I love the idea of public housing. That shouldn’t come as a surprise to any of you who have spoken with me about it. But many people don’t love it at all. Why? Sometimes they display racism, white fear or fragility, et al. I’m not going to spend too much time on that. At other times, they worry about crime, livability of neighborhoods, et al.
To be clear, it’s tough to disentangle the latter from the former. But sometimes people who live in public housing themselves – or who live nearby – express those concerns. That’s worth taking far more seriously.
Here’s something James Baldwin wrote in an essay called Fifth Avenue, Uptown:
The projects in Harlem are hated. They are hated almost as much as policemen, and this is saying a great deal. And they are hated for the same reason: both reveal, unbearably, the real attitude of the white world, no matter how many liberal speeches are made, no matter how many lofty editorials are written, no matter how many civil rights commissions are set up.
If you’re a housing activist – or just someone interested in these issues – these are the kinds of worries you should take more seriously.
What’s Wrong with Public Housing?
What’s Baldwin getting at? Spaces create community. They open up possibilities for community. In those spaces, people build churches, farmers markets, sports leagues, et al. In U.S. public housing, governments set up spaces that discourage people from doing these things well. Policymakers concentrate poverty in large apartment buildings, and police departments target these areas.
Here’s what Baldwin wrote about all that:
The projects are hideous, of course, there being a law, apparently respected throughout the world, that popular housing shall be as cheerless as a prison. They are lumped all over Harlem, colorless, bleak, high, and revolting. The wide windows look out on Harlem’s invincible and indescribable squalor: the Park Avenue railroad tracks, around which, about forty years ago, the present dark community began; the unrehabilitated houses, barred down, it would seem, under the great weight of frustration and bitterness they contain; the dark, ominous schoolhouses from which the child may emerge maimed, blinded, hooked, or enraged for life; and the churches, churches, block upon block of churches niched in the walls like cannons in the walls of a fortress. Even if the administration of the projects were not so insanely humiliating (for example: one must report raises in salary to the management, which will then eat up the profit by raising one’s rent; the management has the right to know who is staying in your apartment; the management can ask you to leave at their discretion), the projects would still be hated because they are an insult to the meanest intelligence.
It’s a bleak image. But it accurately describes much of our public housing stock in the U.S. At least, it described it at the time Baldwin wrote about it. More recently, governments tore down much of our public housing and/or converted it to privately owned housing.
What Does Good Public Housing Look Like?
Baldwin exaggerated in one respect. He said the projects are hideous ‘throughout the world.’ Of course, that’s true in the U.S. Our projects come enmeshed with policies, e.g., redlining, that segregate neighborhoods by race and income.
In fact, public housing varies around the globe. Vienna is the standard ‘good’ example, and most people in Vienna live in some form of socialized housing. The projects are creative and lively, and many people pay as little as 10% of their income for rent. Mixed income units predominate, which is critical to a great public housing system.
If you want public housing that relies less on the state and more on the social economy, Chile may be the best case. The state provides funding – in the form of half of a house – and then people customize. People creatively work around both the private market and and the strict regulatory regime more common in Vienna and, e.g., council housing in the UK. Chilean housing is the sort of thing Erik Olin Wright might endorse as a ‘real utopia.’
You shouldn’t romanticize Vienna – or Chile. A lot of the housing there is far too dense for much of the U.S. And the system is excessively complicated. Some sources recommend hiring a lawyer before renting in Vienna. We don’t want that. But we can learn from the model. Ultimately, public housing should be part of a comprehensive housing program. Packaged with ideas like rent control and used as a replacement for ideas like inclusionary zoning. And – intuitively enough – we need policies to get people to live closer to where they work. In the U.S., the Bernie Sanders campaign came closest to the right mix.
Good Ideas
For some of you, it’s no secret I’m involved with a tenants union in Iowa City. We do lots of things, and we focus our work most closely on solidarity and practical gains. But one thing we do is advocate for better housing policy. If you pressed me on what a good local public housing system would look like, here’s what I’d say:
Public housing should be broad and nearly universal. It should include mixed income ranges and many racial groups. This is to say it should be social democratic rather than progressive. Using means-testing – of the sort favored by progressives – generates backlash and, ultimately, costs more.
First, a city should establish a public housing authority. We’ve already done that in Iowa City. Next, it should offer a wide range of units – single-family homes, smaller apartment buildings, larger apartment buildings, housing for disabled people and seniors – and it should offer this housing to mixed income ranges. Some of this might involve new construction. Finally, the city should charge each tenant a certain percentage of their income for rent and utilities, perhaps about 20-25%.
This is a low cost, sustainable system. Rent from middle and upper middle income tenants balances out the much lower rents from lower income tenants. Everyone receives good services, but the higher income groups, in practice, subsidize the lower income groups. Consequently, the city breaks even or turns a small positive margin. And the city avoids resentment by providing services to both groups.
“But wouldn’t wealthier people refuse to live in public housing?”
Some would. There’s a certain point at which a person’s income would be too high for them to willingly fork over 20-25% of it for rent and utilities. In Iowa City, that income level is probably around $70,000 per year. It’ll be different in other cities.
In Iowa City, the vast majority of people earn less than the amount. And so, it’s not a problem here. Cities with both high rents and lots of income earners in the $100-200,000 range might have to reduce the percentage of income that goes to rent and utilities. But there should be a good point of balance in every city.
The reason it would work is that even for a person making $60-70,000, a 20-25% rent and utilities charge would be less expensive than what they’d pay on the private market. Cities therefore hold quite a few cards. They can charge less money than private landlords and still break even. That’s why many middle and upper middle income residents would go for it.
“But wouldn’t this put landlords out of business?”
Yes. What’s the problem?
“Really?”
It wouldn’t put them all out of business at once. It would undercut landlords on price. Some would respond by lowering price to match public housing, while others would go out of business. Given that the city could operate a public housing program at very low costs, it could respond by buying out the landlords who go out of business. There’d be lower prices and little or no reduction in the overall housing stock.
In principle, there’s little limit to how far the city could expand its public housing program. If all landlords gradually go out of business, the city could gradually buy them all out. The long term goal of a good public housing system is, in fact, to buy out all landlords and run the entire rental market.
