Editing Public housing (section)

=== United States ===
{{unbalanced|date=September 2024}}
{{Main|Subsidized housing in the United States}}
[[File:HylanHousesBushwickBK.JPG|thumb|248x248px|The 20-story [[John Francis Hylan|John F. Hylan]] Houses in the [[Bushwick, Brooklyn|Bushwick]] section of [[Brooklyn]], [[New York City]].|alt=]]
[[File:Ramona Gardens Boyle Heights Los Angeles California 1.jpg|thumb|The [[Ramona Gardens]] projects in [[Los Angeles]], [[California]].|alt=]]
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, government involvement in housing for the poor was chiefly in the introduction of [[building standards]]. [[Atlanta, Georgia]]'s [[Techwood Homes]], dedicated in 1935, was the nation's first public housing project.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.atlhousing.org/introduction/ |title=Atlanta Housing Interplay |access-date=2 May 2018 |publisher=Emory Center for Digital Scholarship |quote=Plotting Atlanta on the Interwar Housing Map |archive-date=3 May 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180503111438/https://www.atlhousing.org/introduction/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Most housing communities were developed from the 1930s onward and initial public housing was largely [[slum]] clearance, with the requirement insisted upon by private builders that for every unit of public housing constructed, a unit of private housing would be demolished.

This also eased concerns of the establishment by eliminating or altering neighborhoods commonly considered a source of disease, and reflected [[Progressive Era|progressive-era]] sanitation initiatives. Moreover, public housing, along with the [[Federal-aid highway program|Federal Highway Program]], demolished the older, substandard housing of communities of color across the United States.

However, the advent of makeshift tent communities during the [[Great Depression in the United States|Great Depression]] caused concern in the Administration. The Federal public housing program was created by the 1937 Act, in which operations were "sustained primarily by tenant rents."<ref name="auto">{{cite web |last1=McCarty |first1=Maggie |title=Introduction to Public Housing |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41654.pdf |website=Congressional Research Service |access-date=May 30, 2020 |archive-date=22 April 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200422020330/https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41654.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> As a result, public housing in its earliest decades was usually much more working-class and middle-class and white than it was by the 1970s. Many Americans associate large, multi-story towers with public housing, but early projects were actually low-rise, though [[Le Corbusier]] [[city block|superblock]]s caught on before World War II.

A unique US public housing initiative was the development of subsidized middle-class housing during the late [[New Deal]] (1940–42) under the auspices of the [[Mutual Ownership Defense Housing Division]] of the [[Federal Works Agency]] under the direction of [[Colonel Lawrence Westbrook]]. These eight projects were purchased by the residents after the Second World War and as of 2009 seven of the projects continue to operate as [[Housing cooperative|mutual housing corporations]] owned by their residents. These projects are among the very few definitive success stories in the history of the US public housing effort.

Public housing was only built with the blessing of the local government, and projects were almost never built on suburban [[greenfield land|greenfields]], but through regeneration of older neighborhoods. The destruction of [[tenement]]s and eviction of their low-income residents consistently created problems in nearby neighborhoods with "soft" real estate markets.

Initiatives in housing policy were implemented in ways that perpetuated stigma against African Americans. Initially, public housing was intended to be built widespread, and as such be mixed-income, but lobbyists who did not want to see public housing decrease their housing values blocked such housing from going up'''<ref>{{Cite book |last=Jacobs |first=Keith |title=Neoliberal Housing Policy: An International Perspective |publisher=[[Routledge]] |year=2019 |isbn=9781138388468}}</ref>'''. These early [[NIMBY]] movements limited where public housing was concentrated: predominantly in low-income neighborhoods. With the introduction of suburbs and expansion of choices for the white working class, the demographics of public housing changed from more class and racially integrated to predominantly impoverished, single-parent, welfare, and people of color'''<ref name=":02">{{Cite book |last=Goetz |first=Edward |title=New Deal Ruins: Race Economic Justice, and Public Housing Policy |publisher=[[Cornell University Press]] |year=2013 |isbn=978-0801478284}}</ref>'''. This led to stigmatization of public housing, through pushing the narrative that people living in public housing were "[[Welfare queen|Welfare Queens]]", or otherwise living in a state of abject poverty and terrible conditions'''<ref name=":02" />'''. These demographic changes also decreased support for housing, leading to the government cutting funding for the program'''<ref>{{Cite book |last=Rodriguez |first=Akira |title=Diverging Space for Deviants: The Politics of Atlanta's Public Housing |publisher=[[The University of Georgia Press]] |year=2021 |isbn=9-780-8203-5950-2}}</ref>'''. Because of funding cuts and mismanagement by public housing authorities, public housing started to reflect modern associated characteristics of "soul-crushing" buildings or "humanitarian disasters"—to which the 1993 HOPE VI project's response was demolition'''<ref name=":02" />'''.

