statistik

http://csp.sagepub.com

Critical Social Policy

DOI: 10.1177/0261018308098396 2009; 29; 100 Critical Social Policy

Joanna Duke city'

Mixed income housing policy and public housing residents' `right to the

http://csp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/1/100 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Critical Social Policy Additional services and information for

http://csp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://csp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://csp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/1/100 Citations

by eko setyowati on April 28, 2009 http://csp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://csp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://csp.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

http://csp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/1/100


100

© Critical Social Policy Ltd 2009 0261– 0183 98 Vol. 29(1): 100 – 120; 098396SAGE PUBLICATIONS, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC 10.1177/0261018308098396

J O A N N A D U K E

Arizona State University

Mixed income housing policy and public housing residents’ ‘right to the city’

AbstractEconomic integration through various mixed income housing strategies has become the dominant housing policy in many parts of the world. In the United States, this strategy involves a restructuring of space often with conflict. Henri Lefebvre’s ‘right to the city’ is used to conduct a socio-spatial analysis of mixed income housing programmes, including the degree that integration increases public housing residents’ access to diverse neighbourhoods, the use value of a city, and participatory space. The paper concludes that mixed income housing has the potential to increase public housing residents’ ‘right to the city’ but that policy implementers need to be proactive in the face of barriers such as commu-nity opposition to subsidized housing that can hinder the right. Future research should focus on evaluating the benefits of mixed income housing policy for neediest residents and ways to increase their rights to social, economic and political space.

Key words: economic integration, poverty deconcentration

For decades there has been a struggle for spatial rights in public places. The right to vote, the right to march, and the right to sleep on park benches are all battles that have been fought in urban public spaces (Mitchell, 2003). Over the past few decades, the right to live in low poverty, safe neighbourhoods has been sought through housing policy that aims to transform space for public housing residents. Transforma-tion occurs through the redevelopment of public housing into mixed income developments or through relocating residents into a diverse range of neighbourhoods, including suburban neighbourhoods, via poverty dispersal strategies. As is often the case when a disenfranchised group seeks spatial rights, a struggle takes place as conflicting interests clash.



D U K E — M I X E D I N C O M E H O U S I N G P O L I C Y 101

Henri Lefebvre (1996) poignantly illustrates this struggle for space in his ‘right to the city’ manifesto where he asserts that cities are made up of diverse groups of individuals who should all have the right to participate, play, create, and live in urban spaces. The struggle has been extended to suburban spaces as well, where homogeneity has long dominated. Lefebvre (1996) calls for an end to segregation and a re-creation of cities with the input of diverse interests. Segregation lim-its the right people have to space, not only physical space, but political, social, and economic space as well. ‘Right to the city’ is a call for a new paradigm in policy-making that discourages segregation on all fronts through access to space, and, moreover, the ability to effect change. As Harvey (2003) asserts, ‘the right to the city is not merely a right of access to what already exists, but a right to change it after our heart’s desire’ (p. 939). To that end, public housing residents who gain access to low poverty environments must also be able to actively engage their surroundings in a way that is meaningful to them. Physical integra-tion, often seen as panacea for public housing residents, might not be sufficient.

According to Purcell (2003), Lefebvre’s ‘right to the city’ is two-fold. He summarizes the right as ‘(1) the right to appropriate urban space; and (2) the right to participate centrally in the production of urban space’ (Purcell, 2003: 577, emphasis in the original). This paper asserts that there is a third dimension inherent in Lefebvre’s ‘right to the city’, (3) the right to diversity. Lefebvre (1996) places an emphasis on combating segregation that has kept inhabitants from appropriation and participation.

The major themes of Lefebvre’s manifesto have been a part of the urban dialogue for decades. Seminal urban scholar Jane Jacobs warned that poorly planned public housing developments were isolating and detrimental to the health of urban areas (Jacobs, 1961). Through a reconfiguration of space with diversity as an integral element, she envi-sioned vibrant, renewed cities. Iris Marion Young (1999) questioned whether residential desegregation through integration efforts would lead to social justice. Her ‘together-in-difference’ theory echoes the notion that physical integration isn’t enough – there is a need to appro-priate resources beyond physical space in order for residents to achieve access to the polity. Logan and Molotch (1987) decried the prioritizing of private property (exchange value) over the use value of a city. Like Lefebvre, they saw how valorizing urban spaces has further disenfran-chised the poor. The current paper contends that Lefebvre’s ‘right to



102 C R I T I C A L S O C I A L P O L I C Y 2 9 ( 1 )

the city’ embodies these common themes in a way that is useful for policy-makers, namely by enshrining them as a right.

Though somewhat abstract, Lefebvre’s ‘right to the city’ can be grounded in public policy, particularly housing policy. Where one lives influences one’s life chances, health, and well-being (Dreier et al., 2004). Therefore, it stands to reason that housing policy can be used as a tool to help extend the right of low income individuals to inhabit healthier communities. Moreover, beyond merely relocating residents to communities with fewer social problems, policy that embodies ‘right to the city’ would encourage residents to become socially integrated, and, further, play an integral role in place-making.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the dominant poverty decon-centration policies from a socio-spatial perspective to determine if mixed income housing policy has the potential to increase public hous-ing residents’ ‘right to the city’. Some assumptions underlying current policy are that public housing residents will benefit from the amenities that more affluent residents attract, will gain access to employment and networks, and will learn social norms and behaviours of middle class residents (Kleit, 2005; Joseph et al., 2007). Seldom assumed or asked is whether residents will maintain cultural attributes, gain access to political space, or transform their new communities in a way that is meaningful to them.

