Share
Tapatalk

Affordable housing in FPSE

Affordable housing in FPSE

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostNov 29, 2007#1

There's a meeting regarding affordable housing in the Grove tomorrow if anyone is interested in going. It may be entertaining. The flyer I got reads, in part:



*Eviction! *Forclosure! *Nuisance Laws! *Code Violations! Did you know there is a shortage of affordable housing in our neighborhood? Come to a meeting Thursday, November 29th at 6:00pm. Educate yourself and discuss potential solutions to the affordable housing shortage in the community. The meeting is sponsored by a coalition of neighbors and organizations in the FPSE Community and led by women. The meeting will be at 1202 S. Boyle Avenue.



There are little road signs around the flyer reading:

Caution: you family could be next!

Stop: making neighbors move!

One Way: to housing for all!

Do Not: sit home and wait.



Well, I'm not going to sit home and wait, but I doubt that I will agree with much that is discussed at the meeting. We'll see. I have my doubts that affordable housing is a dire issue in this neighborhood. Manhattan? Sure. FPSE? ? At a 17th Ward meeting this past year a woman stood up and accussed the FPSE Development Corporation of forcing more than 500 residents to move out of FPSE. I'm guess this may be the same person.



Thoughts? Is anyone out there particularly educated about affordable housing?
145
Junior MemberJunior Member
145

PostNov 29, 2007#2

How much is the housing going for in this area anyway?
12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostNov 29, 2007#3

Huh? The flyer actually says that the meeting will be "led by women"? Sorry, but how is this a women's issue? Isn't it an everybody issue?
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostNov 29, 2007#4

I think "affordable" in this case might be a euphemism for "subsidized".
5,433
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
5,433

PostNov 29, 2007#5

Grover, you should go if only to take notes and report back to the rest of us! (I'd go, but I've got class to attend tonight.) Like jl, I'm inclined to believe subsidized housing is masquerading as "affordable housing", because I don't see a lack of it in FPSE or many other city neighborhoods for that matter.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostNov 29, 2007#6

Afftonguy78 wrote:How much is the housing going for in this area anyway?


The new Frontdoorstl (restoration st. louis) apartments are not particularly affordable. Maybe ~$650 for a 1br. That said, I believe that all these apartments are in buildings that were abandoned when purchased by Restoration St. Louis.

PostNov 30, 2007#7

So here goes . . . I'm going to try and be fair and I do plan on volunteering with this group to help insure that no one is unfairly forced out of their home. This is going to be hard to describe.



I arrived just after 6pm and the meeting had already started. After several people in charge of the effort read an agenda and update they asked everyone to say who they were and where they lived. That was easy. They then openned up for questions. There were 20 people there and no one spoke up. After the third time being asked for questions I said (more or less) "I would like to know what I can do to help ensure that people aren't unfairly forced out of their home. I'm not sure what some of the issues are, but would simply like to know how I could help."



Immediately a woman asked why I was in the neighborhood. I said that I had toured the neighorhood in 2003 and thought it was a great place and that my wife and I had looked in the CWE but couldn't afford it. (I guess I thought this was a good way to point out that everyone can afford some neighborhoods and not others). I was immediately asked where I work and what my wife does. I said I work for Wash U and my wife is a Wash U student. Of the 20 people present at least 14 rolled their eyes and gave a big, "oh well, there you go!"



I was then told that I was part of the problem and that gentrification was ruining the neighborhood. I was told that I must think I'm smart because I'm at Wash U. I was referred to as "you people" and when I asked what was meant by that I was told "you know, the people with all the power." It was stated by some that no one should be told what neighborhood they can or can't live in. One person referred to a "$110,000 new home" as being expensive. There was much more and I could go on.



So it's clear that there were some class differences in the room. I didn't mind the finger pointing and hostile reception at all. It was informative and fascinating to me. A number of people were very fair to me and I introduced myself to nearly everyone after the event. All but 2 or 3 were very nice. One woman was retired from Wash U. Another has a daughter who works there.



