"Mixed-income housing, successes for whom?"

Because you all know I'm a party animal, and I certainly wouldn't want to disappoint any of you, tonight I was reading an article entitled "The Role of Public, Private, Non-profit and Community Sectors in Shaping Mixed-income Housing Outcomes in the US."

Yes, I know! As one of my friends quipped when I mentioned it, "I can't wait until you're in charge." I'm with ya, but I'd rather have noble, workable ideas in charge, not people. Can such ideas be found here?

The article outlines the two types of goals revitalization efforts can pursue. First are place-based goals, such as building of "housing stock, business development, telecommunications, water/sewer/electric and roadways" (Fraser & Kick, 2007, p. 2358). The second type are person-based goals which are the "building of individual and social capital so that they may take advantage of economic opportunities (such as, job skills development, educational improvement, poverty amelioration and moving people into homeownership)" (Fraser & Kick, 2007, p. 2358).

(Sidebar: this was written in 2007, before the general public realized that home ownership isn't always an economic opportunity. On the other hand, researchers engaged in urban studies really should have known better.)

The authors posit that successful achievement of these goals depends on 1) agreement upon the goals of the program between the public, private, non-profit and community sectors; and, 2) sufficient organizational capacity to achieve the goals. In effect, they say that even if everyone agrees, it is not enough until everyone is has the managerial skills and monetary resources to achieve them. They also observe that place-based goals are most easily achieved through cooperation between the private and public sectors and person-based goals are best achieved through cooperation between the non-profit and community sectors.

The article documents two neighborhood revitalization projects, one in Durham, North Carolina, the other in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The projects were similar (Fraser & Kick, 2007, p. 2362) in that they :

• each are "an extension of the downtown revitalization effort";
• "have the goals of creation of favourable people- and place-based outcomes";
• "mobilised by a belief in the proposition that concentrated poverty is unhealthy"; and
• private stakeholders...need to be persuaded to invest in the target areas".

Durham failed in a spectacular way, including public scandals and the total revamping of the Durham Housing Authority (DHA). Two reasons were given:

• the DHA "did not have the skill sets or capacity necessary" (Fraser & Kick, 2007, p. 2366); and
• "there was clearly less political will on the part of the public or private sectors to focus on the expressed goal of poverty amelioration" (Fraser & Kick, 2007, p. 2367).

Chattanooga apparently succeeded by changing the property value of the area, but significantly only for those who moved into the neighborhood. Original residents remained poor or were driven out by higher property taxes or incentive to sell at higher, gentrified, prices. The authors note that "many of the public-sector actors in Chattanooga were the private-sector actors" including the fact that two successive mayors of Chattanooga at the time were "both private-sector developers who own a great deal of downtown property" (Fraser & Kick, 2007, p. 2372). "Greater capacity through unity...could guarantee the place-based success of mixed-income changes" (Fraser & Kick, 2007, pp. 2372-3).

The central criticism of the piece is, "mixed-income housing, successes for whom?" (Fraser, J. C. & Kick, E. L., 2007, p. 2373). The answer as to whether revitalization efforts are successful depends on whether the focus is on the place (buildings, roads, and cable TV) or on actual real-live people.

Reference: Fraser, J. C., & Kick, E. L. (2007). The Role of Public, Private, Non-profit and Community Sectors in Shaping Mixed-income Housing Outcomes in the US. Urban Studies, 44 (12), 2357-2377.