|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Jun 3, 2009 20:49:52 GMT -5
Atlanta claims to be the home of the first public housing project in a major city and today became the first major city to actively eliminate all public housing. Demolition on the last "project" began today and former residents have been given vouchers help with rent in apartment/rental housing. The argument has been that concentrating poor people in these tenements bred crime and lowered expectations and that integrating the poor into mixed income housing or regular neighborhoods was better long term for the residents. Of course, the other side says dispersion increases crime over a wider area and puts innocent residents at risk.
What say you OOA? Do you support the abolition of public housing and why?
Bulldozers begin razing Bowen Homes housing project
By ERIC STIRGUS, MICHELLE E. SHAW
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Bowen Homes is no more.
The Atlanta Housing Authority began bulldozing the housing project Wednesday.
• Photos: Bowen Homes torn down
• Photos: Demolition/rebirth of other Atlanta housing projects
Recent headlines:
Accused shooter at recruiting station may have targeted Atlanta
Bulldozers begin razing Bowen Homes housing project
Atlanta: Homeowners' insurance costs won't go up
• Atlanta and Fulton County news Housing authority leaders hailed the demolition of the complex, considered by some as one of the most dangerous places in Atlanta, as a major step in an ongoing effort to end what the authority describes as a failed practice: the projects.
Many cities have come to the same conclusion.
Demolitions since 2006 in Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia and other cities have claimed 186,000 public housing units, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
There are a number of reasons a city might choose to tear down a development, and creating a better quality of life seems to be at the top, said Donna White, a HUD spokeswoman.
In Atlanta, housing authority leaders pointed to a string of slayings last year to push their case that Bowen Homes be razed. Five young men were shot and killed in a five-month stretch.
Atlanta was the first U.S. city to have a public housing project with the construction of Techwood Homes in 1936. Now, housing authority officials believe it will be the first big U.S. city to remove all such projects. By this time next year, all the city’s housing projects will either be demolished or will have a date with a wrecking ball.
HUD cannot confirm that Atlanta will be the first to shed all housing projects, though, because its records do not automatically allow for tracking such statistics, White said.
Renee Glover, the housing authority’s executive director, said Bowen’s demolition “marks the end of an era where warehousing families in concentrated poverty will cease.”
On Wednesday, some housing authority officials celebrated as a bulldozer cracked the shell of one building into a pile of bricks. Nearly a dozen former tenants and community activists brought signs protesting the demolition.
Shirley Hightower, a former president of the Bowen Homes tenants association, wanted the complex renovated.
“This is just wrong,” she said. “I wish I could join in with their rejoicing. I can’t.”
About 535 families were relocated from Bowen Homes, located in northwest Atlanta near I-285 and Donald Lee Hollowell Parkway. The sprawling complex of two-story, orange duplexes, with an elementary school and a library, opened in 1964.
Glover said Bowen tenants received vouchers to cut the cost of rent in their new homes. The families will receive 27 months of counseling and other assistance.
The authority plans to redevelop the 64-acre site into a mixed-income neighborhood. Glover said the authority will seek proposals to build a mixed-use community there.
Hightower and other critics say some tenants are moving into homes that are being foreclosed. She does not believe most tenants who want to return after the redevelopment will get an apartment.
Asked whether a mixed-income neighborhood in the heart of one of Atlanta’s most impoverished areas is a reasonable goal, Glover noted there was similar unfounded skepticism when the authority redeveloped projects such as Techwood Homes and the Villages of East Lake.
“It is working today,” she said. “It is what will work in the future.”
White, the HUD spokeswoman, said similar successes have been seen across the nation, with mixed-income communities “reducing the intense concentration of poverty that has plagued inner-city neighborhoods.”
Glover is a longtime opponent of housing projects, calling them “a horrible practice and a horrible policy.” She points to studies on behalf of the authority that found most tenants who left the projects improved their economic, educational and social standing. Critics of Bowen’s demolition, though, argued that the authority is only pushing tenants into other pockets of poverty.
Ex-Bowen tenant Darrell Thomas had mixed feelings about the demolition.
“It hurts, but it’s time for change,” said Thomas, 49, a construction and demolition worker who lives in a nearby gated community. “The projects limit your ability to move on and have a better life.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Bunny Hop on Jun 3, 2009 22:24:10 GMT -5
So IDK....
You know I wanna say this is a good thing but I just can't bring myself to do it.
It is good for them to get out the pjs and for many to be in better circumstances. But nothing is better if the crime is just spread out and not concentrated in one area. I don't see how that is helping anything. A lot of folks want to blame out of towners for a lot of what's going on but a lot of this is home grown foolishness that people bring with them along with that voucher.
