When I think of federal funded public housing, my idea of it would be the projects for people to live in. However after reading the article I learn the government didn’t provide public housing to help the poor initially. Rather the first attempt at public housing was to attract people to industrial areas to help create weapons for the war. This surprises me since all my life I never heard a government-sponsored program provide housing for such a reason. It was very interesting to learn this.

The idea that people would buy houses outright seems ridiculous to me unless you were rich. I guess given the values of home ownership back then, buying a house in full payment makes sense. I assume a house was more of a sign of wealth rather than a necessity to people. Although living somewhere is important, a house also symbolized how wealthy. This is true nowadays but the difference is the type of house like if a person has a mansion or not.

After I read about HOLC rating system, it does not surprise me areas African Americans lived were rated the worst. Even though an area was new or if only a few black families lived in a neighborhood, the property values drop. It is sad to know that based on the color of your skin you could devalue an area. Such was the culture of America and still is today but thankfully, to a lower extent.

It is even sadder to know that to avoid losing out in an investment in building areas, the ratio of blacks to whites were carefully looked at by the federal government. The FHA basically promoted segregation with its public policy. The middle class was preferred over the poor and whites over blacks. Some areas were not allowed to get loans.

Although we learned in history the New Deal had policies that saved the country from the Great Depression, which it did, it also promoted racial segregation and was not built on benevolence. It was not to help promote home ownership nor help the poor. Its main purpose was to save the housing and real estate industry. Although I will remember the New Deal as the way to deter the depression, the reading does make me question the aftereffects of important policies.

The chapter “Federal Subsidy and the Suburban Dream: How Washington Changed the American Housing Market” from Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States by Kenneth T. Jackson contained some very interesting and important points. It described the role the government has played in the housing market, particularly related to suburbanization. I thought it was surprising how much the government influenced the trend of people buying their own homes in the suburbs. I was also surprised by how much of a role racism played in the appraisal of homes by the Home Owners Loan Corporation.

Prior to reading Jackson’s chapter, I hadn’t realized how much mortgages and the concept of home owning were impacted by the Home Owners Loan Corporation. It set an example for long-term loans that make owning a home a reasonable option for many people. Earlier in American history, it was typical for people who owned homes to have bought them outright. Although mortgages became more popular in the 1920s, these mortgages typically had lengths of five to ten years. I had never known this history of mortgages and never realized that the HOLC was the organization that originally provided mortgages similar to those that many people have today.

By making the option of owning homes in the suburbs possible for people, the HOLC greatly contributed to the development of suburbs. I found it interesting how much the government contributed to making this kind of trend in real estate development possible. Many people were critical of the idea of government getting involved in housing. However, when the Great Depression made things worse for people, a significant number of them changed their minds. This type of conflict over whether or not the government should get involved in things is very common and it seems typical that most people favor this involvement only after the issues have gotten worse.

One part of the reading that really made me think was the racism of the HOLC. Jackson describes how areas with African American populations tended to automatically be considered in one of the lowest categories. Reading about this made me wonder whether the appraisers were contributing to the racist attitudes of the time or simply being realistic and responding to those racist attitudes. Since there was definite racism throughout the country at this time and this racism was prevalent in the real estate market, it may have been unrealistic for the HOLC not to take this factor into account when determining the quality of an area for the purpose of real estate values. I do not believe that the intentions of the appraisers were necessarily bad when it came to this topic, however I do think that they did contribute to the racist attitudes of the time.

I found the reading to be thought provoking and relatable to many issues regarding the influence of government. I thought it was unfortunate that the government led the way in housing trends by enabling people to move to suburbs but it simply followed the racial segregation that existed in the housing market.

We all know that many immigrants came to America because of the “American Dream.” Part of this dream included ownership of a house. Many obstacles made this aspect difficult to achieve for many immigrants. However, the government eventually stepped in to increase housing during Hoover’s period. President Hoover believed housing was “the foundation of a sound economic and social system.” (193) In other words, due to poor housing in the country, the United States would collapse and to prevent the country’s downfall the government must step in and aid people in housing. At first I thought that it was ridiculous for the whole country’s development to depend on housing, but thinking about it again Hoover’s words are plausible.

