[2] Now increasingly provided in a variety of settings and formats, originally public housing in the U.S. consisted primarily of one or more concentrated blocks of low-rise and/or high-rise apartment buildings.
Several reasons have been cited for this negative trend including the failure of Congress to provide sufficient funding, a lowering of standards for occupancy, and mismanagement at the local level.
[7] As a result of their various problems and diminished political support, many of the traditional low-income public housing properties constructed in the earlier years of the program have been demolished.
Hope VI funds are used to tear down distressed public housing projects and replace them with mixed communities constructed in cooperation with private partners.
When US entry to World War II ended the era of New Deal reforms, the call for public housing from the NAACP, women's groups and labor unions was quieted.
[13] Upon its passage, Truman told the press: "[This legislation] opens up the prospect of decent homes in wholesome surroundings for low-income families now living in the squalor of the slums.
It equips the Federal Government, for the first time, with effective means for aiding cities in the vital task of clearing slums and rebuilding blighted areas.
[13] Between Title I and the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, entire communities in poorer, urban neighborhoods were demolished to make way for modern developments and transportation needs, often in the 'towers in the park' style of Le Corbusier.
Jane Jacobs would famously describe the new products as, "Low-income projects that become worse centers of delinquency, vandalism, and general social hopelessness than the slums they were supposed to replace.
The role of high-rises had always been contentious, but with rising rates of vandalism and vacancy and considerable concerns about the concentration of poverty, some contended these developments were declared unsuitable for families.
HUD Secretary George Romney declared that the moratorium would encompass all money for Urban Renewal and Model Cities programs, all subsidized housing, and Section 235 and 236 funding.
[20] In 1990, President George H. W. Bush signed the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (NAHA), which furthered the use of HOME funds for rental assistance.
[26] HOPE VI has become the primary vehicle for the construction of new federally subsidized units, but it suffered considerable funding cuts in 2004 under President George W. Bush who called for the abolition of the program.
[29][3] A substantial innovation observed after the 1980s was private financing––where venture capitalists contribute investment capital, in return for which they receive an equivalent reduction in the federal taxes.
[33] A different study, conducted by Freeman (2003) on a national level, cast doubt onto the theory that public housing units have an independent effect on the concentration of poverty.
[35] Because of social pathologies incubated by public housing, Husock (2003) states that unit prices in surrounding buildings fall, reducing city revenue from property taxes and giving a disincentive to high-paying businesses to locate themselves in the area.
[36] In a meta-analysis of empirical studies, they expected to find that when public housing lacks obtrusive architecture and its residents are similar to those already in the neighborhood, property values are not likely to fluctuate.
[41] The Kerner Commission blatantly condemned white institutions for creating unequal housing opportunities, specifically highlighting restrictive covenants as a cause of the American apartheid residential pattern in the city.
More physical deterioration was documented by Turner et al., along with backlogged repairs, vandalism, cockroaches, mold, and other problems creating a generally unsafe environment for occupants (2005).
A study conducted in Boston revealed that dampness and heating issues in public housing create concentrations of dust mites, mold, and fungi, which causes asthma at a rate much higher than the national average.
[44] In this study, it is noted that subsidies may cause renters to be more concentrated in neighborhoods with lower incomes and opportunities, thereby leading to associations with worse health outcomes.
[45] However, the study also concluded that residents of public housings units and voucher holders are more likely to express lower satisfaction with the neighborhood in which they live compared to low-income renters.
[46] In a study of student achievement in New York City, Schwartz et al. (2010) found that those children living in public housing units did worse on standardized tests than others who go to the same or comparable schools.
A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in October 2021 showed 49% of American adults viewed the availability, or lack thereof, of affordable housing as a significant problem within their local communities.
[51] Additionally, based on separate findings from the Cato Institute 2019 Welfare, Work, and Wealth National Survey, Ekins (2019) reported that 59% of Americans favor construction of more housing in their neighborhoods.
Many scattered-site units are built to be similar in appearance to other homes in the neighborhood to somewhat mask the financial stature of tenants and reduce the stigma associated with public housing.
[citation needed] An issue of great concern with regards to the implementation of scattered-site programs is where to construct these housing units and how to gain the support of the community.
Frequent concerns of community members include potential decreases in the retail price of their home, a decline in neighborhood safety due to elevated levels of crime.
[56] American sociologist William Julius Wilson has proposed that concentrating low-income housing in impoverished areas can limit tenants' access to social opportunity.
The program is currently in the process of "portfolio realignment," which entails successive upgrading of over 200 units and a continued effort to distribute public housing in various neighborhoods throughout the city.