My mom worked for HUD and housing authorities for a long time and my high school was full Magnet programs kids (me), the New News (from ATL), middle class kids, upper class kids and the pj kids. So I'm kind of stuck between what's right and what it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by trunksie on Jun 3, 2009 22:41:37 GMT -5
they need to tear it down...most of it is raggity and people shouldnt be living like that anyways
my only concern with this is what will be built in its place...here in dallas they been eying south dallas for years...its right next to downtown and the state fair of texas grounds is right in the middle...they have begun to tear down projects but the shit they are building up is going to be out of people's price range...similar to what ive heard whats going on in new orleans
sidenote...dunno why...but i got excited cause when i read the title i thought u was talking about project pat the rapper...LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by LogAKAlly <3'n Keef on Jun 4, 2009 8:34:04 GMT -5
I thought it was the rapper too  One word folks.... GENETRIFICATION. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Jun 4, 2009 10:04:26 GMT -5
Dang it Log, get out my freaking head!
All they are doing is moving the poorer folks out and bringing the richer folks in, much like way back when when the richers folks moved out, and moved the poorer folks back in.
It's a cycle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Jun 4, 2009 10:22:28 GMT -5
I'm mixed....at some time, we have to address matters of personal responsibility when it comes to public housing. If Ray-Ray and Lil'AK-47 want to live next door to each other in a single family housing neighborhood then that's their choice. But when it comes to public housing, i'm not sure if just getting rid of them is the answer. Here in Little Rock, there was a housing project that was about as stereotypical Project-ish as one could get. Very high crime, 1/3 of the units were boarded up, generational welfare legacy, violence, high drug activity, murders...etc... This is what Little Rock did with these places...    When they put the bulldozers to the old project they gave residents first dibs at this new community. But as some of you know, living in public housing comes with some strings and they enforced them to the nth degree. Random inspections, zero tolerance for violation of the "visitors" policy, kicking folks out for those violations. I think that worked to not only create a better environment for the community but also by moving in some people who were not on public assistance. Even some students. I know that apartments usually show their best side in these ads but this place is still really nice. |
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Jun 4, 2009 11:34:02 GMT -5
sidenote...dunno why...but i got excited cause when i read the title i thought u was talking about project pat the rapper...LOL Purposeful bait and switch....y'all don't spend much time in Serious these days so I had to entice you with a witty title. My bad for deceiving you.......NOT......LOL |
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Jun 4, 2009 11:59:47 GMT -5
I'm mixed....at some time, we have to address matters of personal responsibility when it comes to public housing. If Ray-Ray and Lil'AK-47 want to live next door to each other in a single family housing neighborhood then that's their choice. But when it comes to public housing, i'm not sure if just getting rid of them is the answer. Here in Little Rock, there was a housing project that was about as stereotypical Project-ish as one could get. Very high crime, 1/3 of the units were boarded up, generational welfare legacy, violence, high drug activity, murders...etc... This is what Little Rock did with these places... When they put the bulldozers to the old project they gave residents first dibs at this new community. But as some of you know, living in public housing comes with some strings and they enforced them to the nth degree. Random inspections, zero tolerance for violation of the "visitors" policy, kicking folks out for those violations. I think that worked to not only create a better environment for the community but also by moving in some people who were not on public assistance. Even some students. I know that apartments usually show their best side in these ads but this place is still really nice. This place looks really nice Cam and I agree with the restrictions. If it stays looking like this , the city has the resources to enforce the rules, and crime stats decrease, that's great. A few houses in my neighborhood have recently gone section 8 and you can tell the difference from the previous owners. All kinds of characters coming and going,unkempt yards, etc. I'm not trying to stereotype ALL recipient sof public aid but based on my personal experience, no I do not want the rental property in my neighborhood filled with voucher users. Mixed income communities like Cam showed are fine. |
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Jun 4, 2009 13:10:14 GMT -5
Plus, when you are on public assistance, you SHOULD be subject to rules that make it slightly uncomfortable and inconvienent like random inspections and rules on how long guests can stay, etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by Bunny Hop on Jun 4, 2009 13:20:21 GMT -5
There are a lot of areas like that in Nashville and they look GREAT. I still wouldn't live there because the area and the people have not changed.
