Public Housing in the USA - Essay Example

Public Housing in USA Involvement of the United s government in its Public Housing sectors has been a debatableissue for a long time. Since 1930s, it has been argued that federal government has financed various housing projects aimed at enhancing access to affordable good housing by the poor. These projects ranged from construction projects, voucher programs, and tax expenditures. Almost all the presidents of the United States have embraced supporting public housing projects, especially for the low-income families. However, the United States government has been opposed by some organizations and housing activists who have been opposing the view of government involvement in the housing sector. Despite the opposition, the government should get involved especially for low income earners, who require good housing just like the rich. With regard to public housing, this paper will describe housing issues related to the poor as an example. Background Research has shown that since the end of the World War II, it has been argued that the poor have lost access to expensive housing provided by private markets. Almost all the United States presidents have either come up or sponsored projects targeted at enhancing the access of the poor to quality better housing than they do (Howard 1). As Howard explains, there are numerous reasons why the government gets involved in the public, housing sector activities (Howard 2). First, the government believes that the private market cannot offer enough housing to the poor Americans. The government also believes that the private markets offer their housing at a high price which the poor cannot afford. Currently, the United States government action in public housing is the provision of subsidized housing to the poor families so as to replace the buildings that have been demolished through the HOPE IV program. HOPE VI program was developed in the 1990s so as to demolish houses that did not meet the standards according to Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and those that fell into crime and disorder (Howard 3). Presidents have either come up or sponsored housing projects to enhance that the poor can have access to quality housing (Howard 5). The issue of house shortage also affects the poor. Reports shows that there is a shortage of houses in the United States and the poor are the most affected. The demand is higher than the supply although there is race discrimination, which is affecting the blacks. This is the reason why the government ought to control public housing. The other issue that should concern the government is some individuals setting lower prices thereby increasing the demand. The government ought to fix the prices to protect the poor who are their mercies. The major Stakeholders in the Subsidized Housing Project for the Poor Families The US government presented HUD as the main stakeholder of the subsidized housing projects. As Johan has written in his article, Housing Subsidies and Homeowners, the United States government’s main interest is to provide affordable housing for the poor families. The government also aims at ending the HOPE VI program. It will then replace the demolished apartments through HOPE VI program, so as to ensure the poor families are not homeless. The other stakeholders in the project are some of the public housing landlords who are supporting the government involvement in matters of public housing for the poor. According to the Guide section 8 Housing Assistance programs of 2008, voucher 8 is given to families who are not able to afford quality housing. Therefore, the United States government funds them through their voucher 8 program. However, it has been argued that it is the landlords who benefit from these funds. Therefore, their main interests in this program are ensuring they continue benefiting from governments funds aimed at improving the housing conditions for the poor. The landlords should be scrutinized to ensure they get what they deserve and avail to the tenants their dues. The other stakeholders in support of these government projects are the local initiatives support corporation and the enterprise foundation. Howard explains that the foundation’s main interest in supporting the government’s involvement in public housing is to ensure that the poor families can get houses that they can afford. The foundation believes that the government can provide the same apartments as the private market does, but at a cheaper price that the poor can access them. This can help the poor to get better housing at fair prices and thus lead a quality life. Among the stakeholders opposed to governments engagement in public housing is Public Housing Organizations Organization. As Michael writes in his article, Tenants fight to Save Social Housing, tenants are opposed to government’s projects such as subsidized housing amends dispersal programs. The tenants argue that these subsidized houses end up becoming a social problem as they deteriorate due to lack of physical renovations, and lack of social behavior monitoring strategies, by the government. Activists such as Senator Barbara Mikulski are some of the individuals who are also opposed to subsidized housing project for the poor. To some extent, it is agreeable that government involvement would deteriorate the housing conditions. However, if the government checked the conditions and standardized the prices, the poor would have nothing to complain about. Arguments in support for Government’s involvement in Public Housing Market It is claimed that the United States government has for a long time been involved in its Public Housing markets. The government was prompted to start playing a direct role after the concerns raised by activists such as Catherine Bauer, Albert Mayer, among many others. These activists claim that the poor are so many that the private housing markets cannot provide enough housing to all of them (Howard 6). The United States government has so far initiated and sponsored so many projects’, aimed at providing enough and decent housing facilities for the poor (John 1). Many of the supporters of government’s involvement in public housing base their arguments on various myths. The first myth and which the United States government work is that the private market will not provide adequate housing for the poor in USA (John 2). Obviously, this is common knowledge because most of the privately run projects favor the rich while they overlook the needs of the poor. On the other hand, the government caters for the common people and thus caters for the poor and thus would offer them enough housing. The myth has made the United States government come up with projects aimed at substituting the private housing market. Supporters such as local initiatives corporations argue that the poor can afford the cheap buildings despite the buildings being of the same standard as the ones provided by the private market. As Howard points out, the United States government has constructed buildings one after the other so as to ensure the poor can access quality housing at an affordable price. The other myth that the government works on is that the private housing markets are extremely expensive for the poor. They argue that because the poor cannot afford the expensive, quality housing provided by the private housing markets, they have resulted in living in slums and other congested areas. As Johan in his article points out, the government along with the supporters of its various activists aims at getting rid of the profit-driven landlords in the private sector by offering the poor with higher-quality housing at the same rate that the private markets offer the poor, the low-quality housing. The other myth that has prompted the United States government