Is Mixed-Income the Way?
Two new books on poverty in Chicago point to no.
WHERE ARE POOR PEOPLE TO LIVE? TRANSFORMING PUBLIC HOUSING COMMUNITIES | Larry Bennett, Janet L. Smith, and Patricia A. Wright, Eds. (M.E. Sharpe)
OFF THE BOOKS: THE UNDERGROUND ECONOMY OF THE URBAN POOR | Sudhir
Alladi Venkatesh (Harvard University Press)
Harold Henderson
December 15, 2006
In The Late 1950s and '60s the city of Chicago bulldozed overcrowded
slums in the black belt and built almost 20,000 high-rise public housing
units. In the 2000s the Chicago Housing Authority has torn down 3,000
apartments a year, promising to replace them with low-rise mixed-income
communities.
Under Mayor Richard J. Daley this was called "urban renewal"; under
Richard M. Daley, it's "transformation." Then the starkly modernist "tower
in the park" was all the rage; now it's new-urbanist townhomes with front
porches. What hasn't changed, according to Patricia Wright of the
University of Illinois at Chicago, one of the editors of Where Are Poor
People to Live? Transforming Public Housing Communities, is the way
decisions are made. The book's 11 essays, most authored by Chicago-based
academics, take a critical look at what's happened to public housing in the
last ten years in Chicago and elsewhere in the U.S.
"Policymakers," writes Wright, "continue to make the same major mistake
of the urban renewal plan in the 1950s and 1960s -- the presumption that
experts know what's best for public housing residents." But Carol Steele, a
longtime resident of Cabrini-Green, cofounder of the Coalition to Protect
Public Housing, and one of the few nonacademic contributors to the
collection, didn't trust the CHA to make decisions for her. She and the
CPPH have fought since 1996 to have the high-rises fixed up instead of torn
down. "They were proposing for my people to be evicted and become
homeless," she says. "That is why I am in this fight."
Most expert and public opinion is against Steele. Says attorney
Alexander Polikoff, who spent 40 years litigating the landmark
desegregation case Gautreaux v. CHA, "Even if efforts to improve relocation
don't succeed, society should continue to tear down its public housing
high-rises." Living there was so bad, he says, that he "does not view even
homelessness as clearly a greater evil."
Steele and the CPPH have lost that battle: the Robert Taylor Homes,
Rockwell Gardens, and the Cabrini Extension are gone. But her mistrust of
the CHA's plan has been borne out by the numbers. In 1999 the agency
estimated more than 140,000 Chicago families had extremely low incomes and
needed cheap places to live. At the same time, the agency put forth a plan
to reduce its housing stock from 38,000 to 25,000 units. Since then it has
accomplished 88 percent of its demolition goal by tearing down nearly
19,000 units, while by the most generous count it has constructed or
rehabbed just 1,937 units, 31 percent of its rebuilding goal.
A third of the way through its ambitious "Plan for Transformation" --
the timetable has been pushed back five years since Where Are Poor People
to Live? went to press -- the CHA's demolish-first, build-later policy has
forced former residents into isolated neighborhoods as poor and segregated
as the high-rises from which they were removed. Paul Fischer of Lake Forest
College found that 82 percent of those who left CHA housing with Section 8
vouchers between 1995 and August 2002 moved to high-poverty areas that are
more than 90 percent black -- and this doesn't include the significant
number of people evicted for various reasons or who just left on their own.
How many former tenants will be able to return to CHA's new mixed-income
communities -- and how many will even want to, a decade after they left --
remains to be seen. Under the new rules primary leaseholders will be
required to work 30 hours a week and all other adult residents must do the
same or be in school. In November 2001 a report prepared for the state
Department of Health and Human Services found that fewer than one-third of
recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families met this
standard.
When the CHA unveiled the Plan for Transformation in 1999, it announced
that it was stepping away from its original mission: "In the past, the CHA
was primarily an owner and manager of public housing. In the future, the
CHA will be a facilitator of housing opportunities," a project in which
failure will be much harder to define or detect. The late Wardell Yotaghan,
a Rockwell Gardens resident and cofounder of the Coalition to Protect
Public Housing, to whom the book is dedicated, had the agency's number.
"Over the years the mind-set has moved from solving problems to shifting
them somewhere else," he told the Chicago Reporter in 1997. "If there's a
tremendous economic problem in public housing, they're going to be the same
disadvantaged people wherever they go."
For the sake of argument, let's assume rebuilding will be done in a
timely manner and that those who want to return can do so. The high-rises
will be replaced by "mixed-income communities," places designed on the
theory that poor people suffer from idleness and isolation -- things that
will change if they live among stockbrokers and schoolteachers, get
acquainted with them, and learn the ways of the mainstream world.
Columbia University sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh, author of American
Project, a 2002 study of life in the Robert Taylor Homes, puts some serious
questions to that theory in his new book, Off the Books: The Underground
Economy of the Urban Poor. The hustlers and entrepreneurs he acquaints us
with in the pseudonymous south-side neighborhood of "Maquis Park" (a ten-square-block area near Robert Taylor) are anything but idle. What they
lack aren't role models so much as reliable connections to institutions
that over the long term could turn their hard work into lasting gains --
flexible, responsive lenders who don't discriminate and impartial arbiters
to settle disputes over trade and private property. And in the short term
what "James Arleander" needs is a piece of alley to do his off-the-books
car repair, something he's not going to find in a squeaky-clean
mixed-income community. (Almost everyone in Venkatesh's work is given a
pseudonym -- standard practice for ethnographic work of this kind.)
Venkatesh paints a detailed picture that reflects his close acquaintance
with the neighborhood, moving from businesses that are legal but off the
books to those that are entirely outside the law and talking to home-based
food preparers and preachers, street hustlers and gang members. "Beneath
the closed storefronts, burned-out buildings, potholed boulevards, and
empty lots, there is an intricate, fertile web of exchange, tied together
by people with tremendous human capital and craftsmanship," he writes.
"Electricians, mechanics, glassmakers and welders, accountants and lenders,
carpenters and painters, sculptors, clothing designers, hairstylists and
barbers, cooks, musicians, and entertainers. . . . Only a few are listed in
the yellow pages . . . but any resident of Maquis Park knows where to find
these services." This is a Chicago you don't know, told in readable prose
that puts most other sociologists to shame.
Still, the work Venkatesh describes would yield better results if it got
credit in the straight world. "Providing excellent car repair on the street
does not bolster one's resume," he points out. "Establishing a detente with
pimps and drug dealers so that children can walk to school will not help
one obtain a job in diplomatic circles." And it's not just racism or
structural neglect that prevents this. The underground economy is so tied
up in shady or outright illegal stuff that the cops, for instance, can't
come in without tearing up everyone's livelihood, the straight along with
the crooked. Still, though ghetto life may be no picnic, Venkatesh goes far
to show that it's not a Hobbesian war of all against all either -- the
connections that bind the community together are just invisible to those on
the outside.
Over half a century, many things have changed: Chicago's mayor has a
different middle initial. The old ghettos were vertical, the new ones are
horizontal. In the days of urban renewal, the great sociologist Herbert
Gans lived in Boston's East End and wrote sympathetically about that city's
displaced residents; today Venkatesh fills that role for Chicago's south
side. But one thing is just the same now as it was in 1956: middle-class
policymakers decide what poor people need and give it to them hard.  Send a letter to the editor.
|
No comments yet
Add a comment