Plus when I leave school I want to LEAVE school...I do not enjoy being in walking distance from campus unless I'm living on it, lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Jun 4, 2009 14:52:12 GMT -5
Plus, when you are on public assistance, you SHOULD be subject to rules that make it slightly uncomfortable and inconvienent like random inspections and rules on how long guests can stay, etc... I absolutely agree but we both know that the goverment does not have the resources to do code enforcement in a concentrated environment, let alone when folks have vouchers and are living anywhere they wish. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Jun 4, 2009 16:06:19 GMT -5
I moved to Atlanta right after they finished mashing up Techwood. You would never have known it was projects by the way it looked by the time I got there. Real Talk: They used the Olympics as the auspice to start this long term project, and now they're simply finishing it. The complaints of gentrification have been going on since I was down there... and I haven't lived in Atlanta since 2002.
|
|
|
|
Post by No Screen Name on Jun 4, 2009 19:03:36 GMT -5
Plus, when you are on public assistance, you SHOULD be subject to rules that make it slightly uncomfortable and inconvienent like random inspections and rules on how long guests can stay, etc... I agree. I agree with this, too. I hate to say it--the Section 8 folks out in my neighborhood--AND a lot of the renters who are not getting assistance, but are on the "come up"--do stuff that I frown upon. Pulling stools out in front of their townhouse and braiding hair, setting off fireworks on the 4th of July, and ignoring the president of the Home Owner's Association who told them to stop (she then called the police), playing loud music, letting their kids run amok in the neighborhood. The White folks are popping up "For Sale" signs left and right.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Jun 8, 2009 7:23:41 GMT -5
It's going to get worse as more homes get forclosed.....
|
|
|
|
Post by No Screen Name on Jun 8, 2009 9:31:55 GMT -5
I am wondering if I need to sell my shyt. The units HAVE appreciated decently, and I could get a one-room apartment and use the proceeds to pay for school. I think Section 8 needs to make anyone accepting this benefit to go through classes. |
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Jun 8, 2009 9:43:52 GMT -5
1. Go through classes
2. Be subject to random inspections
3. Have a 5- year TOTAL amount of time they can live on full subsidy (with the option to cover costs in times they are working)
4. Provide community service if not working full time (there are plenty of agencies that are undermanned but cant afford to hire additional workers. Make these folks work and get used to working a regular schedule.
5. Pick up a trade or work to make themselves more self sustaining (in some way and if possible)
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Jun 8, 2009 9:47:25 GMT -5
I do understand 91's point and it's true.....the gov can put any and all restrictions they want on people but if you can't enforce it or can't afford to enforce it, then its useless.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Jun 9, 2009 19:56:31 GMT -5
1. Go through classes 2. Be subject to random inspections 3. Have a 5- year TOTAL amount of time they can live on full subsidy (with the option to cover costs in times they are working) 4. Provide community service if not working full time (there are plenty of agencies that are undermanned but cant afford to hire additional workers. Make these folks work and get used to working a regular schedule. 5. Pick up a trade or work to make themselves more self sustaining (in some way and if possible) Agrees 1000%. I'm thinking I need to sell my house now and go high post gated where the vouchers can't reach. SIGH |
|
|
|
Post by Oldskool on Jun 9, 2009 21:49:28 GMT -5
1. Go through classes 2. Be subject to random inspections 3. Have a 5- year TOTAL amount of time they can live on full subsidy (with the option to cover costs in times they are working) 4. Provide community service if not working full time (there are plenty of agencies that are undermanned but cant afford to hire additional workers. Make these folks work and get used to working a regular schedule. 5. Pick up a trade or work to make themselves more self sustaining (in some way and if possible) 6. All school-aged children are to be in school all day everyday. Agrees 1000%. I'm thinking I need to sell my house now and go high post gated where the vouchers can't reach. SIGH |
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Jun 10, 2009 7:30:09 GMT -5
WOW, Old Skool...you are sooooo right.
Why are these daymed kids always walking the streets at lunchtime? I will leave work going to a board meeting and there will be 9 year old kids "walkin to da sto"! WTF? Is school out? What holiday is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bunny Hop on Jun 10, 2009 8:11:23 GMT -5
I thought school was out?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Jun 10, 2009 8:23:49 GMT -5
I'm talking about any other time of the year. Especially when I KNOW that my kids are in school.