My harsh judgement is that the group is as enthusiastic as it is uneducated/uninformed. I don't know if they're simply in favor of no change or if they believe in socialized housing. The neighborhood stabilization officer attended as well and both of us pointed out that no legislation or code or regulation would keep a developer from buying an apartment house, not renewing leases of residents and renovating, so we wanted to know what we could do in other cases. I figured that if this was going to be a battle against capitalism that I might as well jump ship early! Anyway, we didn't get much of an answer.



At one point I stated that I wished to help anyone who would accept help, anyone who cared about their home and wish to stay in it. I said that there are still good people and bad people in the neighborhood and I am excited to help anyone would wants it. I was told that there aren't good people and bad people, just people and labeling anyone is racist and classist. Many in attendence seem to think that new residents were calling in code violations in record numbers against long-time residents because they didn't like poor black people. The NSO actually had numbers showing that nuissance calls have dropped dramatically in the past five years - of course it didn't matter.



So - that's an incredibly incomplete report of what happened at the meeting, but there you go. I think that only 2 or 3 people there are really off base and they really care about people, they just didn't seem to know enough to understand whay they were supporting. IMO - everyone else were very genuine, very good people that care deeply about their neighbors, but have been scared into thinking that they may be kicked out of their house tomorrow. In the end, I think this group is (or is soon to be) in the minority in the neighborhood. The business owners, developers and many new and old residents want to see the neighborhood "gentrify" and understand how this will benefit them.
6,662
AdministratorAdministrator
6,662

PostNov 30, 2007#8

Thanks for the summary. Sounds like a lot of misunderstanding going on.
5,433
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
5,433

PostNov 30, 2007#9

Grover, thanks for the informative review of that meeting! I was in class last night at your workplace- does that make me one of those "smart people"? :shock:



I digress, and I'm not trying to make light of the situation, because it sounds like the majority of people that attended the meeting have good intentions overall. They're interested in the future of their community, and that can only be a good thing. You'll have to let us know where the group goes from here. FPSE is definitely on an upswing, and as The Grove, it has a new identity and a bright future. I think we can all agree there's room to improve the neighborhood (and other city neighborhoods in general) without forcing people out of their homes unfairly, so this is most certainly a worthy effort.
1,517
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,517

PostNov 30, 2007#10

There needs to be a shift in the discourse of gentrification on all fronts. To "supporters," it's urban renewal minus the demolition--in other words, a completely positive cleansing and removal of all of the things that make city life undesirable. To "opponents," it's a classist conspiracy that targets little old ladies on SSI in wheelchairs and kicks them to the curb so that a yuppie can open an art gallery in the space within walking distance to gelato and crepes.



I totally understand where these people are coming from, but I do believe they (and usually the other "pro" gentrification side) are wrong. St. Louis-style gentrification leaves all neighborhoods affordable. Perhaps certain streets get pricier and property taxes rise disproportionately, but the poor, even the very poor, are able to live in Soulard, Central West End, and Benton Park.



I am all about preservation, but neighborhood ecology is such that even if the housing stock does not change, the demographics may. As James Howard Kunstler puts it, discuss of gentrification today by well-meaning opponents is about "literally keeping the poor in their place." If residents with a great stake in keeping an area stable arrive (say, an investment in a house or local business), the neighborhood stands to improve. Poorer residents who own homes should perhaps have their property taxes frozen, but they too will benefit from increased watchfulness.



I have spoken extensively with poor residents of north St. Louis via canvassing and other door-to-door operations. It's always funny to hear from them that their two greatest concerns are crime and gentrification. Alderman Bosley, when I was in his home for a canvassing effort, echoed the same concerns. And I'm thinking, there simply must be a discussion of a balance. Why does no one think: well, we need investment and activity in the neighborhood in order to fight crime, but we don't want to outprice our upstanding, but impecunious community members.