to get involved in its public housing activities is the notion that the moral qualities of the poor are as a result of their housing environments. As Edward write in his article, Dispersal Impact on Poor Families, the United States government have dispersal programs, which are meant to integrate the middle class families with the poor families. The United States government constructs high-quality housing, which can incorporate both the middle class and the poor. The government gives vouchers to the poor to enable them pay their rent in these high-standard buildings. According to the guide to section 8 Housing Program, it shows that families, which fit below the poverty line are entitled to vouchers or financial assistance, so as to enable them meet their housing needs in both the private and public housing markets. The argument is that, if the poor families live together with the well-up families, they will learn proper morals from them. The government achieves control of the public housing through rent regulations. Some individuals feel that the rent controls should not be there but they are meant to keep the houses affordable for low-income tenants. Hence, with consideration of the market laws of demand, the government has to control rent because at the price ceiling the quantity demanded wound go beyond that supplied. Current tenants may refuse to move to other houses since finding other apartments will be hard. As houses become available, there will be many potential occupants waiting to occupy at the controlled price. Hence, this justifies the government involvement in the public housing. Arguments against the US Government’s Involvement in Public Housing Market According to Theodore, the United States government for a long time has had a crisis in public housing matters. The government has devoted so much resource and revenue towards ensuring that the poor are provided with adequate and quality housing. However, it seems the projects and programs are not achieving their goals and aims (Theodore 2). As Howard argues, the main reason as to why the government has been failing is the failure to realize that the public policies are weak and inappropriate for addressing the challenges facing the public sector (Howard 2). As Robert has written in his 2010 article, the United States government should know how to balance how it distributes its resources and revenue to its various sectors. Some economists are arguing that the United States government has so far wasted a lot of resources in involving itself in the public housing, a sector that can do extremely well without any assistance from the government. As Robert points out, if the United States government chooses to provide subsidized housing to the poor, it must also commit itself in monitoring and renovating the buildings. According to Michael 2006 article, USA Tenants Fight to Save Social Housing, he argues the involvement of the United States government in offering subsidized housing to the poor has resulted to social morality deterioration and the emergence of crimes in these buildings. Many tenants in USA argue that the provision of subsidized housing to the poor has undermined their efforts to improve their lives so as to move to better apartments. Howard points out that, the private housing market offers low-quality housing to the poor, not for a life time, but as a stepping stone to quality, private housing. Many people opposing the involvement of the government in public housing market claim that the government has refused to acknowledge the fact that the private housing market can offer adequate housing to the poor. As Howard points out, the private housing markets are better placed in monitoring social behavior and the physical status of various housing facilities. Unlike the government’s housing units, the private housing units are constantly monitored so as to assess the social conduct of the tenants and for any renovation needed. Therefore, it is rare for the housing facilities to become sites for crimes and social evils, unlike the subsidized, government housing facilities. Research has also shown that the dispersal programs by the United States government to reduce the concentration of poverty in some areas are not particularly effective in achieving their objectives. It is argued that the government aimed at dispersing the poor families into buildings occupied by well up families so as to improve the moral behaviors of the poor (Goldsmith 112). However, many people have expressed their opposing opinions to this view. It is argued that the government only looked on one side in terms of behavior influence. Researchers have shown that there is a high probability that, in an environment occupied by morally upright and morally degraded people, the morally upright people will get influence from the morally degraded persons. Therefore, the dispersal program can result into negative moral influence on the existing, well up families. However, the opposing stakeholders to government’s involvement in the public housing markets have not succeeded in persuading the government to keep off from the activities of its public sector. Instead, the government still involved in public housing markets and currently, the United States president Obama, is planning to end HOPE VI program and construct more housing units, so as to provide enough housing to the poor families. Conclusion and Recommendation From the argument of both sides, it is evident enough that the government still does not seem to realize the weakness of its public housing policies. Therefore, it has refused to acknowledge the potential of the private housing markets in providing adequate housing to all the poor families in USA. As it continues to involve itself in public housing markets, it is adding more crises to that sector. Therefore, researches have shown that the best thing that the United States government can do to improve the public housing sector, is to keep off from it. The government should also acknowledge the potential of the private sector providing enough, adequate housing to the poor families. Therefore, the governments should support the private housing markets indirectly and not directly. It is also advisable that the government should revise its public housing policy. This is to ensure that it and comes up with an effective one that will guide the government on how to improve the public housing better than the current one does. Further, the government has never been able to provide good housing services to the public not even to the poor. Hence, it should allow the private to take full charge of the housing sector to ensure good living conditions, adequate housing, and affordable prices to all. Works Cited Edward, Goetz. G. The Effects of Subsidized Housing on Communities. 2000. Web. 21 Nov. 2011 Goldsmith, Arthur. Business, Government, and Society: The Global Political Economy. Cengage Learning, 2010. Print Howard, Husock. Public Housing and Rental Subsidies. 2009. Web. 21 Nov. 2011 Johan, Thomas. The 7 Most Infamous U.S. Public Housing Projects. 2011. Web. 21 Nov. 2011 John, Quigley, M. Housing Subsidies and Homeowners: What Role for Government-Sponsored Enterprises? 2007. Web. 21 Nov. 2011 Michael, Kane. USA Tenants Fight to Save Social Housing. Habitat International Coalition, 2006. Web. 21 Nov. 2011 Quide to section 8 housing assistance program. New York City Housing Authority. 2008. Web. 21 Nov. 2011 Robert, Shiller, J. Economic View Mom, Apple Pie and Mortgages. Business Day, New York Times, 2010. Web. 21 Nov. 2011< http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/business/07view.html> Theodore, Koebel, C. Shelter and society: theory, research, and policy for nonprofit housing. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998. Print. Read More