|
|
|
|
Post by No Screen Name on Jun 10, 2009 9:14:40 GMT -5
WOW, Old Skool...you are sooooo right. Why are these daymed kids always walking the streets at lunchtime? I will leave work going to a board meeting and there will be 9 year old kids "walkin to da sto"! WTF? Is school out? What holiday is it? Oh, that's another thing, there needs to be a CURFEW. There is NO REASON any child under the age of 13 should be walking to the store at 10 or 11 at night. Who are these people's parents?  I couldn't walk to the store when I was 15 in broad daylight. ;D |
|
BLAC-A-MUS PRYME
OOA Interest
Grow in the knowledge of self[C01:0000FF]
Posts: 33
|
Post by BLAC-A-MUS PRYME on Jun 10, 2009 9:35:06 GMT -5
As I have always said, Atlanta's redevelopement is just the fact that they want to raise their income and revenue as far as property taxes and they cannot do that with such housing as BOWEN homes. Not to knock public housing, but it is just the fact that the area around such places are deemed by those on council chairs as faulty and below standards. In short, "get the rich folks from North Atlanta Area to move back down town and get the poor out".
|
|
|
|
Post by No Screen Name on Jun 10, 2009 9:48:19 GMT -5
Playing the devil's advocate: Is it a BAD thing to mix people up by income? To remove people from public housing? I have heard the argument repeatedly that the GOOD thing about segregation was that people were able to see African-Americans of different income levels. The lower-income children lived near the Black doctors and lawyers. They had role-models and influences other than just other low-income people.
I know some of the school systems here make it a point to keep the schools mixed by income: they won't let the schools get saturated with only people from one income level. They achieve this by busing, which pisses off a lot of parents. But school officials say it boots student performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Jun 10, 2009 9:58:23 GMT -5
Playing the devil's advocate: Is it a BAD thing to mix people up by income? To remove people from public housing? I have heard the argument repeatedly that the GOOD thing about segregation was that people were able to see African-Americans of different income levels. The lower-income children lived near the Black doctors and lawyers. They had role-models and influences other than just other low-income people. I know some of the school systems here make it a point to keep the schools mixed by income: they won't let the schools get saturated with only people from one income level. They achieve this by busing, which pisses off a lot of parents. But school officials say it boots student performance. Mixing the incomes typically boosts the lower income's performance but how does it affect the upper? If you're prepared and moving along an advanced track, it may hinder your development if the teacher is spending increased time trying to shore up the deficiencies in students who haven't been exposed. This is elitist as hayle but I don't want to get increase my chances of getting jacked or having the quality of life in the neighborhood go down. I don't want the crime problems concentrated in public housing to migrate into my neighborhood. If you want to come in and be a good neighbor and conform to the deed restrictions and keep your hands off my ish, we're cool. If you wanna upgrade your house because you can see my flatscreen through your window and it's a short walk, we have problems. |
|
|
|
Post by Bunny Hop on Jun 10, 2009 10:32:37 GMT -5
I don't think there is anything wrong with mixed income housing for those that can appreciate and take advantage of what comes along with it. For the other people they move down the street and bring all of their foolishness with them. This is elitist as hayle but I don't want to get increase my chances of getting jacked or having the quality of life in the neighborhood go down. I don't want the crime problems concentrated in public housing to migrate into my neighborhood. If you want to come in and be a good neighbor and conform to the deed restrictions and keep your hands off my ish, we're cool. If you wanna upgrade your house because you can see my flatscreen through your window and it's a short walk, we have problems.Do you live down the street from my mom? LOL This exact same thing happened to someone in our neighborhood. |
|
|
|
Post by No Screen Name on Jun 10, 2009 13:30:06 GMT -5
This is elitist as hayle but I don't want to get increase my chances of getting jacked or having the quality of life in the neighborhood go down. I don't want the crime problems concentrated in public housing to migrate into my neighborhood. If you want to come in and be a good neighbor and conform to the deed restrictions and keep your hands off my ish, we're cool. If you wanna upgrade your house because you can see my flatscreen through your window and it's a short walk, we have problems. This leads me to another observation: at what point did "poor" begin to equal "high crime"? It wasn't always this way. In fact, I read someplace once that when housing projects first became popular, they weren't that bad: everybody worked, the children were educated and clean, the projects had parks and playgrounds and stuff for the kids, people didn't tear them up, etc. My father grew up poor, but everybody worked and there wasn't a lot of crime. One book I read hypothesized it was when a lot of jobs (like factories and stuff) left inner cities. |
|
|
|
Post by Bunny Hop on Jun 10, 2009 13:31:22 GMT -5
drugs
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Michelob Lite on Jun 16, 2009 1:30:00 GMT -5
crack...
|
|
{=}http://s2.images.proboards.com/cool.gif{/=}
I couldn't walk to the store when I was 15 in broad daylight. ;D
I will honor and defend..