Although the government began to financially become involved in housing during President Hoover’s reign, the first significant government involvement was during World War I. The government established two programs that aimed to provide ‘housing for heads of households moving to industrial areas to produce weapons for the war.’ (192) In a way, I am reminded about the American Revolution when people had to house soldiers in their homes. however in this case, people were provided their own houses. This is the first I have heard that the government provided houses for people to live in while they worked to produce weapons for the war, and I had expected a lot of houses to have been built for this reason. However, Jackson states that not many houses were built; “less than 25,000 units were built in the entire nation.” (192) Many people worked in the factories to produce weapons during the war, so it would seem as if many houses would be built as a result. Surprisingly, it was the exact opposite. It sort of seems that the government was reluctant to establish too many homes, which would make the government appear too involved with housing as Jackson seemed to have hinted at. Although the government was able to step out of housing at this time, the eventually had to take matters into their own hands.

During Hoover’s presidency, the United States was entering the Great Depression, and people turned to the government for help. This became the first actual involvement from the government, which resulted in failure in Hoover’s presidency. Legislation made, such as the Federal Loan Home Bank Act, did not do what they were created to do because of restrictions that prevented many people who needed the help from receiving aid. In an attempt to help, but not provide too much help, the government failed to quickly and efficiently restore the country to stability. President Hoover’s quote appeared to want to fix the housing in the country, but it seems the government did not want to become too involved and had failed as a result. This may have possibly influenced the decisions of a past event.

Not too long ago, there was a financial crisis that was believed to have occurred because of mortgage applications. From what I know, many mortgage applications were accepted when they should not have been when real estate was affordable. As a result of too many mortgages accepted and not enough people qualified to pay it off, many homes were foreclosed and real estate increased. At the same time, the economy was dropping and entering a recession. From this event, Hoover’s words prove to be true that housing is the foundation of the nation’s system.

Had the country not gone through a recession because of the leniency to accept mortgages, I would be arguing that it is too much for the nation’s economic and social system to be so strongly influenced by housing. After all, the country’s gross domestic product contains many different aspects that affect it. But from these two events, it seems that housing is extremely influential.

In “Crabgrass Frontier,” Kenneth T. Jackson discusses the influence that the government had on housing in the 1920s. He mentions how the government encourages businesses to abandon old structures before their useful life is at an end by permitting greater tax benefits for new construction than for the improvement of existing buildings. This is how the government was subsidizing the acceleration rate at which economic activity was spread to new locations. I find this method to be interesting because the modern government does the same thing with investments, such as taxing capital gains and dividend income less than the income tax rate so that more people would invest their money in the markets. This makes it seem like the government, both of the past and current, is able to manipulate the economy and living conditions through certain economic incentives to the public.

Another interesting point was that the first federal housing effort in the United States was to help in the war efforts in 1918. Rather than start as the result of a conscious effort to help the poor or to increase reform spirit, it was done to help provide industrial workers who produced weapons for the European conflict with homes. This makes it less surprising that Americans did not view government intervention in a positive light until the Great Depression in 1929.

Under President Roosevelt, there were several laws passed to help the condition of the American housing market that was in its worst condition in American history. Times like this in American history show when and how a government can be helpful to Americans when they really need it. For example, the Home Owners Loan Corporation introduced, perfected, and proved in practice the feasibility of the long-term, self-amortizing mortgage with equal payments spread over the term of the debt. This new development helped homebuyers get a fair loan that they can pay off over time.

The changes that took place, which allowed homebuyers to buy the house without as much stress as they would have before were drastic improvements. For example, by establishing minimum standards for home construction, provided homebuyers with the satisfaction that their investment would be free of gross structural or mechanical deficiencies. The fact that there were inspections done to supervise the implementation of the law makes it seem like the government really believed that these changes were necessary and needed to be enforced.

The most surprising thing for me was that the FHA was helping the building industry against the minority and inner-city housing market, and its policies were supporting the income and racial segregation of suburbia. That was the first time that the federal government embraced the discriminatory attitudes of the marketplace. The FHA exhorted segregation and covered it up as public policy. This is very surprising to me because I would have never imagined for a government administration to clearly conduct discriminatory practices in public works. Overall, the move from the inner-city neighborhoods to the suburbs was caused in large part by the government’s influence on the American public through its loan system.