Policy-makers know relatively little about the outcomes of mixed income housing, and scholars have raised concerns that implementa-tion is becoming widespread, despite the dearth of research (Brophy and Smith, 1997; Schwartz and Tajbakhsh, 1997; Kleit, 2005; Joseph et al., 2007). Underscoring these concerns, the current paper asserts that beyond the physical aspects of economic integration, policy imple-menters and researchers should be concerned with the opportunities for political, social, and economic integration of public housing residents. That is, after years of spatial disenfranchisement, public housing resi-dents may need additional support to overcome the barriers faced in mixed income settings, including opposition by their more affluent neighbours. Support is especially pertinent, given that mixed income strategies often integrate on the basis of race as well as class, causing institutions that have persistently segregated neighbourhoods to be challenged.

The paper proceeds with a description of mixed income housing, including public housing mobility programmes and market rate, mixed income developments. Next, it describes the opposition that such




programmes have evoked as a significant barrier to integration. Mixed income housing is then analysed using a ‘right to the city’ framework. Finally, policy implications from the analysis will set forth recommen-dations for increasing the spatial rights of public housing residents.

Mixed income housing

Economic integration initiatives have been widespread in the US, Western European countries, Australia, and New Zealand. The wide-spread popularity of mixed income housing policy can be attributed to two forces: 1) the awareness that concentrated poverty is detrimental to its residents’ lives and the belief that low poverty environments can lead to positive social outcomes, and 2) the need to regenerate urban centres for economic development purposes (Joseph et al., 2007; Kleit, 2005). In general, there is an assumption that mixed income housing will include some sort of subsidized housing in proximity to market rate housing and that public housing residents will thrive in this set-ting. This paper focuses on two types of housing tenure that can result in mixed income environments for public housing residents: poverty dispersal programmes that relocate public housing residents into more affluent neighbourhoods with vouchers (tenant based) and developments which contain some mix of market rate housing and public housing (unit based).

This paper will mainly focus on US programmes; however, it has implications for all nations who have moved toward a more market-based, mixed income housing strategy. The US programmes might be unique in their more pronounced opposition from affluent residents; however, the degree that public housing residents achieve positive social outcomes in mixed income settings appears to be a concern among all nations involved in such programmes (see, for example, Kleit, 2005; Hoatson and Grace, 2002; Arthurson, 2002). Moreover, there is evi-dence that race and class relations are growing concerns around the world (Young, 1999), although there is some debate over the degree and implications of segregation in Europe (see Johnston et al., 2005; Simpson, 2004).

Several poverty dispersal programmes have been implemented in the US over the past several decades, beginning with the seminal Gautreaux Demonstration, which served as a model for tenant based




dispersal. The 1976 Gautreaux Demonstration, a result of the 1967 Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority case, was the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) first large-scale attempt at reversing a history of discriminatory housing practices (Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum, 2000). In the Gautreaux case, public housing tenants sued the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) for segregating public housing based on race. Federal courts found both the CHA and HUD liable for segregating public housing through site selection and tenant placement. The CHA was forced to desegregate its public housing in the city limits, and a later ruling mandated that HUD implement a metropolitan-wide desegregation plan. Residents were allowed to use Section 8 certificates to move to low poverty, mostly white neighbour-hoods and suburbs. Additionally, the CHA had to build a percentage of its new housing developments in low poverty areas (Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum, 2000). This ruling was unprecedented and allowed public housing residents to become pioneers in suburban frontiers (Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum, 2000).

Moving to Opportunity (MTO) is a more recent example of a ten-ant based poverty deconcentration programme. MTO programmes, first implemented in the early 1990s, provided Section 8 vouchers to public housing residents so that they could move into low poverty areas (Goetz, 2003). The goal of the programmes was to examine the impact of the new neighbourhoods on the life chances of participants through an experimental design. Participants in the MTO demonstration were randomly assigned to three different situations: an experimental group that received vouchers, counselling, and had to move to neighbour-hoods with less than 10 per cent poverty; a comparison group that just received vouchers; and a control group that remained in public housing (see Goering and Feins, 2003).

The federal HOPE (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) VI programme was another housing programme initiated in the early 1990s, which allows cities to apply for grants to redevelop their public housing stock. The HOPE VI programme was intended to be a unit based programme; it demolishes public housing developments (deemed insolvable) and replaces them with lower density, mixed tenure units. Residents of the targeted housing development are given vouchers to relocate to temporary, or in some cases, permanent housing. Despite the intention of providing the opportunity for some public housing residents to return to their neighbourhood of origin, in some cases the number of units reserved for the public housing tenants is fewer than




the original number. Moreover, most residents choose to stay in their relocated situation or are not able to come back, owing to screening criteria. In these scenarios, HOPE VI acts as a tenant based, dispersal programme as well as a unit based project (Goetz, 2003). Nonethe-less, the resulting HOPE VI development resembles the second type of mixed income housing with which this paper is concerned, where developments contain some mix of market rate, subsidized and public housing units.

