In an article last week on the failure of many public-private affordable housing projects in Chicago, the Boston Globe's Binyamin Appelbaum focused heavily on the Grove Parc Plaza Apartments in the neighborhood of Woodlawn. The development is located in Barack Obama's old state senate district and was managed at points by some of his developer friends. The article asserted that "Grove Parc has become a symbol for some in Chicago of the broader failures of giving public subsidies to private companies to build and manage affordable housing."
As I wrote on Friday, the Globe piece will hopefully prompt a reexamination of privately-oriented housing policies. As progressives, we should resist the temptation to simply write off these sorts of public-private partnerships as fatally flawed. While the examples highlighted in the article are certainly egregious, there's also plenty of evidence that these policies have proved successful elsewhere (as we'll discuss in future posts).
Furthermore, in assessing how to improve such policies, we need to learn from the unsuccessful projects themselves and the strategies these communities have developed in response. To that point, the Grove Parc Tenants Association sent out a press release yesterday in which they explained what was missing from the Globe piece:
The Globe Article, while rightly raising concerns about the failure of the private sector to adequately provide for the housing needs of the poor, unfortunately leaves out half of the story. Grove Parc is not just an example of the failures of past policies, but a beacon of hope for the way forward. Tenants have not only stopped foreclosure and displacement and brought in new management, but in so doing have highlighted the principles that should guide this nation’s housing policy – tenant empowerment and full funding to guarantee the Human Right to housing. [...]
While the Globe article raises important points about the problems in both public and subsidized housing, it fails to highlight the role played by massive budget cuts to HUD, which has created a lack of oversight over all HUD programs. These cuts have been carried forth by both parties, and their effects have been made even worse by rampant corruption in the last HUD administration, whose Bush-appointed National Secretary, Alphonso Jackson, recently stepped down amidst allegations of contract steering.
The association goes on to propose "stronger oversight and tenant control" and full funding for HUD:
We hope that the both campaigns will see this as an opportunity to take a strong stand for Housing as a Human Right and to take a critical look at the failure of privatizing housing and the need for strong public oversight and tenant control. Some will undoubtedly use the stories of wasted money and failed housing in the Globe article as justification to further cut these programs. Cutting badly needed subsidies in any housing program, especially in economic times like we are in, is irresponsible, unethical and inefficient, creating many unforeseen costs to society. With better oversight and regulation, an expansion of all housing programs and tenant inclusion in policy-making, the Human Right to decent and safe housing can become a reality for all.
Post new comment