Sadly, it's not even as if many of these people opposed to gentrification of any form simply love their neighborhoods and do not want them to change for that reason. It's an entrenched "fort" mentality that I recognize as a response to racism and discrimination over generations that says, "well I hate this place, but it's mine, and no one's going to take it from me."
2,093
Life MemberLife Member
2,093

PostNov 30, 2007#11

"I totally understand where these people are coming from, but I do believe they (and usually the other "pro" gentrification side) are wrong. St. Louis-style gentrification leaves all neighborhoods affordable. Perhaps certain streets get pricier and property taxes rise disproportionately, but the poor, even the very poor, are able to live in Soulard, Central West End, and Benton Park."



good point Matt. I would invite anyone from the Grove who is concerned about gentrification moving them out of a neighborhood to come down to Soulard. It's about as "complete" as a neighborhood can be there are still plenty of people paying $400 a month for rent.



Most of these folks are just resistant to change, but they have to realize that change in neighborhoods like the Grove leads to far more positive than negative effects. And even if the market does lead to a slight increase in rents overall, wouldn't paying $50 a month be worth it to not have crack dealers next door?
1,517
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,517

PostNov 30, 2007#12

Well, remember that St. Louis is a place of extreme poverty. Even 400 for a two bedroom can be somewhat oppressive to a large part of the poor population.



Still, affordable options are out there and can be expanded healthfully into developed and stable neighborhoods, in my opinion.
11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostDec 04, 2007#13

Anyone have a good suggestion for reading about affordable housing? I found a study on the Brookings website that mentions Murphy Park here in St. Louis so I plan to get in touch with McCormack Baron Salazar. Where else should I be reading?
801
Super MemberSuper Member
801

PostDec 07, 2007#14

Get rid of the property tax and the gentrification "problem" is solved. No one is forced out, but neighborhood can still improve. Win-win situation for everyone!



Now, if they are complaining about the loss of subsidized housing, that is a very good thing. Section 8 housing should be banned in St. Louis city!
1,517
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,517

PostDec 07, 2007#15

From HERE




In Boston, St. Louis, Baltimore, Chicago, and Philadelphia, opposition to Section 8 has flared up in neighborhoods where residents claimed that recipients were responsible for rising rates of crime and disorder. In many cases, further investigation revealed that the disruptive families were not Section 8 recipients. For example, Boston's Mayor Flynn convened a Committee on Subsidized Housing Issues to address concerns that disruptive behavior by Section 8 residents was contributing to the decline of stable neighborhoods. The committee issued its final report in 1993, concluding that most of the behavior problems attributed to the program turned out to involve unsubsidized families, not Section 8 recipients. The same has been true in several other cities, where investigations into community complaints have concluded that few—if any—of the "problem families" were, in fact, Section 8 recipients. Nevertheless, concerns about antisocial and disruptive behavior by Section 8 recipients persist in some communities.


You can't simply rid of public housing. No policy issue is that cut and dry. The opposition to Section 8, which attempts to address the problems of concentrating the poor in one area, represents yet another vaguely disguised racist and classist policy directive.



It simply will never end.
480
Full MemberFull Member
480

PostDec 07, 2007#16

Matt Drops The H wrote:From HERE




In Boston, St. Louis, Baltimore, Chicago, and Philadelphia, opposition to Section 8 has flared up in neighborhoods where residents claimed that recipients were responsible for rising rates of crime and disorder. In many cases, further investigation revealed that the disruptive families were not Section 8 recipients. For example, Boston's Mayor Flynn convened a Committee on Subsidized Housing Issues to address concerns that disruptive behavior by Section 8 residents was contributing to the decline of stable neighborhoods. The committee issued its final report in 1993, concluding that most of the behavior problems attributed to the program turned out to involve unsubsidized families, not Section 8 recipients. The same has been true in several other cities, where investigations into community complaints have concluded that few—if any—of the "problem families" were, in fact, Section 8 recipients. Nevertheless, concerns about antisocial and disruptive behavior by Section 8 recipients persist in some communities.


