5 ms·

The biggest problem with public housing and low income housing is that they become unsafe (at least in Los Angeles). Many of these places are not safe enough to

The biggest problem with public housing and low income housing is that they become unsafe (at least in Los Angeles). Many of these places are not safe enough to walk around at night. Is it really any surprise that people don't want areas of high crime in their neighborhoods?

crooked-v 8y ago
"The projects" as a phenomenon are the inevitable result of concentrated poverty and the usually awful design choices that go with public housing. Public housing should be mixed into other neighborhoods, or (as my city does) developers should be incentivized to operate a certain percentage of subsidized low-cost housing in otherwise normal apartments.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- MagicPropmaker 8y ago
  Ha! Read Hanna Rosin on this: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/306872/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/america... Hannah Rosin studied this for The Atlantic (which is a progressive, left-leaning publication) and concluded that this simply spreads crime around making overall crime rates even higher.
  - crooked-v 8y ago
    I'd like to see any data actually backing that article's claim that crime in midsize cities has been rising (actually rising over a substantial period of time, not just a temporary uptick), given that every other source shows consistent multi-decade downward trends in crime at the national level and for the overwhelming majority of cities. https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/dueling-claims-on-crime-trend/ https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/dueling-claims-on-crime-tr...
  - wwweston 8y ago
    The article does describe the phenomenon you're taking away, but Rosin's take is much more nuanced than "this simply spreads crime around." For example: "Physically redistributing the poor was probably necessary; generations of them were floundering in the high-rises. But instead of coaching them and then carefully spreading them out among many more-affluent neighborhoods, most cities gave them vouchers and told them to move in a rush, with no support."
  - r00fus 8y ago
    The Atlantic is hardly a “left leaning” publication (perhaps they seem left if they challenge Trump?).
    - doggydogs94 8y ago
      If you believe that The Atlantic is not left leaning, you must be very far left.
      - wwweston 8y ago
        The Atlantic might be fairly described as technocratic or liberal... but because liberal and left are distinct things, "left-leaning" isn't a good description for it. "Left" and "right" tend to be about specific political positions and values, but an entity that's "liberal" tends to orient less around specific positions and more around meta-values that are about approach (and have a lot in common with western academic and especially post-enlightenment thinking), but will accommodate a variety of other values into discourse, just refereed by the meta-values. So, depending on what you define as "left leaning", you might find examinations and even cases for it (alongside conservative leaning points) in the pages a liberal publication, but they'll be grounded in liberal approach and will likely not be alone. And that's why you'll see things like "Why can't people hear what Jordan Peterson is saying" in the pages of the Atlantic, even though Peterson seems frequently hostile to the left and vice versa, or discussions like "The Two Clashing Meanings of 'Free Speech'" that aren't value judgments about people like Milo Yiannopoulos.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ygkkojr6 8y ago
  If I buy an expensive house/flat in a nice neighbourhood the last thing I want is a new building full of problematic people. Sounds like political suicide, really.
  - crooked-v 8y ago
    The equating of "poor" and "problematic" is part of the issue here, and itself has a lot to do with the effects of concentrated poverty. A building with 15 or 30 units of people under the poverty line in an otherwise middle- or middle-upper-class neighborhood that's similarly dense is hardly going to cause noticeable problems.
- Kalium 8y ago
  There are really two options here. You can mix low-income housing into larger complexes, creating mixed income communities. This does a lot to help create role models and show what life options are available and possible. It helps, in some ways, to break the cycle of poverty. This comes with the cost of utterly destroying the concentrated, focused support networks often found in less well off areas - they do not survive the dispersion. The alternative is to prioritize existing communities. To focus on preserving the social ties and mutual support networks they know and trust. The downside is that while this improves the immediate circumstances, it preserves the concentration of poverty. There's no ideal solution here. It's just a question of where your policy priorities lie.
danShumway 8y ago
So, two honest questions: - Is there evidence that they would be less safe than makeshift homeless communities? My instinct would be to assume that homeless people in California are already congregating somewhere, and that those areas have increased crime risks. Does public/low-income housing make it worse than the current situation already is? - Should we weigh the overall loss in safety for middle-income residents against the overall safety of poorer or homeless residents? My instinct is to say that the homeless population in California is part of its constituency, and that their needs should be considered equally with middle/upper income residents. Suppose overall crime in an area is increased, but the area simultaneously becomes safer for the homeless population itself. Is there a ratio between those changes where we would say, "it's worth the increased crime."?
- sl1ck731 8y ago
  I don't know California specifically, but the homeless in Chicago congregate in the business areas and tourist places, not the residential areas as much. I would assume California is similar since most people who live there are less likely to give things to them every day.
  - barbecue_sauce 8y ago
    They may congregate there, but that is not necessarily where they "live". Not all homeless are panhandlers. In Philadelphia, a sizable portion of homeless live in tent cities on top of decommissioned raised rail lines and under bridges.
anigbrowl 8y ago
You can prove anything by assuming the truth of the conclusion you aim to reach.
cenal 8y ago
After Cabrini Green I read that Chicago mandated a section of all new big residential projects have section 8 units inside them alongside the luxury rentals. It makes sense to put those less well off around more affluent folks to help keep criminal activity from pooling. Cabrini Green showed that these large scale public housing projects are unpoliceable.

