How progressives’ grand plans for subsidized housing have harmed African Americans
I’ve often thought the harm our welfare programs to our society. We are called to help those in need, but these programs that are designed to support people for decades instead of weaning them off the public teat have not only created a dependent class that is now generational, it is dragging down our economy as the “entitlement” group sucks more tax money that could be used for, say…paying the national debt.
Our housing policies have had all these deleterious effects in a series of ways: by destroying Black neighborhoods filled with Black-owned businesses and homeowners but labeled as slums; by replacing them with public housing projects where no ownership was possible and Blacks were and are over-represented; by setting housing rules such that both increasing income and marriage are punished; and by defining affordable housing as subsidized rentals rather than small, privately-owned homes whose ownership builds wealth.
I’ll take these series of mistakes one at a time.
Let’s start by going back to the Franklin Roosevelt administration and the National Housing Act of 1937….
First lady Eleanor Roosevelt pushed especially hard for housing projects for African Americans, convinced that the segregated Black neighborhoods of that era needed to be replaced. ….
But housing progressives utterly misjudged what they were replacing.
Although we are often told that Black neighborhoods were substandard areas owned by White slumlords, Census records tell a different story.
In Detroit, the Douglas Houses and later its companion the Brewster Houses, replaced a neighborhood known as “Black Bottom” (for its soil not its race) that was home to no less than 300 Black-owned businesses, a significant percentage of one, two and three-family homeowners, a thriving branch of the Urban League and other self-help groups, and, of course, many churches—including the Bethel AME, led by the Rev. C.L. Franklin. ….
/snip
All the effort that built Black Bottom aimed toward that goal of struggling toward self-improvement—and was, by 1950, left as nothing more than vacant lots, a highway and high-rises which deteriorated so quickly that would have to be demolished themselves.
What should Mrs. Roosevelt have done instead? Improvements to homes that lacked amenities, rather than tearing them down. A Fair Housing Law that would have permitted Black owners to move up and out, to be followed by a new generation of owners building wealth.
None of that happened until the Fair Housing Act of 1968, by which time Blacks would have long since been steered into the alleged reward of the projects.
Today, even as African Americans comprise 13 percent of the U.S. population, they are 48 percent of public and subsidized housing.
But isn’t that a benefit? A way to reduce poverty? No, just the opposite. Consider the rules which govern public housing and its close cousin Section 8 voucher housing, in which government pays most of the rent for a private apartment.
First, there’s the matter of how to qualify….
[Follows a discussion of how the rules promote poverty and dependency]
Rather than building high-rise apartments on those vacant lots, we need to make sure our local laws permit the construction of homes that local residents can afford naturally—because they are modest homes on small lots, starter houses, maybe two or three-families, maybe paying the mortgage by taking in lodgers.
Some of those homes should have storefronts on the ground floors, where grocery stores and small businesses such as barber shops can set up shop.
While studying my family’s genealogy, I came across early telephone books. The addresses, much less the phone numbers, were much different than what we are used to today. I remember seeing things like “above the tailor shop” or “upstairs behind the butcher shop”. People who owned businesses would often have living quarters attached to their businesses. It was an affordable way to acquire a residence. It’s rare to see that today. These days, people who can’t afford a regular residence are pushed towards a government provided home.
One thing that bothers me is that those people have no skin in the game. I remember watching a welfare mother, sitting in her apartment with a kitchen that was nicer than mine and her very large screen TV visible it the background, complaining about her apartment. “I deserve better,” she said, “and I want a better place.”
Really? Really?
I’ve seen videos of kids in the UK, where I believe their education is paid for, totally taking their class time for granted.
Those who do not pay their dues do not value what those dues pay. I saw a video of a song touting a welfare mother saying “just ***k and nine months later – another check!” The child involved is merely a means to an end for an increased welfare check.
When we quit subsidizing poverty and start incentivizing personal effort and growth, maybe we can turn this sinking society around.
Don’t anybody hold their breath though – too many votes come off of that plantation.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.