Both strategies aim to mix income groups to differing degrees. In the case of dispersal programmes, individuals are physically relocated to parts of a region they would not otherwise be able to move to. Mixed income developments, such as HOPE VI developments encourage once segregated spaces to become more diverse. As has been the case in other attempts to restructure space, opposition has been common.

Opposition to mixed income housing

Around the US, economic integration attempts have been met with resistance by individuals in the receiving communities of dispersal pro-grammes. Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum (2000) describe how implemen-tation of the Gautreaux scattered site programme made little progress within the first two decades of the federal mandate. In part, the stalling of the scattered sites was due to resistance by receiving communities who vehemently opposed development. This race and class based resis-tance was coming not just from the residents in the communities, but from political and administrative leaders as well. ‘The CHA, Mayor Daley, the City Council and organized residents combined to prevent the program from getting started on a timely basis, thus establish-ing a pattern that plagued the program for many years’ (Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum, 2000: 28). The 1980s continued to see resistance by the community as residents feared the detrimental effects public hous-ing could have on their neighbourhood, but eventually the scattered sites were implemented as mandated, and resistance from the receiving community decreased after the relocations took place (Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum, 2000).

In 1986, the city of Yonkers was forced to desegregate its pub-lic housing through legal decree. Briggs et al. (1999) described the intense resistance that occurred when the judge ordered scattered site




developments to be built in white neighbourhoods. Similar to the Gautreaux opposition, homeowners feared a ‘decline in property values, white flight, increase in crime, and even a weakening of the social fab-ric’ (Briggs et al., 1999: 32). Opposition and attempts of homeowners to derail relocation plans are recurring themes in efforts to deconcen-trate poverty (see Popkin et al., 2003). The attempts at opposition to desegregation are not always successful as relocation programmes have often occurred in spite of some residents’ efforts to keep low income housing out of their neighbourhoods.

On one hand, physical integration might be viewed as a successful policy outcome. On the other hand, if one looks at opposition as an ideology, deeply ingrained and persistent, rather than a mere bump in the road along the way to deconcentration, one can begin to conceive potential barriers for public housing residents that go beyond individ-ual circumstance or geography. In a community where mixed income initiatives are vehemently opposed, one has to wonder how integrated less fortunate neighbours can become in terms of political incorpora-tion, social integration, and economic opportunities. Affluent neigh-bours are inextricably linked to the success of mixed income projects.

In spite of opposition from more affluent communities, poverty deconcentration has become the dominant housing strategy in the US. Galster et al. (2003) succinctly summarize two perspectives of the pol-icy debate as follows:

One side sees the evils of concentrated poverty and the expanded oppor-tunities and quality of life for residents when their assisted housing is located in low-poverty neighborhoods. The other side sees an invasion of undesirable neighbors who will undermine their quality of life, security, and property values. (p. 1)

The ill effects of concentrated poverty, such as high crime rates, vio-lence, unemployment and poor health have been well documented in the literature (see Wilson, 1987; Ellen and Turner, 1997). Some stud-ies have shown that a move from an area of concentrated poverty to a more affluent community can be very positive for families in terms of greater economic opportunities, better schools for children and a reduc-tion in crime (see, for example, Varady and Walker, 2003).

Less attention has been given to the other side of the debate, the con-cerns of the receiving communities’ residents, who are often dismissed as being close-minded and ignorant. Galster et al. (2003) point out that




receiving community residents’ concerns are legitimate and should be studied. Several studies have examined the effects of subsidized hous-ing on property values and have found the fears to be unwarranted (see Briggs et al., 1999). Galster et al. (2003) do a much more thorough examination of receiving community outcomes. A summary statement of their findings is that for the most part the negative effects that resi-dents fear have not occurred, however, policy implementers need to be aware that there are some situations in which adverse effects can occur, such as when public housing is placed in already vulnerable neighbour-hoods (Galster et al., 2003). Based on receiving community research it stands to reason that more affluent neighbourhoods are better candi-dates for assisted housing. However, these are also the neighbourhoods that put up the greatest resistance (Schwartz and Tajbakhsh, 1997). In addition to examining the impact of assisted housing on communities, researchers should also study the impact of opposition, blatant or dor-mant, on low income neighbours’ ‘right to the city’.

Opposition has had a significant impact on the implementation of mixed income programmes to date. Strict screening procedures and reductions in the number of subsidized units are examples of how neigh-bourhood opposition has impacted implementation and limited the number of residents served (Goetz, 2003; Popkin et al., 2000). More-over, opposition may have deterred some residents from venturing into certain neighbourhoods, limiting their access to opportunities (Galster et al., 2003). Further, Popkin et al. (2003) note that community resis-tance was a significant barrier to implementing housing desegregation plans. In some cases, housing authorities have made decisions not to place public housing in these areas in part due to the response or flat out refusal from the white suburbs or neighbourhoods (Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum, 2000; Goetz, 2003).

