Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Public housing and the black community

  • Articles
  • Published:
The Review of Black Political Economy

Summary and Conclusions

Earlier in this paper five major goals of federal housing policy were listed and it was noted that the public housing program was only one vehicle used to work toward these goals. In this section, the conflicts and issues that arise in the pursuit of these goals through this program, as spelled out in the preceding pages, will be summarized. As well, suggestions of other means to provide housing for the low-income will end the paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Spencer Rich, “Family Income Is $17,640, No Longer Rising So Fast,”Washington Post, November 25, 1979, pp. A26, A27.

  2. U.S.,Statutes at Large, Vol. L, pt. 1, “Housing Act of 1937” (Public Law 412), September 1, 1937, ch. 896, p. 888.

  3. Robert Taggart,Low-Income Housing: A Critique of Federal Aid (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins U. Press, 1970), p. 36.

    Google Scholar 

  4. “Public Housing,”Housing and Development Reporter (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., July 18, 1977), p. 14.

  5. Ibid.

  6. Martin D. Levine,Federal Housing Policy: Current Programs and Recurring Issues (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Budget Office, 1978), pp. 3, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  7. The periods for which the history of public housing is discussed are comparable to those defined in Ronald Jones, David Kaminsky, and Michael Roanhouse,Problems Affecting Low-Rent Public Housing Projects, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of HUD, Office of Policy Development and Research, January 1979, pp. 18–20. However, their period of two decades, 1949–1969 has been subdivided into two single-decade periods in this paper.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Leonard Freedman,Public Housing: The Politics of Poverty (New York City: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969), p. 140.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ibid., p. 122.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Six of the eight weaknesses of public housing as cited by the Douglas Commission relate to its qualitative aspects. See Robert Taggart,Low-Income Housing: A Critique of Federal Aid (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins U. Press, 1970), p. 33.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bruce De Silva, “Profiteering on Housing: Rhode Island Politicians, Friends Capitalize on HUD Program for Poor,”Washington Post, October 7, 1979, p. A18.

  12. According to the Boston Housing Authority as many as two-thirds of the applicants for public housing units have been noted to choose to go to the bottom of the list rather than to accept an “undesirable unit.” See Lisa Peattie, “Conventional Public Housing,” Working Paper No. 3 (Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Urban Studies of MIT and Harvard, Spring 1971), p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nancy L. Ross, “Contradicting Public Housing Policy,”Washington Post, June 23, 1979.

  14. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Department of Labor,Guidebook: Urban Initiatives Anti-Crime Program (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979), p. 2. Also: U.S., Congress, Joint Economic Committee,Urban Crime, Hearings, before the Subcommittee on Economic Growth and Stabilization, testimony by Lynn A. Curtis, “Urban Redevelopment and Crime Preven-tion,” 95th Cong., 2nd sess., May 17, 1978, pp. 24-25.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Freedman, op. cit., pp. 118-119.

  16. This phenomenon was observed in the Section 8 program run by the Housing Authority of Cambridge, MA. Details of the process were obtained in conversation with Reese Fayde, a former CHA employee.

  17. Stephen Mayo, et al.,Draft Report on Housing Allowances and Other Rental Housing Assistance Programs—A Comparison Based on the Housing Allowance Demand Experiment, Part I: Participation, Housing Consumption, Location, and Satisfaction (Cambridge, MA: Abt Assoc., November 12, 1979), p. S-12 finds that public housing tenants in both Phoenix and Pittsburgh moved from more to less racially integrated neighborhoods when moving into public housing units.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Spencer Rich, “No-Strings Housing Subsidy is Faulted,”Washington Post, ovember 17, 1978, p. A9.

  19. “Take the Money and Stand Still: Proves Allowances Not the Answer,”Housing Affairs Letter, August 18, 1978, p. 2.

  20. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,Justification for 1980 Estimates, Part I (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1979), pp. C-16 and C-17.

    Google Scholar 

  21. U.S., Congress, Housing, Subcommittee on Housing of the Committee on Banking and Currency,Compilation of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Committee Print, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., October 1974, p. 2.

  22. “Take the Money and Stand Still,” op. cit.

  23. John M. Berry, “Economists Voice Despair,”Washington Post, February 24, 1980, p. A1.

  24. Peter Milius, “The Third Branch of Welfare,”Washington Post, August 5, 1979, pp. B1 and B4.

  25. Chester Hartman and Michael Stone, “Housing: A Socialist Alternative,” inThe Federal Budget and Social Reconstruction, ed. by Marcus G. Raskin (Washington, D.C.: Institute for Policy Studies, 1979), pp. 220–223.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Wilhelmina A. Leigh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mildred O. Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Leigh, W.A., Mitchell, M.O. Public housing and the black community. Rev Black Polit Econ 17, 107–129 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02901074

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02901074

Keywords

Search

Navigation