It has been ages since the last time the government encourages people to buy houses or even sponsors housing projects. Nowadays the government is still scrambling to clean up the mess that was the housing market after the Great Recession of 2008; federal funded public housing sounds like an impossibility, along with suffering of the lower-classed and less-fortunate people. Yet it was not so back in the booming days of 1920’s, when federal funded public housing was something of a necessity.

In Crabgrass Frontier, the author revealed the real purpose behind the rise in construction of houses back in the days. I was surprised to learn about the government’s real incentive: war. It was ironic, really, supplying the American Dreams of millions through the bullets and bombshells that the dwellers of these housing projects made. These new houses were to serve the workers of weapon factories that shipped thousands of planes and warships overseas. Reading this chapter, my mind flashes back to the American Revolution chapter in the History Textbook when British soldiers were occupying civilians’ houses for the war effort. Toward the end of 1930’s, the government gave weapon makers places to live in. How much the world has changed since then.

It was amazing how the mind of policy makers work, for the housing program was “killing two birds with one stone.” The United States was in the midst of the Great Depression when it got involved in the Second World War, so these housing programs and moving workers into vacant houses in the suburb to build war machines also helped populate the string of falling-priced houses that were hit due to the housing bubble. Amazing as they are, the government was also redeeming itself due to the lack of intervention during the “laissez-faire” era. President Hoover, with legislation such as the Federal Loan Home Bank Act, destroyed the housing market due to loose credit restrictions. An era of too little involvement had to make way for vigilant federal intervention later on during FDR’s.

Another issue that caught my fancy, was the racism of the Home Owners Loan Corporation. Mr. Jackson describes how areas where African Americans populated was always considered to be of the lowest standards. Racism had been prevalent in the real estate market during the time, but I wonder if it was truly for the best interest of the business. Taking into account one’s race, which by the time and even now, was linked to one’s financial standing and credit trustworthiness, I think, is logical for the HOLC to determine the quality and value of an area. It did create a side effect though: intensifying the discriminative environment of the time.

Conclusively, Jackson’s essay is an insightful read for it reflects the enormous power that the government dictated on the housing market at the time while portraying the clash between different racial and ethnic groups due to such federal actions.

As clear and obvious the idea that the government essentially controls our migration patterns is, this thought didn’t occur to me until I read the Federal Subsidiary and the Suburban Dream by Kenneth T. Jackson. What baffled me further was the idea that the government was directly involved in “openly exhorted segregation” regarding giving out loans and building up infrastructure. Essentially, Jackson makes this point that the governments racist public policies that were set have shaped the way the cities have developed today.

His first argument was whether or not it was the governments responsibility to intervene with the housing market in terms of property taxes, loans etc. I feel that over the years America has essentially been gearing towards more socialistic ideals versus democratic because of the increase in government control over our life. However, this isn’t exactly negative because when the government had its Laissez Faire policy the American people, especially the poor, did suffer. If the government had not gotten involved post the depression this country would have fallen apart. This is not Marxism but rather a mixed

Despite the failures of the original housing projects such as the Green Belt town program or the Home Owners Loan Corporation, the Federal Housing Administration policies stuck and carried out because of there leniency in giving out loans. They set the standards by lowering down payments, and setting the concept of appraisals and valuing and rating neighborhoods. I feel as if this was essential to the American suburbanization movement, because without that there was no development and infrastructure for people to move out of the overcrowded cities and into the suburbs.  This idea of valuing homes has definitely become integral in our real estate market today, and has created an entire new sector in our economy.

However, the point that was most striking to me was that initially the Federal Housing Administrators policies were highly subjective and the decisions that the administrators made half a century ago have affected the way the inner cities have developed. By lowering the value of neighborhoods that have more “black people,” the FHA directly gave those people fewer opportunities. The people in those neighborhoods weren’t bailed out after the depression, and therefore the crime rates and infrastructure is worse than other more white suburban locations. Similar to the stories in the Great Migration, these people faced more hardships than others of different races, and the most shocking part is that this was primary because of the government. Of course blacks faced racism, but the government put them in such a position to begin with that certain parts could never rose up after the governments involvement. For instance the example of St. Louis shows how these cities never rose up.

