Do Old Housing Projects Have to Be Redeveloped w/the Poor in Mind?

[royce]

Does anyone know if a city can tell the federal government that it doesn't want to redevelop a housing "projects" site with the poor in mind? I have wondered this question since the Jeffries West have been redeveloped into Woodbridge Estates and now the Jeffries East and Herman Gardens sites are being redeveloped with the stipulation that a certain percentage of the housing go to low income people.

I know redevelopment has occurred or is occurring in the projects just mentioned, but what about the Brewster-Douglass housing project, which is now closed? With its proximity to Brush Park, can the city of Detroit say to the federal government that because it wants more upscale housing in the area that it doesn't want to redevelop the land with a percentage of the housing units going to low income residents? Is the city forced to continue to use this land for housing a percentage of the poor?

Well, it's clear from my questions that I don't think the Brewster-Douglass housing project needs to be redeveloped like the Jeffries or Herman Gardens projects. Given the fact that the Brewster Homes housing project, situated just north of the Brewster-Douglass housing project, was build for low income residents, I think the remaining housing project should be redeveloped for market-rate housing in order to build up the rest of Brush Park. In addition, former residents of the Brewster-Douglass housing project could move into the Herman Gardens project [[now called Gardenview Estates). What are your thoughts?

[Retroit]

I don't think that explicitly excluding low-income individuals from Federally funded housing would be politically expedient.

But then again, what the f-ck do I know? [[Saved you a post MIRepublic)

[crawford]

These projects ALL will be redeveloped for the poor, with some mixed-income thrown in. That's the point.

These are all developments sponsored by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. Under their HOPE program [[I forgot what it stands for), most cities are demolishing their projects and replacing it with newer, mixed-income housing. However, in order to receive federal funding, 100% of former project residents must be rehoused, and usually on-site.

So if you are asking whether the feds will pay us to tear down the homes of poor people to replace them with wealthier people, the answer is no. They will, however, pay for mixed-income communities, as long as all the poor who want to remain are accomodated.

Now not all cities are using the HOPE funding. Some cities, like NYC and Ann Arbor, have relatively successful public housing and are keeping the housing basically as-is [[some tweaks to income mixes, but no massive demolition).

Other cities with failed housing, like Detroit and Chicago, are demolishing many of their projects and replacing them with mixed-income communities.

Keep in mind that the initial data on these new communities is very mixed. Studies have found that the new HOPE communities do not have significantly better outcomes for the poor, and have poor resale potential for the market-rate housing. In fact, Chicago has many half-empty HOPE sites, because the real estate market has collapsed, so there is no market housing being built [[which means the projects will stay a little longer).

Most academics agree that the biggest problem with the HOPE program is that income mixing has not proven to work.

Additionally, HOPE seems to "blame" the buildings by destroying them all, but there is no evidence that the buildings are at "fault". Obviously it's the residents. So, far, the same residents have been engaging in the same antisocial and criminal behavior in the new townhouses.

[hudkina]

I don't think they should be converted into upscale condos, but apartments for moderate income residents would be nice, or maybe even a co-op system.

[Blueidone]

I agree about the co-op system. Cooperatives are far more successful because the tenants are "members" and have a say in how the development works, and they have a financial stake in keeping the development working well. Members build equity for the term of their living in the cooperative. I lived in one for 30 years, and when I moved, I had $11,000 coming to me that I did not pay in. However, HUD has not seen fit to develop this type of housing in many years, even though the majority of them were successful; so successful, in fact, that many of them are now paying off their 40-year mortgages and becoming self-controlled.

The most federal money is available for low to moderate income housing, handicapped housing and senior housing. Mainly because affordable housing for these groups is disappearing. Most of the cooperatives I mentioned earlier that have paid off their mortgages are becoming "market rate" and are no longer available to low income families. For those who cannot afford to purchase a home and they need apartment style housing, these rentals are their only option [[other than old buildings that do not function well and typically have poor management).

If you look at the income guidelines for these types of projects you can see that they do allow moderate income families [[depending on your view of what "moderate" is). You can look at the guidelines here:
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affor...imits/income/2

There are plenty of programs out there for moderate income families to purchase homes now, along with money to improve the homes if they are repossessed or abandoned homes. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program [[NSP) will give mortgages and home improvement money to those who qualify.