk? If you stick around, your daughter's chances of getting raped and/or killed are going to increase dramatically. Your son's chances of being the victim of violent crime also go way up. Both of them will encounter a lot more bad influences at school. Drugs, gangs, more teenage pregnancy -- things that you believed were problems somewhere else are now moving in. You can afford to move somewhere else. Can you honestly tell me you wouldn't?
Irish: we DID have a real bad rep way back in the day and; rough for me to say but, many of us had to get killed before the rest of us stopped acting like hooligans.
Hispanics: take out the illegal aliens and not many of them are trouble in 2016 compared to even 1980 IMHO.
I said that I have never seen project based section 8 ever be for single family homes. You haven't really refuted that.
What you said was this:
Quote:
I have never seen RD, HAP, Section-8 or any other subsidies go for single family projects. Ever. If a neighborhood is zoned R-1 with minimum lot sizes, FAR, setbacks etc. how is a multi family project going to go up? IT CAN'T.
What I was "saying" is that multi-family projects can and do go up in the same development/neighborhoods that have single family homes.
What I was "saying" is that multi-family projects can and do go up in the same development/neighborhoods that have single family homes.
A multi-phased development of which you described is not considered the "same" development. Each phase is different development in and of itself.
Single family homes are built/developed by housing authorities, however, they are not built to house subsidized renters. They are built for qualified buyers.
I have worked on many multi-phased, mixed-income/mixed-use developments. The "phases" are actually different developments. The first is usually a senior community that houses subsidized tenants, sometimes 100% of them are subsidized due to seniors being low-risk tenants. The second development (phase II) is usually a family community, mostly townhomes or a mix of townhomes/garden apartments. A percentage of the family community is low income and subsidized (usually up to 20%). Phase III is usually a different family community in a different style. It also usually has some sort of commercial development component (the commercial component many times today is included in phase I or phase II as well in order to increase appeal to tenants/buyers in future phases/developments). The portion with a commercial aspect is zoned differently than the others. Phase IV is usually single family homes. Many times it is a gated community. It is also zoned different than the previous phases. The homes are put on the market by the developer/realtors and they are sold at market rate prices. They are not rented out.
A multi-phased development of which you described is not considered the "same" development. Each phase is different development in and of itself.
Single family homes are built/developed by housing authorities, however, they are not built to house subsidized renters. They are built for qualified buyers.
I have worked on many multi-phased, mixed-income/mixed-use developments. The "phases" are actually different developments. The first is usually a senior community that houses subsidized tenants, sometimes 100% of them are subsidized due to seniors being low-risk tenants. The second development (phase II) is usually a family community, mostly townhomes or a mix of townhomes/garden apartments. A percentage of the family community is low income and subsidized (usually up to 20%). Phase III is usually a different family community in a different style. It also usually has some sort of commercial development component (the commercial component many times today is included in phase I or phase II as well in order to increase appeal to tenants/buyers in future phases/developments). The portion with a commercial aspect is zoned differently than the others. Phase IV is usually single family homes. Many times it is a gated community. It is also zoned different than the previous phases. The homes are put on the market by the developer/realtors and they are sold at market rate prices. They are not rented out.
I'm so glad I didn't have to explain all that to him.
I'm pretty sure that poster doesn't even know what setbacks or zoning codes actually do...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
