The Past and Future of American Low-Income Housing Policy of USA
Introduction:
This article explores the often unexamined assumptions that shape and delimit discussions about low-income housing policy. Usually policy debate focuses on the efficacy of specific programs, but such debate, which often takes place in the midst of political struggles, leaves little time to examine the logic and philosophy that drive policy.
In the 1930s, idealistic reformers attempted to create a vast public housing program using modern architectural design. Instead, they created a distinctive look that would later stigmatize its occupants. After the passage of the Housing Act of 1949, visionaries attempted to rebuild American cities by placing the poor in high-rise buildings, an experiment that was soon deemed a disaster.
In the face of frustration and failure, houses reluctantly accepted that a single public housing program for the majority of Americans was unfeasible and abandoned the notion of introducing new architectural styles through low-income housing projects. Yet visionary idealism, in particular environmental determinism, persists in the housing movement.
Early public low-income housing programs:
The idea that living environments influence people’s lives has been a part of the housing movement from its earliest days. Beginning in the mid–19th century, idealistic philanthropists and moral reformers attempted to solve problems related to the housing of the urban poor. They firmly believed that the slums of the city were a malevolent environment that threatened the safety, health, and morals of the poor who inhabited them.
The economic crisis of the Great Depression:
The economic crisis of the Great Depression created a favorable climate for federal government intervention in the housing industry. The housing industry had been in recession since the late 1920s, unemployment rates reached painfully high levels, and many American homeowners could not make their mortgage payments. Overwhelmed by soaring demand for relief and by plummeting tax revenues, local governments could only look on helplessly. During the 1930s, the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt responded by propping up the financial system of credit that supported homeownership.
Troubled midlife of American public low-income housing:
After a hiatus in the low-income housing program caused by World War II and rising conservative political sentiment after the war, the passage of the Housing Act of 1949 restarted public housing in the United States (Davies 1966). Reflecting mainstream reformist thought and the demands of the real estate industry, the 1949 law renewed the war against the slum through provisions for slum clearance and new construction, under the rubric of urban redevelopment.
Persistence of high ambitions:
During the 1980s, the advocates of good low-income housing responded to the budget retrenchment of the Reagan administration by finding new ways to produce housing. Community development corporations and other nonprofit groups emerged as leading developers of subsidized low-income housing. Funded at first primarily by foundations and corporations and later, under Presidents Bush and Clinton, by government, these groups now produce about 30,000–40,000 units of housing annually, equal to the levels of production of public housing during the 1950s.
Lessons of the past:
History does not provide precise prescriptions for the future, but it does indicate that, to be successful, housing advocates should not promote large-scale politically controversial programs (such as Moving to Opportunity) as panaceas for deep-rooted social problems. Instead history suggests that flexibility and political pragmatism are the best guides to shaping housing policy.
Conclusion:
For many housing advocates, such pragmatic approaches to policy may seem too modest. The simple goal of providing decent and safe housing to low-income people where they now live is not as lofty as creating modern housing, a high-rise civilization, or a socially heterogeneous society. Yet it is just as worthy and, in these perilous times for social policy, has the advantage of being remotely possible.