One of the most personal things that the government provides for people of the United States is housing. Public housing was first implemented in the US in 1936 as a result of the Public Works Administration, a sector of FDR’s New Deal. The effort was made to rid cities about the country of slums that had grown as a result of the depression and to further improve the way of life for the nation as a whole. Every decade since, major Congressional Acts have been put into place in order to improve both private and public housing around the country. Now in the second decade of the 21st century, its again time to consider our public housing and its service to our country.
The positive aspects of public housing are pretty clear, especially in an ideal world. The purpose of government owned housing has always been to ease the burden of those struggling financially in terms of having a safe, accommodating place to live. Whether a person is coming up from being homeless or has simply dropped down in economic stability, similar to other government aids, public housing is essentially supposed to be a stepping stone. If you consider our country without the ability to fluidly rise through the economic spectrum given the input of hard work and determination, then we wouldn’t seem very American. Public housing has been able to do such a thing for many many people.
At the same time we must consider the cons of public housing that hinder its own ideal function. The first issue of public housing is that it concentrates poverty. Considering that the average income for someone who lives in government housing is just a couple thousand dollars higher than the federal poverty line ($11,880), it’s clear that poverty is concentrated in these areas. The effect on surrounding communities is clearly negative for property value drops the closer you get to government housing. Violence and drug abuse are also a major issues when it comes to these areas as well, which can carry over to the lack of proper management of housing units. A continuation of crime in public housing communities is a direct result of problematic residents being able to stay in their homes. Safety as it pertains to the physical health of tenants also remains a problem concerning the development and management of public housing.
With the intent of government housing being just and necessary in many cases along with the many issues these communities face daily, it is clear that reform must continue at all levels of government. I don’t know much about exactly what must be implemented in terms of legislation, however finding a way for public housing to be properly managed has got to be at the top of the list. Public perception of public housing also has to change in order for any progress to be made. Public housing has been subject to many stereotypes, and while these stereotypes are true in many cases, we must understand what public housing can be: a way for our government to provide the necessities of life to its people, while also expanding opportunity to those who long for success.
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/
https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/better-public-housing-lessons-failure-success-us-world
One thought on “Public Housing: Function and Effects”
This piece is well-written and an interesting concept to address. For one, I never really thought about this topic before as a civic issue in our society, but after reading through your information, and looking at the articles it became clear to me the effects government has with implementation of public housing.
The one article I looked into after reading your writing was “4 Public Housing Lessons the U.S. Could Learn from the Rest of the World.” I found this interesting because it showed cultural differences of how public housing is implemented across the globe. The one point I thought was interesting was how in the country of Vienna they have mixed class tenancy. They do not discriminate based off of money, and offer generous funding to those who are unable to cover public housing right off the bat. They do not create “ghetto” housing for those who cannot afford the nicer places. This concept made me think about the lack of sympathy we possess here in the U.S., and it is something that should be addressed in the future.
I think your two paragraphs that highlighted the pros/cons of this civic issue allowed me to understand both sides of the issue, and develop a non-bias and informative opinion about the topic. Your set up was well thought out and interesting to read. I think this topic is overlooked, and not a topic I would ever think of to write about when considering civic issues in our world. I think this is why I enjoyed reading your piece because it was unique, and I knew little about the topic. I learned more about how public housing is positively looked at for those financially in need, and frowned upon by others who feel this promotes housing for the poor, and ultimately leads to higher crime rates. As you mentioned this issue is not at the top of the list, and that is why I have not thought about it before. I think you have an interesting topic to look at though, and your blog will help to gain awareness centering around this civic issue.
Sofie Lutfy