Mixed income outcomes

A few concerns stand out in mixed income housing literature that are relevant to the spatial rights of public housing residents in their mixed income settings. First, there is a definite gap in research on the processes that lead to outcomes in different neighbourhoods. Several scholars point out that little is known about the variables in a specific neighbourhood that lead to positive or negative outcomes (Schwartz




and Tajbakhsh, 1997; Joseph et al., 2007). Research in this area is important if one is to determine if outcomes can be linked to the com-munity. Clampet-Lundquist (2004) discusses how process may impact outcomes:

The inability to become part of the local social structure in the short term, at least, may be why we do not see dramatic effects on individual outcomes for families that moved to more affluent neighborhoods through housing mobility programs. (Clampet-Lundquist, 2004: 442)

Clampet-Lundquist (2004) interviewed women who were relocated to make way for a HOPE VI development. She found evidence that resi-dents who used Section 8 subsidies to move into neighbourhoods with less poverty faced some barriers to forming social ties, at least in the short term. There has been little research on social ties and integration in mixed income housing (see Brophy and Smith, 1997; Kleit, 2005; Joseph et al., 2007).

Second, there is evidence that some public housing residents are better off after relocation, but that there are still barriers for other resi-dents who are left behind or relocate to high poverty areas (Popkin, 2006). The percentage of residents relocating into low poverty areas is relatively small in order to keep the programmes politically viable, so the number of residents who actually have a choice about where to live is limited (Galster et al., 2003). Resistance from affluent neighbours before and after implementation may limit their choice (Goetz, 2003).

Third, and perhaps most pertinent, the underlying cause of seg-regation is not necessarily being addressed by mixed income housing implementation. That is, attempts at economic integration do not seem to address the underlying discrimination, race and class based, that has sustained neighbourhood segregation. Following the 1968 Fair Housing Act, egregious housing discrimination was outlawed. In part this Act was inspired by the theory that individuals living next door to each other would learn more about each other, and their prejudices and stereotypes would thus decrease (Massey and Denton, 1993; Keating, 1994). This belief was supported by Allport’s (1954) seminal contact theory study. His main contention was that ‘segre-gation markedly enhances the visibility of a group; it makes it seem larger and more menacing than it is’ (1954: 269). Allport’s study of racial residential integration found that different groups’ attitudes toward each other were more favourable over time. The hostility that




occurred before neighbourhood integration eventually subsided. Given the disproportionate number of minorities living in public housing, economic integration often entails racial integration as well. However, the necessary conditions for contact theory to be applicable to mixed income housing might not exist. There is evidence that this theory does not hold when there are significant inequalities between these groups (Wittig and Grant-Thompson, 1998).

Some contend that economic segregation has increased to the point where it has become as pervasive a problem as racial segregation, if not more so (Dreier et al., 2004). Still, there is substantial evidence that race remains a significant factor in neighbourhood preferences (Massey and Denton, 1993). Many scholars have emphasized class differences over race (see for example Jargowsky, 1996; Wilson, 1987), yet there is clearly evidence that race cannot be factored out of the equation and still plays a prominent role in spatial inequality (Massey and Fischer, 2000). Massey and Fischer (2000) found in their analysis that racial/ethnic segregation interacts with structural factors, such as income inequality, to exacerbate concentrated poverty. Their research lends support for policies that directly target segregation. How effective mixed income housing strategies are at deconcentrating poverty and increasing struc-tural factors for public housing residents might also depend on how effective they are at desegregating the urban poor. Thus far it remains unclear whether policy is focused on broadly desegregating as well as deconcentrating public housing residents.

Smith (2006) analyses the rationale and assumptions underlying economic integration. She questions whether current integration strat-egies will actually ameliorate poverty. Rather, the strategy is reminis-cent of urban renewal programmes in that ‘it will do little to benefit the very poor and a lot to benefit the middle-class and private develop-ers’ (Smith, 2006: 279). Indeed, the assumption that low income indi-viduals will be able to reach self-sufficiency by having middle class role models to emulate does seem unrealistic without taking some measures beyond the physical move. Moreover, there is some concern that mixed income housing will increase class consciousness and lead to tension and feelings of social isolation (Arthurson, 2002). Proponents of eco-nomic integration may recognize NIMBY (not in my backyard)-ism as a barrier. However, there is little research on ways to overcome NIMBY attitudes and achieve meaningful social integration. Given the inherent challenges to economic integration, the following sections will evaluate mixed income housing programmes with a socio-spatial framework to




explore if low income public housing residents’ ‘right to the city’ has the potential to increase in a mixed income housing setting.

Socio-spatial analysis of mixed income housing

Since the 1970s, housing authorities have begun relocating public housing beyond the realm of the inner cities, and in effect, trans-formed urban and suburban spaces. In some cases, poverty dispersal programmes relocate residents into private developments where they otherwise could not live without subsidy – a radical transformation from relegating low income individuals into desolate parts of town. The right to live and participate in low poverty urban spaces is espe-cially pertinent, because these areas are the new contested terrain for low income housing.

