Chicago Housing Authority Alters Postion on Mixed-Income Developments - But What Does It Mean?
For those who don't folow the tangled web that is the history of Chicago public housing, a brief background overview.
Since 2001, the Chicago Housing Authority has been working to turn some of its most notorious public housing developments into mixed-income development. One of the key components of this plan - officially known as the Plan for Transformation - each mixed-income development would be evenly split between market rate condos, affordable apartments and public housing units.
As I wrote before, that first part proved to be an endless source of headaches for CHA. Even before the Great Recession hit, the buyers just weren't that interested in living places like Cabrini-Green. The ensuing collapse of the real estate bubble didn't help.
Meanwhile, the need for affordable housing increased as economy plunged and thousands of people found themselves forced out of their homes. The CHA has been coming under increased pressure to somehow address the situation. It hadn't. It continued to demolish/shutter public housing developments, even as the sales of market-rate units remained sluggish and many wondered whether the Plan for Redevelopment would even be finished.
So I was a bit surprised to learn yesterday that CHA is changing its mind on the whole "equal split" part of the Plan for Transformation. CHA CEO Charles Woodyard said that, from now on, each development will be approached on the case-by-case basis.
Now, what does it all mean? Woodyard didn't really say. Obviously, it wouldn't affect places like Hillard Homes, where the redevelopment was already complete. But what about places like Cabrini-Green, where development is only part-way finished? Just two months ago, CHA emptied most of Frances Cabrini Homes, the one remaining public housing section of Cabrini-Green. In earlier plans, the section was supposed to remain 100% public housing, but CHA has since change its mind and said that no, it would definitely be mixed-income. Are those plans still on track?
Or what about Lathrop Homes? In the past few months, CHA made a lot of noise about how it was going to redevelop Lathrop along mixed-income lines. The local residents are not happy, and neither are housing advocates and even some groups in the nearby neighborhoods. Even Alderman Joe Moreno, whose ward covers the entirely of Lathrop Homes, has been carefully trying to emphasize that he was going to try to do right by the current residents (without even saying he'd be necessarily opposed to mixed-income redevelopment). How does CHA plans to proceed now?
And there is still the unanswered question of what, if anything, does CHA plan to do with developments that are currently 100% public housing. That includes Bridgeport Homes, Westworth Gardens, Altgeld Gardens, Thumpbell Park Homes, Lawndale Gardens, Lowden Homes and Washington Park Low Rises. Under the Plan for Transformation, they received some structural rehabilitation and utility upgrades, but were otherwise left more or less intact.
I would argue that those developments were allowed to survive was because they weren't a priority for CHA. They either weren't particularly notorious (Bridgepot homes, Westworth Gardens) or were located in low-income neighborhoods, far from the public eye. heck, Altgeld Gardens practically sits on its own island on Chicago's Southern border, surrounded by landfills and industrial sites. Would CHA try to develop them? It says it doesn't, but that's what it used to say about Frances Cabrini Homes. CHA has never been particularly adverse to going back on its promises to public housing residents.
Personally, I have always been skeptical of the entire mixed-income aspect of the Plan for Transformation. I can understand the theory behind it - the mixing of incomes would encourage social and economic mobility - but I'm not sure how well it would work in practice. Cabini-Green and Henry Horner Homes show that market-rate housing residents are, at best, weary of public housing residents and, at worst, outright hostile to them - and public housing residents aren't particularly inclined to be kind and understanding, either. Those issues can be solved if the two sides are willing to work together and treat each other as equals, but indicators suggest that neither side is particularly inclined to do.
A public housing resident I interviewed suggested that everything would be better if everybody who wants to settle in mixed-income developments were given a good idea of what they're getting into. While that's a solid idea, I don't see CHA embracing it, since it would limit their pool of potential market-rate residents even more.
Personally, what I think what CHA should be trying to do is expanding good affordable housing, both in neighborhoods that already have public housing developments and in reasonably safe, secure working class/lower middle class neighborhoods - places like Edgewater, Rogers Park, Irving Park, Wrightwood, Calumet Heights, Avalon Park, Morgan Park, East Side, Jefferson Park, Galewood, Monclair, etc. But I am not naive enough to pretend that the second part of that would be easy. Nobody wants public housing in their neighborhood. And lest you think it's a racial issue, I would suggest you talk to members of community groups in African-American neighborhoods like Chatham and the aforementioned Calumet Heights. They already blame the increase of crime on former public housing residents. The various studies on the subject reveal a complex picture that allows room for multiple interpretations.But what matters here is perception, and it's not going to be easy to overcome - especially given the history involved.
I have always insisted that the true measure of the Plan for Transformation's success is whether or not public housing residents affected by it were better off than they were before the plan was launched. The article about the change in CHA's policy agrees which this, saying, in part:
"The results so far have been less than stellar. According to a recent study by the University of Chicago, only 11 percent of relocated public housing residents with a "right of return" live in mixed-income developments. Many simply left the city altogether."
I'm going to have to wait and see what CHA's new policy would actually mean. But whatever shape it will ultimately take, I hope that it would be better for public housing residents than the current one.