|
As I read the June 7, 2007 Washington Post Article, “Fenty’s Relocation Plan Angers Some Temple Courts Residents” by Elissa Silverman and the companion Marc Fisher commentary “Given a Choice, Desperate Tenants Take a Chance", I hear the echoes of the cries of the 400 families relocated a few years ago from Arthur Capper/Carrolllsburg in SE, and the muffled fears of families, currently living in public housing in SW and the Capitol Hill area, wondering when the boom of development will force them out of these increasingly desirable and gentrifying neighborhoods.
While I have not conducted any scientific sociological research on these issues, I have lived for the past twenty years and worked as a volunteer community activist in Ward 6, advocating on issues facing vulnerable families living in low-income housing, and the following are my personal views.
Few public housing residents would express satisfaction with the level of maintenance and upkeep provided by city government agencies. Those who live in privately owned properties with subsidies from the use of housing vouchers also often find fault with the level of repair and maintenance provided by the private landlords. Many public housing units are spacious nice looking townhouses, located in desirable downtown neighborhoods, and are a source of envy for Virginia and Maryland commuters. However, there are also public housing buildings in various areas of Ward 6 where some of the conditions described at Temple Courts are not dissimilar.
Should poor people have a right to demand that they live in sanitary and safe housing while also living cheap? Some working families have been heard to complain that they find it increasingly difficult to live as well as many people in public housing do, who are frequently perceived to not work at all.
 In fact, when mixed income neighborhoods like the lovely Ellen Wilson Dwellings on Capitol Hill are completed and occupied, it is not possible to discern what income level any occupant might fall within. The Ellen Wilson Dwellings were built on land which was cleared of dilapidated public housing that had many years earlier reached such disrepair that the city agency ruled they were no longer inhabitable. All the former residents were relocated, but without setting up a tracking plan, none were found to return to the new homes. Other nearby public housing residents and workforce level income persons were given this housing option.
Is the lack of well-maintained public housing due to the economics of having to maintain properties when the rental income does not support the costs? Or is the issue that poor people who live in public housing are viewed as ungrateful and irresponsible in doing their share of personal house keeping and hygienic practices, and therefore should ”lay in the bed they made”?
Underlying the notion of mixed income neighborhoods as the future solution for well maintained and safe neighborhoods is that responsible resident behavior will result when people of different incomes and expectations come together in a nice new neighborhood and are required to act according to certain standards, much like the forces found in strong co-op or homeowner associations.
The existing pattern of concentrating people in neighborhoods by income often results in fragmenting people by income, race or age or all of these indices, creating some of the many “hot spots” which our metropolitan police must continuously deploy resources to control. This fragmentation has often stemmed from market forces around land use.
Living on a hill, or near the water, or in a vibrant downtown area is often highly sought after urban neighborhood locations. Low income, affordable housing has usually been built on the “other side of the tracks” or in other undesirable parts of the city, often on land left over after eminent domain actions in residentially zoned areas have cleared a wide swath for freeways or other public projects. Given an always high level of need, public housing projects have been densely built to house as many families as possible; as cheaply as possible; and with little consideration to good design on the left over public land.
Large influxes of vulnerable, needy families gratefully move in, hoping for stability of a roof over their families, without regard to being identified as a group of poor and somehow “shiftless” peoples. These labels may eventually become internalized and contribute to the rise of disincentives for upward mobility and individual responsibility. Families, and especially children living in these deficit income communities have not generally thrived - for lack of diverse role models, community resources and powerful voices that come from higher levels of education, access to networks outside the neighborhood and other positive forces generally found in “better neighborhoods”.
This brings me back to Temple Courts and the mayor’s actions to support the relocation of the residents now, rather than 3 or 4 years from now. The real wonder is that a big city mayor gave poor people a choice under these circumstances. Poor people don’t usually have choices about whether to live in filth for a little longer, a lot longer, or as long as it takes for the place to be torn down and a new home built for them. I was at that community that evening and shared Tommy’s guess that the residents would be cautious and vote against moving from the neighborhood under any circumstances. I felt they would resist change because of their fear that the promise of a new home would not be kept by the government. I was happy that the Temple Court families at the meeting stood their ground and demanded sanitary and safe living arrangements, often emphasizing the well being of their children as a major reason for their sense of urgency.
Most of the concerns about relocating were expressed by longer term or older residents, and then reflecting their doubt that better housing could be found for them in the city. Some of those resisting immediate relocation denied there were any real issues overall, and attributed any sanitary issues to the lack of good housekeeping by those with the complaints. However, joining the Mayor's tour of the building with his aides convinced me that intolerable sanitary issues were evident even in the public areas. It would seem that the stench of the stairwells alone, despite visible efforts to clean them before the Mayor arrived, would be intolerable day after day of traveling through these areas.
It is always painful to leave your home, no matter how run down. However, it is not usually a choice for public housing residents living in properties owned by the city, unless they have a compelling reason acceptable to the city housing agency for a transfer. On the other hand, If you have a housing choice voucher, you can find a private apartment or house, in a neighborhood that may be mixed and pay the same rent as you paid in a public housing site, and you can move to another place if the private owner does not maintain his part of the lease.
It is not surprising that many Temple Court residents want vouchers, under these circumstances. And it is not surprising that many of the residents trust the mayor to keep his word that they will be given the choice to stay in the place to which they relocate or to return if they want, to the mixed income neighborhood created under the Northwest One New Community Plan.
One person has commented on this article. (1) Untitled
2008-12-20 11:57:37 Dear Mr Wells,
Could you write some more on the failings of Temple Court apartments , eg the number of inspections since its inception, who where the original owners and currently what has happened to the tenants |
Tommy Blog 