The right to diversity

There are two dimensions that can be used to determine if diversity is an outcome of mixed income programmes, neighbourhood compo-sition and design. Neighbourhood composition refers to the degree that dispersal programmes have led to public housing residents’ living in low poverty neighbourhoods. Current housing policy is based on the assumption that public housing residents will have access to more and better opportunities if they live in low poverty neighbourhoods. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, non-vulnerable neighbourhoods are better hosts for assisted housing in that their neighbourhoods have had fewer negative effects from proximity to assisted housing. Therefore, it makes sense that an outcome measure for this policy would be the type of neighbourhoods in which public housing residents are living.

Poverty dispersal programmes aim to relocate public housing residents into low poverty communities. Although the result of the HOPE VI programme is a diverse development, the success HOPE VI projects have in fostering diversity is difficult to measure given that the percentage of original residents who return to HOPE VI devel-opments is relatively low (Popkin, 2006; Goetz, 2003). Moreover, the amount of replacement units for public housing is substantially fewer than in the original development, causing some concern that the programme results in a decrease in affordable housing in the area (Popkin, 2006). If most public housing residents are not coming back




to the HOPE VI site, it is necessary to consider the composition of post-relocation neighbourhoods.

Many HOPE VI relocatees leave their extremely destitute neigh-bourhoods, but there is evidence that many have been relocated to rel-atively poor neighbourhoods (Goetz, 2003). A panel study following residents relocated for HOPE VI found that residents’ neighbourhoods were better than their original neighbourhoods, but still worse than US national average public housing conditions (Comey, 2004). More recent research has found that housing conditions had significantly improved for HOPE VI relocatees, yet residents were still moving into predomi-nately minority neighbourhoods (Popkin, 2006; Comey, 2007; Buron et al., 2007). Comey’s (2007) brief on the HOPE VI panel study also notes that 38 per cent of displaced residents continue to live in public housing in concentrated poverty. Goetz (2003) notes that the findings are similar to what is occurring with voucher programmes around the nation.

There are a number of factors that could impede relocatees’ integra-tion into low poverty communities. Residents may choose to move to other public housing developments or high income neighbourhoods, as stated above. They may be happy with where they relocated with their voucher, regardless of the demographics. Some residents leaving public housing face stricter screening in the private market and may have poor credit histories to overcome, limiting their access to low pov-erty areas (Popkin, 2006). Dispersal programmes also do not take into consideration the discrimination faced by minorities in the housing market (Pendall, 2000). If affordable housing units are decreased by dispersal programmes and some residents face significant barriers to market rate developments, then what options are left for the ‘hard to house’ residents?

The second dimension of diversity attempts to make mixed income housing more politically viable and limit NIMBY-ism through design. Brophy and Smith (1997) contend that mixed income housing needs to be designed in such a way so that public housing and moderate units cannot be distinguished from market rate units. Other scholars have made similar arguments based on findings that the design of mixed income housing matters (see Galster et al., 2003; Schwartz and Tajbakhsh, 1997). ‘Seamless integration’ is promoted through design so that subsidized units look the same as market units. This is neces-sary so as not to draw attention to politically unpopular affordable housing, but it also provides a homogenization to the neighbourhood.




Talen (2006) describes the paradox involved in designing for diversity, ‘city designs advocated by New Urbanists, for example, are predicated on commonality but intended to foster diversity’ (p. 234). These strategies are limited in that they aim to downplay diversity and ulti-mately allow for only a limited diversity. Moreover, as Simpson (2004) argues integration strategies can result in taking attention away from social issues through making problems ‘less visible but no less real’ (p. 664). Further, Young (1999) contends that integration strategies often place the onus of successful integration on the entering group. ‘Socially dominant groups set the terms of integration to which the formerly segregated groups must conform to the expectations of the dominant group’ (Young, 1999: 244).

The right to appropriation

The right to appropriate is defined as utilizing the city’s use value without its exchange value taking precedence (Purcell, 2003). The use value of a city is its creative, imaginative uses by the residents, while exchange value refers to capital generating activities. How all residents live, play, communicate, and spend their daily lives dictates the use value of a city. In the case of mixed income policy, it often seems that lower income residents’ use value is sacrificed to protect the exchange value of more affluent neighbours.

Society places a priority on the exchange value of space by parti-tioning land in such a way that makes it suitable for sale in the real estate market (Logan and Molotch, 1987). ‘The conception of urban space as private property, as a commodity to be valorized (or used to valorize other commodities) by the capitalist production pro-cess, is specifically what the right to appropriation stands against’ (Purcell, 2002: 103). When it comes to use and exchange values, housing goes beyond the physical structure of a house itself. People pay based on locational amenities as well as the physical condition of the house. They will fight to keep the location’s exchange value intact by maintaining neighbourhood stability (Logan and Molotch, 1987). Low income individuals are seen as threats to the exchange value of a neighbourhood (Logan and Molotch, 1987; Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum, 2000). This threat conflicts with public housing residents moving into moderate, middle and upper income neighbour-hoods and having access to what Logan and Molotch (1987) refer to as the ‘daily round’, which includes decent shopping, schools, childcare,




health services and other amenities. There is an inherent conflict over property as an investment and property as a home and a place where people live out daily activities (Marcuse and Keating, 2006). When housing is referred to as an investment, affluent communities will organize to protect their property values, and there is little low income individuals can do to ensure their right to the use value of a neighbourhood, in part because they lack the political organizational skills of their more affluent neighbours (Logan and Molotch, 1987).