This chapter as a whole by Jackson was very fact heavy and dense to read. It wasn’t an easy smooth read and often Jackson’s points were overshadowed by the amount of facts he included. I think that this is for an educated reader and not someone who knows much background history, and that’s why it was tough for me to get through. The questions I would ask are how do we grow from this and bring back our inner cities? Is there truly a way to deal with housing in an objective manner? Is this segregation ever going to fade away, or will the mistakes of our past never be fixed?

While reading Jackson’s Federal Subsidy and the Suburban Dream There were three main things that he mentioned that really stuck out to me. The first thing was the concept on whether housing was a problem of the individual or the government. The second thing he mentions which stuck out to me was the mentality of civilians regarding government interaction. Finally the third thing which stuck with me was how socialism and racism still managed to stick their heads into all this.

Now regarding the first point about whether housing is the problem of the government or it’s people, I feel like in order to fully understand this one should turn to the foundation of our government, which is the Declaration of Independence . The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson who was influenced greatly by the writings of John Locke and the Declaration discusses all the natural born rights of all human beings and how it is the government’s duty to protect these rights. The rights written in the Declaration include the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The last right is the right I would like to focus on, when John Locke wrote this instead of pursuit of happiness he wrote the right to property. Now the fact that Jefferson changed the word property might give some insight as to whether or not it is the right of the government to give the citizens land. Since according to the declaration these unalienable rights must be protected by the government and since property isn’t there I feel this kind of takes the government out of the equation and therefore forces this onto the people and makes it their responsibility. But, this is up for discussion since the more popular reason for the removal of property is because some people might say this gives people the right to own slaves.

Regarding the second point about the mentality of the civilians it didn’t surprise me that up until The Great Depression there was this lack of desire for the government to help with housing. The reason for this is because until things get out of hand or into a really bad situation people don’t wake up and realize that something’s wrong. Take Swine Flu for example, there is a flu season every year and every year people get the flu but that one year where a few extra people died the world bugged out. There was a demand for the vaccine. But, the next year when flu season came about not that many people went for the flu shot. For this reason during the Great Depression when not many people had houses there was a demand for the government to help with houses because when people are in a bad situation, that’s when they wake up. Otherwise they don’t usually care as much.

Finally, Jackson’s talk about Socialism and Racism also stuck out a lot to me while reading this chapter. When a housing project was being start up it was started up in the way of a military initiative the reason for this is because subsidizing houses was seen as a sort of socialistic. Senator Albert Fall of New Mexico viewed this as an attempt “to socialize this Government of ours, to overturn the entire Government of the United States. I just found it a little ironic that this dogma of Socialism wormed it’s way into all parts of the US government, it might be a bit naive but I didn’t feel that socialism became such a big deal until later on in the 1900’s. On the other hand the concept of racism didn’t surprise me at all because the Civil rights movement didn’t happen until about 1955. So, when the chapter said that in Detroit in 1941 when someone built a wall in the middle of a neighborhood to separate the whites from the blacks just so that the whites would be able to get mortgage approved by the FHA, although it seemed stupid because society isn’t like this anymore i was able to understand the time-period the article was referencing.

These three points were the points that stuck out to me the most from this chapter by Jackson. I guess the main reason these stuck out to me is because they seemed the most interesting regarding how society interacted with the government and vice versa. It was impressive in my eyes  how strong this connection between the two are.

Throughout the history of the United States, a long time dream and ambition of the American people has been to own a home. Immigrants from around the world have traveled to the United States with the hopes that they too would attain this dream and that they would one day own a home as well. In his book, “Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States,” Kenneth Jackson discusses the progression of government interference in respect to the housing of the people of the United States. He also talks about how the housing policies of the government affect the the locations that certain groups of people choose to live.

In the article, Jackson mentions that before 1933 the government did not regard the housing and shelter of the American people to be one of its responsibilities. Although they had certain restrictions on how an individual may construct his home and the materials that he may use in doing so, they believed that the “selection, construction, and purchase of a place to live was everywhere regarded as an essentially individual problem.” They believed that it was not their place to get involved and that it was up to the individual to decide where or how he/she chooses to live. When it came to shelter, each person had to fend for himself.