You can't simply rid of public housing. No policy issue is that cut and dry. The opposition to Section 8, which attempts to address the problems of concentrating the poor in one area, represents yet another vaguely disguised racist and classist policy directive.



It simply will never end.


Wait. The idea that the poor should not be clumped together is classist? The desire to spread the impoverished among those of higher income is racist? Yeahhh... that makes sense :?
1,517
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,517

PostDec 07, 2007#17

I am not all about forcing an inordinate amount of affordable housing in neighborhoods. I believe that neighborhoods and cities can and should develop organically. Unfortunately, this often leads to market failures: a cluster of jobs and opportunities in areas where it is difficult to afford housing for the low income. Section 8 never comprises a majority of houses on or block or in a neighborhood. Not even somewhat close. That would be completely contrary to the whole program's intent.



Is the opposition to Section 8 racist? Often so. The unresearched statement that Section 8 is damaging to city neighborhoods is the assumption that a) any black person in my neighborhood must be receiving Section 8, and b) that they cause all the problems in the neighborhood.



People to need to wake up and do some research. If you accept all of these assumptions, you ignore complexities, and often, even realities.



(EDIT: Oh, and Soulard, I believe you mistook me. The appositive clause refers to Section 8, not the opposition to Section 8.]
120
Junior MemberJunior Member
120

PostDec 13, 2007#18

Matt Drops The H wrote:I am not all about forcing an inordinate amount of affordable housing in neighborhoods. I believe that neighborhoods and cities can and should develop organically. Unfortunately, this often leads to market failures: a cluster of jobs and opportunities in areas where it is difficult to afford housing for the low income. Section 8 never comprises a majority of houses on or block or in a neighborhood. Not even somewhat close. That would be completely contrary to the whole program's intent.



Is the opposition to Section 8 racist? Often so. The unresearched statement that Section 8 is damaging to city neighborhoods is the assumption that a) any black person in my neighborhood must be receiving Section 8, and b) that they cause all the problems in the neighborhood.



People to need to wake up and do some research. If you accept all of these assumptions, you ignore complexities, and often, even realities.



(EDIT: Oh, and Soulard, I believe you mistook me. The appositive clause refers to Section 8, not the opposition to Section 8.]


Maybe I am just too slow or uneducated, but can someone explain to me what other choice we have other than grouping section 8 housing together? Do you maybe suggest that a person who is getting a check from the government should get to live in Chesterfield or Town and Country? That's fine and dandy, but who is going to foot that bill?

I consider myself liberal and vote so, but one has to realize that services that are provided by the government (i.e. Section 8, food stamp, etc...) have to come with certain disadvantages. In the case of section 8, the disadvantage is living in a lower-class neighborhood. It has nothing to do with racism or me hating the poor, just a basic understanding of economy. And I am not saying that we need to throw all poor people together, and DEFINITELY not saying that we need to ban section 8 from any neighborhood. But if a neighborhood's house/rent value is growing up, I also don't think we need to artificially force the rent to be lower. But that's just my two cents...
12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostDec 13, 2007#19

^True. And I, as a taxpayer, certainly don't want to have to pay market rates just so a low-income family can live in Town and Country.
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostDec 13, 2007#20

You can find cheap-ass apartment buildings in almost any area, ok, maybe not Town & Country, but certainly most of the suburbs inside the 270/255 loop. Most people don't want to live in them, or near them, but they exist.
120
Junior MemberJunior Member
120

PostDec 13, 2007#21

jlblues wrote:You can find cheap-ass apartment buildings in almost any area, ok, maybe not Town & Country, but certainly most of the suburbs inside the 270/255 loop. Most people don't want to live in them, or near them, but they exist.