Researchers have suggested that strict oversight is necessary for mixed income development projects and dispersal programmes (Galster et al., 2003; Schwartz and Tajbakhsh, 1997). Implementation strategies such as these focus on maintaining the economic value of a community and could lead to affluent residents’ believing that their rights super-sede those of their lower income neighbours. In turn, this exclusive ideology could limit public housing residents’ access to the use value of the neighbourhood. Design elements have been used to deter crime and create community, but beyond design, are residents actually creating community in these spaces? Currently there is little research focused on the use value of mixed income programmes. In order to answer some of these questions, research should be conducted on amenity usage, such as picnic table, playground, and library visits, and perceptions residents have of their access to amenities.

The right to participation

The third dimension of the right to the city, participation, is inextri-cably linked to the previous two dimensions. Under the right to the city, participation refers to having a significant role in decision- making within a community. ‘The right to centrality thus involves both a right to take a leading role in decision-making as well as the right to physi-cally occupy, to live in and shape the central areas of the city’ (Purcell, 2003: 578). Lefebvre (1996) contends that the poor and working class must ‘contribute to the reconstruction of centrality destroyed by a strat-egy of segregation’ (p. 154). If any true transformation and integration is to occur in mixed income housing, marginalized groups would have to be involved in the process of relocation and have infrastructure in place for participation.

Dispersal programmes are ideally supposed to provide choice, but there are two reasons this doesn’t happen. First, forced relocations often take place, thus eliminating the option of staying put (Wilen and




Stasell, 2006). Mandatory and voluntary relocation can lead to different outcomes for residents (Goetz, 2003). Goetz (2003) found that manda-tory relocatees were more likely to relocate to the inner city than were voluntary relocatees. They were also more likely to live in economically and racially segregated areas. Second, is there really a choice to live in a neighbourhood where one is not welcome, where one cannot become fully integrated? This is parallel to racial segregation. If one prefers to live in a particular neighbourhood and yet cannot due to discrimi-nation, the choice has been eliminated. Public housing residents may desire to live in safer neighbourhoods, with better schools and jobs, but if they are denied based on income, then the choice is not fully there. At the same time, demolishing buildings and forcing residents to leave a neighbourhood also restricts choice (Wilen and Stasell, 2006).

One way to determine if public housing residents in mixed income settings have better access to participation is to examine the infra-structure in place. Are members of oversight committees and resi-dent councils representative of the community or development? Do public housing residents have a say in the development programmes or community decisions? Research to date in this area is fairly lim-ited. Keating (2000) points out that despite the federal guidelines that mandate resident participation in HOPE VI grants, individual projects are given much discretion in determining the extent of that participation. He discusses a case in Atlanta, GA where residents voted on plans that did not contain pertinent specifics about the plans and the housing authority allowed non-impacted, elderly resi-dents to vote. Moreover, he noted that relocated residents were less likely to participate. Libson (2007) examined a mixed income com-munity in New Orleans. A resident council was in place that was to take partial ownership in the planning, designing, and maintenance of the new development. A few of the residents were included in the decision-making for the developer, but the decision was overturned, marking the end of their participation. According to Libson (2007), the residents’ ‘interests and desires were no longer a priority in the redevelopment of their community, and the number of subsidized units set to be included diminished from nearly 600 to, finally, less than 300’ (p. 100). Hoatson and Grace (2002) contend that imple-mentation strategies must consider the power differential between stakeholders and avoid tokenism. They suggest that public housing residents should contribute significantly to project plans, given that they are the ones who will be most directly impacted, and propose




a proactive strategy for ensuring that residents are not barred from participation based on time and distance barriers.

The majority of mixed income housing policy has been evaluated based on outcome measures. Evaluating the policy from a socio- spatial perspective provides an alternative look at the potential for mixed income housing programmes to effectuate positive change in the lives of public housing residents. The extent to which any dimension of pub-lic housing residents’ ‘right to the city’ increases may depend on how policy implementers can reinforce its principles through implementa-tion of mixed income housing.

Conclusion – reinforcing ‘right to the city’

Mixed income housing, including poverty dispersal programmes and mixed financed developments are redistributing space and are ripe with the potential for doing more than just physically integrating public hous-ing residents. One framework for evaluating if the policy goes beyond physical integration is Lefebvre’s (1996) socio-spatial concept ‘right to the city’. ‘Right to the city’ embodies the right to live in a diverse com-munity, to participate centrally in the community and to appropriate the use value of the community. Homogeneous, affluent enclaves are antithetical to the ‘right to the city’ in that they are based on an ideol-ogy that assumes homogeneity is positive, private property is sacred, and that neighbourhood enclaves can be self-governed by exclusive associa-tions. Neighbourhood opposition to assisted housing is common and can serve as an obstacle to economic integration goals (Goetz, 2003; Galster et al., 2003). If the true goal of mobility programmes is to integrate pub-lic housing residents into a neighbourhood, then mobility programmes have to be implemented in such a way so as to reinforce the ‘right to the city’ of public housing residents in the face of such opposition.