I believed that housing programs were always focused with the intentions of assisting the poor and I was extremely astonished to learn that the first effort to provide housing for individuals came not as a result of poverty but in reaction to World War I. In June 1918, Congress appropriated $110 million to start two separate programs aimed at providing housing for war workers, one of which was the United States Housing Corporation. These programs were focused on providing homes for people who had to move to industrial areas in order to produce weapons for war. The fact that these programs began shortly after the beginning of the war made me realize a very important observation that shapes the behavior of many people. It is human nature to react only once a crisis comes about. Intervention in Housing policy was considered to be an “individual problem” until World War I came about and before this the government was not focused on providing houses to Americans. In fact, even these programs were hampered by opposition who called them socialistic and an “insidious concerted effort to socialize this government.”

This notion that intervention and reaction is mostly brought about due to crisis is further exemplified by the advent of the Great Depression. The book mentions that during the 1920’s the federal government once again adopted a” hands-off policy” when it came to housing the American people. The federal government was looked at as a body or organization whose primary task was to govern, while the task of building houses should be left in the hands of the contractors and builders. However, as the Great Depression began the housing market began to collapse and the American people looked towards the government for assistance. During the time of the Great Depression residential construction fell by 95 percent and in 1932 there were 250,000 foreclosures on homes, compared to a typical year of 68,000. President Hoover understood that he had to do something about this and proposed a federal housing policy aimed at providing housing assistance to the poor.

Another point that Jackson mentions that came as a surprise to me was when he mentions that certain residential areas were discriminated against. For instance cities were given lower ratings than suburban areas and were declared to be ineligible for loan guarantees. This further segregated certain areas as middle and high class residents secured loans and moved to suburban areas, while lower-class residents were forced to remain in the cities. One question I had was how could the government allow that to happen for so long and continue as segregation in the United States strengthened and played a larger role?

Homeownership has long been part of the American dream. Once regarded as taboo, federal influence in this sector has grown over the years. Today, over 400,000 New Yorkers reside in 344 public housing developments around the five boroughs. However, the history of our public housing policies was variable, to say the least.

Prior to 1933, the provision of shelter by the government was nonexistent—this was solely an individual’s business. In fact, the idea of subsidizing housing units was regarded as socialistic and the United States government preferred a hands-off policy. The closest the United States had ever come to public housing was in 1918 when Congress allocated $110 million to two programs for housing war workers. But with intentions far from helping the poor, the houses were soon sold to private developers and the government was, once again, out of the housing business. The Great Depression in 1929, however, fundamentally shifted the American Government’s attitude towards intervention in the housing market.

The Great Depression had an immense impact on the housing industry and the homeowner. With astronomical declines in construction of residential property, expenditures on home repairs and a never-before-seen rate of foreclosure, the housing market was headed towards complete collapse. It was evident that a safety net was necessary as other sectors of the economy were subsequently suffering. In 1931, President Hoover proposed a federal housing policy that centered around amortized mortgages, low interest rates and reduced costs. Although the government realized it had to intervene, Hoover’s policy proved to be inconsequential because the government still relied on private capital initiative.

Real changes were beginning to take form when Franklin D. Roosevelt entered office in 1933. Both the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) and Federal Housing Administration (FHA) had lasting impacts on public housing. Their negative attitudes towards city living and subjective “systematize” rating methods did little more than measure ethnic and racial worth.  As housing was back on the rise in 1936 and it became cheaper to buy than to rent, the HOLC and FHA gave suburban areas higher grades and urban life deteriorated as middle-class constituents moved out of cities. Homogeneous, suburban neighborhoods were given higher ratings and were given loans more easily, even though “residents of poorer sections generally maintained a better pay-back record than did their more affluent cousins.”

It was not until the civil rights movement that people began to see the redlining practices of the FHA. Jackson makes it clear that lasting damage was done to the housing market and, more specifically, urban life, calling it “the supreme indignity.” While the history of public housing in America may have been far from effective, public housing is now a very important part of society. During an internship last semester, a majority of my work was related to low-income public housing for New York City residents. As a life-long Staten Island resident surrounded by one-family homes, I never knew just how many people rely on public housing. There is definitely room for improvement in certain policies, but public housing in urban neighborhoods has come a long way.