Dispersing the poor: Good idea or bad?

[levdrakon]

The Miracle of Minneapolis sounds relevant here.

[BrainGlutton]

@Ruken

Just a short pause in the conversation.

The instant thread started as a spinoff of this thread, which just got bumped, so . . .

[Ruken]

Subsidized housing in the United States | Alternative models

The entire article is an interesting read, but the section I linked to is on alternatives to projects, including scattered-site housing, vouchers (e.g. Section 8), and Hope VI, which I hadn’t heard of.

What I like to know, and haven’t found, is the breakdown of how many folks are receiving what sort of assistance.

[Ruken]

When this thread was first active, a poster mentioned disincentives to working. I understand that some aid programs have sharp cut-offs. I wonder if anyone has studied hard vs soft means tests (is that what we call them?) for aid programs.

[monstro]

It’s great that this thread was bumped!

I just read this piece: Is ending segregation the key to ending poverty?

A study of suburban Gautreaux mothers in the 1990s found that they were more likely to be employed than mothers who had received vouchers to move within the city. Gautreaux children in the suburbs were more likely to graduate from high school, attend four-year colleges, and to have jobs than their peers who had moved to other city neighborhoods. They also had higher pay and benefits than the other children. Even mothers who had not had jobs before were more likely to get jobs if they moved to the suburbs, Rosenbaum told me in an interview.

Later research showed that two-thirds of the families remained in the suburbs 15 years after their move. Long after the program ended, mothers who moved through Gautreaux continued to live in low-poverty areas and have higher household incomes.

[SciFiSam]

@SlackerInc

The original post about this said they are going to simply make it a required zoning thing, that there has to be X percent of low income housing per capita, etc. I’m no city planner, but this is not a brand new idea piped in from Mars. I heard mention that even out on the dreaded East Side suburbs of Seattle that I have described in the past, there is a requirement for at least some small amount of low income housing for each X number of acres developed for high end housing.

To add an international comparison, in London similar rules apply: any new-build above a certain number of units (I can’t remember what number, but it’s very low, like ten) has to apportion a certain amount to social housing.

There is a get-out where they can pledge to build tons of social housing elsewhere, but most companies don’t do this because a small amount of social housing is actually not a bad deal for them - the rent will be paid from the day they open and will, essentially, always be paid.

London might be a bit different in that it’s in an enormous housing boom which seems unending. Build in a very poor area, give a quarter of your homes to social housing, and the other 3 quarters will still sell for enormous sums. But some areas in the US have housing booms too, so it could work there.

London also might be a bit different in that it has always been mixed. There are social housing flats in the very richest areas. However, perhaps the reason that works is that they are small estates, generally about 100 flats plus a few houses, so there is a natural “dispersal of the poor” like mooted in the OP.

There are a couple of proper social housing ghettoes in London - Thamesmead in particular (where they filmed the Clockwork Orange) and one of the main things the council is trying to do there is make it more economically diverse given the example of housing estates elsewhere in London.

Though even that “ghetto” is probably not as bad as some of the American ghettoes in that there’s decent public transport and a half hour walk can get you from the centre of the estate to really bloody posh places.

@Ruken

When this thread was first active, a poster mentioned disincentives to working. I understand that some aid programs have sharp cut-offs. I wonder if anyone has studied hard vs soft means tests (is that what we call them?) for aid programs.

That would be interesting to see.