Mixed income housing has the potential to overcome some of the barriers that are exacerbated by segregation, but it will take more than just physical integration. ‘Right to the city’ provides a foundation for social integration that goes beyond a superficial level of social interac-tion. Through encouraging diversity, a respect for different cultures can be fostered. Through appropriation, residents can feel meaningful connections to their communities, and through participation, residents can help shape outcomes for their communities.




The first dimension of ‘right to the city’ is diversity. Mobility programmes do not necessarily embrace diversity when they sneak residents into a neighbourhood and implement strict oversight. This oversight causes housing authorities to watch carefully for anomalies and may lead to evictions out of fear. To that end, assimilation rather than diversity seems to be the goal. Galster et al. (2003) point out two sides to this issue. On one hand, flying below the radar can avoid the initial intense opposition, which generally subsides (overtly) after the relocation takes place. On the other hand, not telling the receiv-ing community up front can lead to an erosion of trust (Galster et al., 2003). Both sides focus on the response of affluent neighbours, rather than the potential outcomes to public housing residents. Fear of diver-sity may be dispelled by educating residents on the benefits of diversity as well as the research illustrating assisted housing’s minimal impact on communities.

The second ‘right to the city’ dimension is prioritizing use value over exchange value. If the priority of mixed income implementation is protecting the property value of more affluent residents, what message does that send to assisted residents? Strict rules and oversight place an emphasis on the rights of more affluent neighbours and may discour-age lower income residents from seeing their new habitat as a home. Mixed income housing designs may want to focus on fostering public spaces and encouraging residents to focus on the liveability of their neighbourhoods through organized forums to help make public space a priority. Oversight committees may be a political necessity, but they should represent interests of public housing residents. Policy imple-menters can establish a precedent for valuing use value and creating a culture of community where all residents have equal rights to com-munity space.

The final dimension, participation, is perhaps the most important for securing the other two. Residents who receive subsidies should be able to feel like they can participate in their new community’s development instead of feeling as if they were visitors. What venues are currently in place for residents to express their concerns or per-spectives? A resident council, containing members of different housing tenure, may provide such a venue. The goal of this council does not have to be social integration, but to ensure that there is an equal repre-sentation in terms of neighbourhood decision-making. Participation is especially pertinent, given that some scholars point out that segregated venues at least provide a critical mass that can serve as a basis for social




mobilization (Young, 1999). Integration should by no means diminish participation, and structures need to be in place to compensate for pub-lic housing residents’ comparably low political clout.

The ‘right to the city’ embodies the feeling that one not only occu-pies space in the city but creates and shapes that space. Research needs to focus on whether or not economic integration policies are achieving this right for public housing residents. How a policy is implemented sends a message, and in the case of mixed income housing the message should be that public housing residents have equal access to live, create and participate in their new neighbourhoods and communities.

References

Allport, G. W. (1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Arthurson, K. (2002) ‘Creating Inclusive Communities through Balancing

Social Mix: A Critical Relationship or Tenuous Link?’, Urban Policy and Research 20(3): 245–61.

Briggs, X., Darden, J. T. and Aidala, A. (1999) ‘In the Wake of Desegrega-tion: Early Impacts of Scattered-site Public Housing on Neighborhoods in Yonkers, New York’, Journal of American Planning Association 65(1): 27–49.

Brophy, P. C. and Smith, R. N. (1997) ‘Mixed-income Housing: Factors for Success’, Cityscape 3(2): 3–31.

Buron, L., Levy, D. and Gallagher, M. (2007) ‘How HOPE VI Families Fared in the Private Market’. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, Nonpartisan Economic and Social Policy Research. [http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=311487]

Clampet-Lundquist, S. (2004) ‘Hope VI Relocation: Moving to New Neigh-borhoods and Building New Ties’, Housing Policy Debate 15(2): 415–47.

Comey, J. (2004) ‘An Improved Living Environment? Housing Quality Outcomes for HOPE VI Relocatees’. Washington, DC: The Urban Insti-tute, Nonpartisan Economic and Social Policy Research. [http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=311058]

Comey, J. (2007) ‘HOPE VI’d and on the Move’. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, Nonpartisan Economic and Social Policy Research. [http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=311485]

Dreier, P., Mollenkopf, J. and Swanstrom, T. (2004) Place Matters: Metropoli-tics for the Twenty-first Century. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.

Ellen, I. G. and Turner, M. A. (1997) ‘Does Neighborhood Matter? Assessing Recent Evidence’, Housing Policy Debate 8(4): 833–66.




Galster, G., Smith, R., Santiago, A. and Pettit, K. (2003) Why Not in My Backyard? Neighborhood Impacts of Deconcentrating Assisted Housing. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.

Goering, J. and Feins, J. D. (eds) (2003) Choosing a Better Life? Evaluating the Moving to Opportunity Social Experiment. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Goetz, E. G. (2003) Clearing the Way: Deconcentrating the Poor in Urban America. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Harvey, D. (2003) ‘The Right to the City’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27(4): 939–41.

Hoatson, L. and Grace, M. (2002) ‘Public Housing Redevelopment: Oppor-tunity for Community Regeneration?’, Urban Policy and Research 20(4): 429–41.

Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage.

Jargowsky, P. A. (1996) ‘Economic Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas’, American Sociological Review 61(6): 984–98.

Johnston, R., Forrest, J. and Poulsen, M. (2005) ‘On the Measurement and Meaning of Residential Segregation: A Response to Simpson’, Urban Studies 42(7): 1221–7.

Joseph, M. L., Chaskin, R. J. and Webber, H. S. (2007) ‘The Theoretical Basis for Addressing Poverty through Mixed-income Housing’, Urban Affairs Review 42(3): 369–409.

Keating, L. (2000) ‘Redeveloping Public Housing’, Journal of the American Planning Association 66(4): 384–98.

Keating, W. D. (1994) The Suburban Racial Dilemma. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Kleit, R. G. (2005) ‘HOPE VI New Communities: Neighborhood Relation-ships in Mixed-income Housing’, Environment and Planning A 37(8): 1413–41.

Lefebvre, H. (1996) Writings on Cities, translated and edited by E. Kofman and E. Lebas. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Libson, B. (2007) ‘River Garden: New Orleans’ Model for Mixed-income Housing?’, Social Policy Spring/Summer: 98–105.

Logan, J. R. and Molotch, H. L. (1987) Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Marcuse, P. and Keating, W. D. (2006) ‘The Permanent Housing Crisis: The Failures of Conservatism and the Limitations of Liberalism’, pp. 139–62 in R. G. Bratt, M. E. Stone and C. Hartman (eds) A Right to Housing: Foun-dation for a New Social Agenda. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Massey, D. S. and Denton, N. A. (1993) American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the American Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.




Massey, D. S. and Fischer, X. (2000) ‘How Segregation Concentrates Poverty’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 23(4): 670–91.

Mitchell, D. (2003) The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York City: The Guilford Press.

Pendall, R. (2000) ‘Why Voucher and Certificate Users Live in Distressed Neighborhoods’, Housing Policy Debate 11(4): 881–910.

Popkin, S. (2006) ‘Hope VI Program: What has Happened to the Residents?’, pp. 68–90 in L. Bennett, J. L. Smith and P. A. Wright (eds) Where are Poor People to Live? Transforming Public Housing Communities. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Popkin, S. J., Buron, L. F., Levy, D. K. and Cunningham, M. K. (2000) ‘The Gautreaux Legacy: What Might Mixed-income and Dispersal Strategies Mean for the Poorest Public Housing Tenants?’, Housing Policy Debate 11(4): 911–42.

Popkin, S. J., Galster, G. C., Temkin, K., Herbig, C., Levy, D. K. and Rich, E. K. (2003) ‘Obstacles to Desegregating Public Housing: Lessons Learned from Implementing Eight Consent Decrees’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 22(2): 179–99.

Purcell, M. (2002) ‘Excavating Lefebvre: The Right to the City and its Urban Politics of the Inhabitant’, GeoJournal 58(2–3): 99–108.

Purcell, M. (2003) ‘Citizenship and the Right to the Global City: Reimag-ining the Capitalist World Order’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27(3): 564–90.

Rubinowitz, L. S. and Rosenbaum, J. E. (2000) Crossing the Class and Color Lines: From Public Housing to White Suburbia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schwartz, A. and Tajbakhsh, K. (1997) ‘Mixed-income Housing: Unanswered Questions’, Cityscape 3(2): 71–92.

Simpson, L. (2004) ‘Statistics of Racial Segregation: Measures, Evidence and Policy’, Urban Studies 41: 661–81.

Smith, J. L. (2006) ‘Mixed Income Communities: Designing Out Poverty or Pushing out the Poor?’, pp. 259–79 in L. Bennett, J. L. Smith and P. A. Wright (eds) Where are Poor People to Live? Transforming Public Housing Communities. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Talen, E. (2006) ‘Design that Enables Diversity: The Complications of a Plan-ning Ideal’, Journal of Planning Literature 20(3): 233–49.

Varady, D. P. and Walker, C. C. (2003) ‘Housing Vouchers and Residential Mobility’, Journal of Planning Literature 18(1): 17–30.

Wilen, W. P. and Stasell, W. L. (2006) ‘Gautreaux and Chicago’s Pub-lic Housing Crisis: The Conflict between Achieving Integration and Providing Decent Housing for Very Low-income African Americans’, pp. 239–58 in L. Bennett, J. L. Smith and P. A. Wright (eds) Where




are Poor People to Live? Transforming Public Housing Communities. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Wilson, W. J. (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wittig, M. A. and Grant-Thompson, S. (1998) ‘The Utility of Allport’s Con-ditions of Intergroup Contact for Predicting Perceptions of Improved Racial Attitudes and Beliefs’, Journal of Social Issues 54(4): 795–812.

Young, I. M. (1999) ‘Residential Segregation and Differentiated Citizenship’, Citizenship Studies 3(2): 237–52.

Joanna Duke is an assistant professor in the school of public affairs at

Arizona State University. Her research interests include housing policy,

neighbourhood development and the spatial rights of marginalized groups.

Address: Arizona State University, 411 N. Central Ave., Suite 450, Phoenix,

AZ 85004, USA. email: [email protected]



Documents

statistik