The federal [[Housing and Urban Development]] (HUD) department's 1993 [[HOPE VI]] program addressed concerns of distressed properties and blighted superblocks with revitalization and funding projects for the renewal of public housing to decrease its density and allow for tenants with mixed income levels.<ref name="$4billiongrants">{{cite web|url= http://www.newurbannews.com/hopeVI.html|title= Hope VI funds new urban neighborhoods|access-date= 16 November 2011|work= New Urban News|date= January 2002|archive-date= 28 July 2010|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100728145806/http://www.newurbannews.com/hopeVI.html|url-status= live}}</ref><ref name="HUDpressrelease">{{cite web|url= http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2010/HUDNo.10-112|title= HUDNo.10-112/U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)|access-date= 16 November 2011|publisher= [[United States Department of Housing and Urban Development|HUD]]|date= June 2010|url-status= dead|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100714075225/http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2010/HUDNo.10-112|archive-date= 14 July 2010|df= dmy-all}}</ref> The project paired together the demolition of public housing stock and private development, leading to the displacement of many residents.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Goetz |first=Edward G. |title=New deal ruins: Race, economic justice, and public housing policy |publisher=[[Cornell University Press]] |year=2013}}</ref> One of the biggest components of this was the repealing of the "one-for-one" replacement rule, which said that for every unit of housing destroyed a new one must be built'''<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last1=Cisneros |first1=Henry |title=From Despair to Hope: Hope VI and the New Promise of Public Housing in America's Cities |last2=Engdahl |first2=Lora |publisher=[[Brookings Institution Press]] |year=2009}}</ref>'''. HOPE VI's reasoning for repealing this policy was that it was hindering the construction of new, mixed-income units: since the public housing buildings were so massive, those behind HOPE VI believed that trying to match the 'one-for-one' rule would make building new housing extremely difficult'''<ref name=":0" />'''. The long-term effect of this was that more housing was demolished than built, and many people were displaced without being guaranteed a spot in the new housing that would get built. This led to the widespread displacement and reshuffling of public house residents: namely, low-income, Black, single-parent families'''<ref name=":02"/>'''.''' '''Narratives that public housing projects were full of crime, drugs, and poverty were used to further justify demolition and destruction of public housing. Such associations between crime, surveillance and policing, and the projects increased in 1996.

Projects continue to have a reputation for violence, drug use, and prostitution, especially in [[New Orleans]], [[Washington, D.C.]] 
[[Chicago]] and [[Detroit]], leading to the passage of a 1996 federal "[[one strike you're out]]" law, enabling the eviction of tenants convicted of crimes, especially drug-related, or merely as a result of being tried for some crimes.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/us/04cncfirststrike.html Application of First Strike Policy Is Questioned] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170225034635/http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/us/04cncfirststrike.html |date=25 February 2017 }} By ANGELA CAPUTO, New York Times, 3 September 2011</ref> Specifically, the Clinton era established, through HUD, the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, which led to the cracking down of public housing, leading to more policing and surveillance for low-income people of color'''<ref>{{Cite book |last=United States Department of Housing and Urban Development |title=Public Housing that Works: The Transformation of America's Public Housing |date=May 1996 |publisher=[[University of California, Riverside]] }}</ref>'''.

==== Turn to subsidized housing ====
In the 60s and 70s, the popularization of neoliberalism caused a turn away from public sector solutions towards private or public-private solutions. This, in conjunction with the narrative of public housing being obsolete, led to both the turn away from public housing and towards subsidized housing solutions.

Houses, apartments or other residential units are usually subsidized on a rent-geared-to-income (RGI) basis. Some communities have now embraced a mixed income, with both assisted and market rents, when allocating homes as they become available.

A significant change in the program took place in 1969, with the passage of the Brooke Amendment. Rents now became set at 25% of a tenant's income with the result that the program began serving the "poorest tenants."

Other attempts to solve these problems include the 1974<ref>1974 Housing and Community Development Act</ref> [[Section 8 (housing)|Section 8]] Housing Program, which encourages the private sector to construct affordable homes, and subsidized public housing.  This assistance can be "project-based", subsidizing properties, or "tenant-based", which provides tenants with a voucher, accepted by some landlords. This policy option represented a turn away from the public-sector policy of public housing, instead turning towards the private market to address housing needs. The program, in conjunction with HOPE VI, was intended to create income-integrated communities, by giving residents the choice of where to move'''<ref name=":0"/>'''. However, the housing voucher program has historically had long wait times and limited choice on where one can actually move'''<ref name=":03">{{Cite journal |last=Teater |first=Barbra |date=May 3, 2018 |title=A Place to Call "Home": Exploring the Experiences of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Recipients in Their Efforts to Find Housing |url=https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.3892 |journal=Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services |volume=90 |issue=3 |pages=271–278 |doi=10.1606/1044-3894.3892 |via=Sage Journals}}</ref>'''. Additionally, it was found that many people of color did not want to move away from their families, communities, and systems of support, as well as experiencing stigma and difficulties with landlords, safety, or expenses'''<ref name=":03" />'''. This leads to the program doing little to actually create a more racially-integrated city demographics, mostly reproducing inequality while simultaneously not having enough valid housing units for the long list of applicants'''<ref>{{Cite book |last=Rosen |first=Eva |title=The Voucher Promise: "Section 8" and the Fate of an American Neighborhood |publisher=[[Princeton University Press]] |year=2020}}</ref>'''.