I don't know any places in Chesterfield, Creve Coeur (and obviously Town & Country, Ladue...). Yes, U. City has a few section 8 houses, and that's fine, BUT all I am trying to say is that if someone is willing to pay more to live in those apartments because the area's demand is rising, they should be allowed to do so.



Instead, it seems to be labeled gentrification!!!
1,517
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,517

PostDec 13, 2007#22

drunkrusski wrote:
Matt Drops The H wrote:I am not all about forcing an inordinate amount of affordable housing in neighborhoods. I believe that neighborhoods and cities can and should develop organically. Unfortunately, this often leads to market failures: a cluster of jobs and opportunities in areas where it is difficult to afford housing for the low income. Section 8 never comprises a majority of houses on or block or in a neighborhood. Not even somewhat close. That would be completely contrary to the whole program's intent.



Is the opposition to Section 8 racist? Often so. The unresearched statement that Section 8 is damaging to city neighborhoods is the assumption that a) any black person in my neighborhood must be receiving Section 8, and b) that they cause all the problems in the neighborhood.



People to need to wake up and do some research. If you accept all of these assumptions, you ignore complexities, and often, even realities.



(EDIT: Oh, and Soulard, I believe you mistook me. The appositive clause refers to Section 8, not the opposition to Section 8.]


Maybe I am just too slow or uneducated, but can someone explain to me what other choice we have other than grouping section 8 housing together? Do you maybe suggest that a person who is getting a check from the government should get to live in Chesterfield or Town and Country? That's fine and dandy, but who is going to foot that bill?

I consider myself liberal and vote so, but one has to realize that services that are provided by the government (i.e. Section 8, food stamp, etc...) have to come with certain disadvantages. In the case of section 8, the disadvantage is living in a lower-class neighborhood. It has nothing to do with racism or me hating the poor, just a basic understanding of economy. And I am not saying that we need to throw all poor people together, and DEFINITELY not saying that we need to ban section 8 from any neighborhood. But if a neighborhood's house/rent value is growing up, I also don't think we need to artificially force the rent to be lower. But that's just my two cents...


Well, one study has shown that clustering Section 8 in already declining neighborhoods does accelerate the decline. But putting scatter site Section 8 properties in established neighborhoods has no significant effect.



I think that if a municipality would allow a small number of Section 8 properties, especially near to job opportunities in more well off municipalities, everyone involved would benefit. You're not exactly going to bring a crime ring with you into, say, Brentwood, if a couple properties are partially subsidized.
2,821
Life MemberLife Member
2,821

PostDec 13, 2007#23

I know of three or four apartments that will be available for the foreseeable future in a certain apartment complex in Kirkwood. :twisted:
12
New MemberNew Member
12

PostDec 13, 2007#24

The general feeling I get from this discussion is that there are taxpayers, and then there are Sec. 8 recipients.



Whenever you look at taxes paid and how they are spent; however you decide to do the break down, you'll find that some group receives back more than they put in. Those receiving Sec. 8 assistance pay taxes just like the rest of us. The fact that some may end up receiving more back in return shouldn't disenfranchise Sec. 8 recipients any more than the same scenario disenfranchises States like New Mexico and Missouri when it comes to Federal dollars.



Often gentrification is just a hard reality brought about by market forces. But when tax money is used to help improve an area of the city, and assistance is given to developers, it seems pretty straightforward that the aim should be to benefit all residents. How to achieve that goal should be the real issue here.



At the very least everyone should be afforded a voice.
1,448
Super ModeratorSuper Moderator
1,448

PostDec 13, 2007#25

^Also little recognized is the somewhat schizophrenic nature of our national character. On the one hand we like to say that we're egalitarian. On the other, we say that liberty is our most cherished value. These two principles are often in conflict, and because we refuse to acknowledge this tension, these types of arguments will continue forever.



"We must help the poor! They're our brothers and sisters! This isn't fair!"



v.



"People are free to do as they wish! Why take from me to give to another? People should be accountable for their actions!"
Read more posts (10 remaining)
Share