🚀 go-pugleaf

Miguel Cruz wrote:
> 
> Eternal Nay-sayer  <no@spam.for.me> wrote:
> > Nobody is contesting that the DC government (currently overseen by federal
> > appointees) is working to reduce the amount of public housing in DC,
> > focusing mainly on "projects". Why do they want to eliminate the
> > projects? Because they're a nightmare from a law enforcement
> > standpoint, because they get damaged and/or destroyed by vandals
> > on a regular basis, and because (and this is probably the single most
> > important reason...) they are not maintained by the residents.
> 
> It might be expensive in the short term, but how about keeping the same
> amount of public housing, but scattering it in single units throughout the
> city? In the Netherlands they've been trying to locate public housing in the
> wealthiest areas, on the theory that this will bring people together in the
> schools and the neighborhoods and lead to less of a dueling-fortresses
> mentality.

There's something to be said for that approach, as it will tend to
promote the learning, by the poor, of the cultural attributes of the
successful -- provided that the rich don't just all take their children
out of public schools and educate them separately from their neighbor's
children.

PS, "scattered site" housing is generally considered a success here in
the US, as is "mixed classes" housing, where Projects are built but
which are required to have a certain percentage of housing in any
project be ownable at affordable costs, some will be subsidized-rental,
some will be rented to middle-class folks, etc. This way you don't get
concentrations and enclaves of particular cultural segments, and you
can't stack the property with one group of friends, etc.

> 
> I don't think that public housing should be eliminated, because people need
> a place to live. Whether it's because they're disabled or overburdened or
> just down on their luck, everyone deserves a roof over their heads.

Absolutely. I'm all for the laws requiring that there be a certain
percentage of units per neighborhood which are affordable. There should
also be, IMHO, if not actual shelters reserved for the
homeless/destitute, at least a sanctuary property where it would be
absolutely legal for people to sleep out-of-doors without a required fee
or permit -- this would give sanctuary, and also provide a central
gahtering-point for outreach operations.

> 
> I do think that the way it is implemented now - concentrating large numbers
> of unhappy people into miserable settings - is not doing anyone a whole lot
> of good.

That's true. Such people will always be eploited by slumlords.

> 
> miguel
> --
> Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu