tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6389181255786430083.post3827485130461779035..comments2023-10-11T05:46:26.432-05:00Comments on Where: Section 8 EverywhereBrendan Crainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00528698033763911972noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6389181255786430083.post-47372876537144651392008-10-21T04:37:00.000-05:002008-10-21T04:37:00.000-05:00@DanI liked the leavers vs. stayers concept becaus...<B>@Dan</B><BR/>I liked the leavers vs. stayers concept because previously I wasn't really thinking of each as an active choice taken by people with agency. In my mind, there were those who left for better things vs. those who <I>failed</I> to leave.<BR/><BR/>Obviously that's problematic, so I jumped on your model. Don't worry; I won't ask you about your dissertation on the motivations of leavers! I too am wading deeper into the MTO information, will post about anything interesting I find.<BR/><BR/><B>@Katia</B><BR/>Good points. It'd be interesting to see a study where "mental mapping" is conducted on participants before they enter an MTO-like program. Then we could see how predictive the maps are, what the relative importance of visibility vs. accessibility is, etc.Daniel Ahkiamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06897333348366330359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6389181255786430083.post-57167062971632106732008-10-20T11:42:00.000-05:002008-10-20T11:42:00.000-05:00When I did research on Section 8 through the lens ...When I did research on Section 8 through the lens of "mental maps," I found that where voucher holders look for and find housing is limited by the areas that are visible, accessible, and positively valuated in their mental constructions of the city. Visible means in the realm of the areas that exist for them: what's on their mental map, so to speak. Accessibility means whether or not they imagine it is affordable or "welcoming," not directly correlated with actual affordability. And having a positive valence means it's considered "better" than their current situation. So many of these studies look at systemic explanations, without considering the fluid relationship between the subject and the city.Katia Savchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03989789952744062598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6389181255786430083.post-75581375994043013672008-10-16T11:06:00.000-05:002008-10-16T11:06:00.000-05:00My earlier comments about "leavers" and "stayers" ...My earlier comments about "leavers" and "stayers" probably sounded more confident than I had a right to convey. <BR/><BR/>It's more that I suspect--on the basis of common sense, which can be quite unreliable--that there are such groups of people. <BR/><BR/>The Jane Jacobs reference I made is to Chapter 15: Unslumming and Slumming in The Life and Death of Great American Cities.<BR/><BR/>There must be some research about who benefits and who doesn't from the Moving to Opportunity program and Chicago's Gautreaux Project, which inspired MTO. <BR/><BR/>I'll be nosing around a bit to see what I can find, and I'll let you know. Let me know if you find anything.Dan Lorentzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13603008048497285409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6389181255786430083.post-9538088706282212502008-10-16T04:35:00.000-05:002008-10-16T04:35:00.000-05:00The double-binds of creating 'good' neighborhoods ...The double-binds of creating 'good' neighborhoods are tremendous. People can't be locked in, people can't be pushed out. There needs to be development so that a neighborhood gets basic services like grocery stores, but you need to avoid gentrification. I want to learn more about the leavers vs. stayers dynamic, especially if there's some research into what differentiates the groups. Is it how acute each experience the poverty in their community or how disparate their economic opportunities are? How much of a pull do local institutions like churches have? I guess I'll start with Jane Jacobs.<BR/><BR/>Clearly, as Dr. Tarr says, eliminating poverty in a socialist revolution (possibly centered at my parents house in the Bakersfield exurbs) is one solution. But you see, proposals like that are why "Geography PhD" is just another word for "Troll." =)<BR/><BR/>I prefer the Land Trust solution (they, like cooperatives, being little progressive loopholes in the law): Use deficit spending to buy up land in poor areas to be administered by the local institutions. Then you can allow gentrification to occur without it creating pressure on housing prices, so no one gets displaced, but everyone can benefit from the new services that wealthy neighbors bring. Really I just want to give <A HREF="http://www.urbanstrategies.org/slfp/documents/FigueroaCorridor2pageMarch2007.pdf" REL="nofollow">these people</A> (pdf) billions of dollars.Daniel Ahkiamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06897333348366330359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6389181255786430083.post-73992324367802626642008-10-16T00:02:00.000-05:002008-10-16T00:02:00.000-05:00Your post addresses what I consider one of the mos...Your post addresses what I consider one of the most important and vexing policy questions facing American cities. <BR/><BR/>I think a mix of income levels adds a vitalizing diversity to neighborhoods—a mix that helps everybody (poor, not poor, rich) in different ways.<BR/><BR/>Like you, I don't think poor people should be expected to leave their neighborhoods. Some will want to leave, and they should be given the resources to do so because the evidence suggests that these motivated "leavers" might benefit. But motivated "stayers"—as Jane Jacobs and others have suggested—often have deep, stabilizing and other socially beneficial impacts on their neighborhood. Like leavers, stayers should be supported, perhaps even more so than leavers. <BR/><BR/>Low-income people should not be manipulated into deconstructing their communities, but, of course, poverty itself is a constraint that limits housing choices. For some poor people, leaving the old neighborhood might be life-saving. For others, dissevering old connections and roots will be a big mistake. But without some government help to create choices that otherwise wouldn't exist, low-income people don't really have lots of housing choices open to them. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the excellent links.Dan Lorentzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13603008048497285409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6389181255786430083.post-21187847298038412422008-10-15T23:21:00.000-05:002008-10-15T23:21:00.000-05:00May I be so bold as to suggest that being "low-inc...May I be so bold as to suggest that being "low-income" itself is the problem? Why subsidize housing directly, why not raise the minimum wage and subsidize that--let folks invest in the communities they are already part of. <BR/>oh f**k it, who am I kidding, back to the countryside with everyone! death to cities, long live the peasant! Seriously though, can the gummint buy up foreclosed suburbs (say, in, oh I dunno, Bakersfield) and redistribute them for free to low-income folks? Probably not my best idea, but I'm just saying, i woudln't turn down a free 4 bedroom house.avatarr8https://www.blogger.com/profile/17120560168648393755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6389181255786430083.post-65632657316234242572008-10-15T23:18:00.000-05:002008-10-15T23:18:00.000-05:00This really is a tough one. I agree that it may be...This really is a tough one. I agree that it may be crossing the line to shove too much on low-income residents who, for whatever reason, choose to live in their own community. Social and cultural forces are very powerful, even if they fall below the radar of our usual quality-of-life metrics.<BR/><BR/>Of course, the opposite of drawing low-income folks out is enticing middle-income folks in. Both goals will serve the same purpose. The challenge is encouraging this trend without taking over the neighborhood completely, both culturally and economically (aka gentrification). There may be more promise in approaching the problem from this side.Daniel Nairnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14127732825472374125noreply@blogger.com