crooked-v 8y ago

"The projects" as a phenomenon are the inevitable result of concentrated poverty and the usually awful design choices that go with public housing. Public housing should be mixed into other neighborhoods, or (as my city does) developers should be incentivized to operate a certain percentage of subsidized low-cost housing in otherwise normal apartments.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
MagicPropmaker 8y ago
Ha! Read Hanna Rosin on this: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/306872/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/america... Hannah Rosin studied this for The Atlantic (which is a progressive, left-leaning publication) and concluded that this simply spreads crime around making overall crime rates even higher.
- crooked-v 8y ago
  I'd like to see any data actually backing that article's claim that crime in midsize cities has been rising (actually rising over a substantial period of time, not just a temporary uptick), given that every other source shows consistent multi-decade downward trends in crime at the national level and for the overwhelming majority of cities. https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/dueling-claims-on-crime-trend/ https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/dueling-claims-on-crime-tr...
- wwweston 8y ago
  The article does describe the phenomenon you're taking away, but Rosin's take is much more nuanced than "this simply spreads crime around." For example: "Physically redistributing the poor was probably necessary; generations of them were floundering in the high-rises. But instead of coaching them and then carefully spreading them out among many more-affluent neighborhoods, most cities gave them vouchers and told them to move in a rush, with no support."
- r00fus 8y ago
  The Atlantic is hardly a “left leaning” publication (perhaps they seem left if they challenge Trump?).
  - doggydogs94 8y ago
    If you believe that The Atlantic is not left leaning, you must be very far left.
    - wwweston 8y ago
      The Atlantic might be fairly described as technocratic or liberal... but because liberal and left are distinct things, "left-leaning" isn't a good description for it. "Left" and "right" tend to be about specific political positions and values, but an entity that's "liberal" tends to orient less around specific positions and more around meta-values that are about approach (and have a lot in common with western academic and especially post-enlightenment thinking), but will accommodate a variety of other values into discourse, just refereed by the meta-values. So, depending on what you define as "left leaning", you might find examinations and even cases for it (alongside conservative leaning points) in the pages a liberal publication, but they'll be grounded in liberal approach and will likely not be alone. And that's why you'll see things like "Why can't people hear what Jordan Peterson is saying" in the pages of the Atlantic, even though Peterson seems frequently hostile to the left and vice versa, or discussions like "The Two Clashing Meanings of 'Free Speech'" that aren't value judgments about people like Milo Yiannopoulos.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ygkkojr6 8y ago
If I buy an expensive house/flat in a nice neighbourhood the last thing I want is a new building full of problematic people. Sounds like political suicide, really.
- crooked-v 8y ago
  The equating of "poor" and "problematic" is part of the issue here, and itself has a lot to do with the effects of concentrated poverty. A building with 15 or 30 units of people under the poverty line in an otherwise middle- or middle-upper-class neighborhood that's similarly dense is hardly going to cause noticeable problems.
Kalium 8y ago
There are really two options here. You can mix low-income housing into larger complexes, creating mixed income communities. This does a lot to help create role models and show what life options are available and possible. It helps, in some ways, to break the cycle of poverty. This comes with the cost of utterly destroying the concentrated, focused support networks often found in less well off areas - they do not survive the dispersion. The alternative is to prioritize existing communities. To focus on preserving the social ties and mutual support networks they know and trust. The downside is that while this improves the immediate circumstances, it preserves the concentration of poverty. There's no ideal solution here. It's just a question of where your policy priorities lie.

danShumway 8y ago

So, two honest questions: - Is there evidence that they would be less safe than makeshift homeless communities? My instinct would be to assume that homeless people in California are already congregating somewhere, and that those areas have increased crime risks. Does public/low-income housing make it worse than the current situation already is? - Should we weigh the overall loss in safety for middle-income residents against the overall safety of poorer or homeless residents? My instinct is to say that the homeless population in California is part of its constituency, and that their needs should be considered equally with middle/upper income residents. Suppose overall crime in an area is increased, but the area simultaneously becomes safer for the homeless population itself. Is there a ratio between those changes where we would say, "it's worth the increased crime."?

sl1ck731 8y ago
I don't know California specifically, but the homeless in Chicago congregate in the business areas and tourist places, not the residential areas as much. I would assume California is similar since most people who live there are less likely to give things to them every day.
- barbecue_sauce 8y ago
  They may congregate there, but that is not necessarily where they "live". Not all homeless are panhandlers. In Philadelphia, a sizable portion of homeless live in tent cities on top of decommissioned raised rail lines and under bridges.

anigbrowl 8y ago

You can prove anything by assuming the truth of the conclusion you aim to reach.

cenal 8y ago

After Cabrini Green I read that Chicago mandated a section of all new big residential projects have section 8 units inside them alongside the luxury rentals. It makes sense to put those less well off around more affluent folks to help keep criminal activity from pooling. Cabrini Green showed that these large scale public housing projects are unpoliceable.