HOPE VI Housing Program: Was it Effective?

I Introduction ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, public attitudes toward inner-city public housing have become largely negative. Resident satisfaction with public housing has been unfavorable. Historically, public housing has suffered from major problems, which include: (1) economic isolation; (2) residential segregation (by concentrating the very poor in economically distressed and minority neighborhoods); (3) federal laws that discourage working families from occupancy for extended periods; and (4) work prevention for unemployed families. Quality control standards in public housing lack the discipline of the open market. As a result, residents are often unhappy with the services provided and yet unable to find more suitable housing elsewhere. In 1989, the U.S. Congress, by enacting the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act, established the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing (NCSDPH) to assess distressed public housing and make recommendations for improvement. In 1992, NCSDPH completed its study, citing 6 percent of public housing (approximately 86,000 units) as uninhabitable. Legislation was introduced in fiscal year 1993, including $300 million in appropriations for the funding of a public housing revitalization program. The intent of the program was to demolish uninhabitable public housing, develop the sites with new housing units, and provide social services to residents (Chicago Hope 2000: 1279). The legislation for the Urban Revitalization Demonstration (URD) program was passed by Congress, has had annual appropriations, and has become known as "Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere" (HOPE VI 2001). The HOPE VI program began with five primary objectives: (1) to change the physical shape of public housing; (2) to reduce concentrations of poverty; (3) to provide support services; (4) to maintain high standards of personal responsibility; and (5) to form partnerships. These objectives were aimed at the goal of creating mixed-income communities. II Park DuValle's Background THE HOPE VI PARK DUVALLE Revitalization program in Louisville chose to build a new housing community for African Americans on an isolated site previously utilized for public housing. This choice reinforced the patterns of public housing residential segregation that have been an element of its continued failure. Park DuValle has been often cited as a model or one of the most successful HOPE VI developments in the nation. HOPE VI Park DuValle has received national awards from HUD, the American Institute of Architects, and the Congress on New Urbanism. National and local media have also been laudatory toward this development. This research shows, however, that while there has been some success, this praise is not wholly deserved. The present consensus among policymakers and scholars is that high concentrations of low-income households lead to negative behavioral and social outcomes (Popkins, Buron, Levy, and Cunningham 2000: 928). Dispersed development and mixed-income strategies now dominate federal public housing policy, a legacy of the Gautreaux case, which created the first scattered-site and mobility programs. Varady and Preiser (1998: 189) argue that over the last 20 years, public housing policy has shifted away from large-scale, more traditional projects and toward scattered-site units located away from the inner city. This shift is not random, but rather a byproduct of failed liberal ideas. HUD and the Housing Authority of Louisville had the opportunity to follow this movement, but chose not to do so. III Evaluation of HOPE VI PHASE I OF THE HOPE VI Park DuValle Revitalization Project (The Oaks) consisted of 100 upscale apartments and rental townhouses. Completed in 1998, the Oaks are now fully leased. Phase II (The Village at Park DuValle), has leased all 213 apartments. The Housing Authority of Louisville (HAL) received 2,839 applications for Phase II. …