Christian Butron – Public Housing

The first article of the reading assignment had a rosy depiction of public housing in its “golden age” from the 1950s into the 1960s. Richard Price, the author of the article, suggests that decline of public housing began when the “Originals” who had earned enough money to move out, had finally moved on from public housing, most of whom were white. This triggered a shift in racial balance, causing an increase in social tension and segregation. This coupled with the economic slowdown beginning in the 1970s brought about the weaknesses of public housing. The New York City Housing Authority, which had always been able to deliver services despite always being stuffed with pointless bureaucracy, was left seemingly helpless during the 1970s and especially during the 1980s. This was perhaps due to a shift in the political climate, or perhaps due to mismanagement and corruption.

However, I believe the real reason why public housing rose and fell spectacularly was because the idea of public housing in the past was that it was to be a temporary “springboard” for people who would eventually increase their income and move out to increase their living standards. While this did happen initially, such a systems relies on the continuous and monumental economic growth of the United States that started after World War II. With the rise of European and Asian economies that could finally challenge the US’s imminent dominance over the global market, US’s amazing economic growth slowed down. This meant that there would be less opportunities for those in projects and thus more people stuck in the projects. The springboard now became a prison. Nonetheless, after reading the assignment, I believe that it would be best for New York City that we build more public housing, but end rent controls.

The reason that we should end rent controls is that rent controls, more often than not, decrease the housing supply, making it even harder for those in need of affordable housing to attain it since private developers usually cannot afford or are unwilling to do business under market rates. Of course, the government can cover the difference between market rates and rent for private developers as described in fourth article. Such practices incentivize private companies to take better care of their affordable housing units. However, such practices may also result in an inefficiency where companies are able to add menial and useless renovations to an apartment and be rewarded for them. Ultimately, these companies are seeking profits so when the government covers for them, more is spent than actually necessary to maintain these housing units.

On the other hand, when true public housing is done right it has shown to be an excellent driver of economic activity. Despite earlier iterations being reliant on strong economic growth, with strong government oversight and community support, public housing can overcome this obstacle.