Crime, Section 8, Neighborhoods in Transition, and New Tensions

In her research, Suresh noticed a recurring pattern, one that emerged first in the late 1990s, then again around 2002. A particularly violent neighborhood would suddenly go cold, and crime would heat up in several new neighborhoods. In each case, Suresh has now confirmed, the first hot spots were the neighborhoods around huge housing projects, and the later ones were places where people had moved when the projects were torn down. From that, she drew the obvious conclusion: “Crime is going along with them.”

It seems this week has brought a two for one, a sort of perfect storm for those armchair sociologists among us looking for an un-Obama related topic to discuss over the dinner table or at the barbershop.

This week, the Atlantic and the New York Times have each published pieces on race, housing policy, and crime that are worthy of more attention than either piece has received to this point.

The Atlantic's "American Murder Mystery" by Hanna Rosin and the New York Times' "As Program Moves Poor to Suburbs Tensions Follow" explore what some have called an uncomfortable truth: that with the destruction of inner city housing projects that people, and their problems, go with them to their new homes. Apparently, it seems that while crime has leveled out in America's metropolises it has increased in America's bedroom communities and other regional cities. After growing up on Charles Bronson and Clint Eastwood flicks, and watching Colors and Menace to Society too many times to count, who would have thought that the front line of the war on crime would be Memphis, Tennessee or Kansas City, Missouri instead of Los Angeles, Chicago, or New York?

As argued by the sociologists quoted in the above articles, the cause of this increase in crime and social dysfunction could in fact be a function of how the proliferation of housing vouchers and Section 8 programs have transplanted both the good folk and the bad folk from their former "communities" to whatever neighborhoods they have collectively moved into. Thus, the inner-city crime problem concentrated in the projects becomes the inner city crime problem spread out in the semi-suburbs. Cue music: start controversy.

What follows are some quick thoughts about the "new" tensions which occur when the urban poor move into suburban neighborhoods. My emphasis on "new" hints at the fact that the middle and upper classes have never wanted to live near the poor...this is why those of means move away from those without. As my godfather used to say, "the very reason you want to have money is so that you can have the luxury of choosing your neighbors."

Perhaps, we can have a conversation, prompted by Zora's return, about respectability, class, and race? And to bait them, as though it is necessary, how long will it take for someone to let forth the shrill charge of racism at what may simply be an uncomfortable truth? Or to reflexively rise to the defense of "the victims" in this story?

Some questions:

1. What to do with the urban poor? As housing projects are transitioned into gentrified properties, where should these folks go? Stay in new housing in their communities, or be moved to scattered site housing in the burbs?

2. Again, what about the black and brown middle and working classes? They live in what are politely called "neighborhoods in transition," those most likely to have high numbers of section 8 and other housing voucher recipients and where the landlords are absent. The result: poorly maintained properties that diminish the property values of the properties nearby. Also, shouldn't these working class families feel resentful as they themselves are barely above a minimum income line (and many would not seek aid even if eligible)--and these families struggle to maintain their heads above the water--while their neighbors receive Section 8? Maybe, I am just a little annoyed by literally hearing a sister jump up and down (without shame) in the supermarket last night upon receiving news on her cell phone that "her section 8 had come through."

3. What of the black respectable poor who are happy about and gratified by the chance to live in a nice, clean, safe neighborhood? And are eager to have a leg up? To have a chance to conform with these new community standards? How do we separate them from some who have internalized a culture of poverty (notice I didn't say economic poverty) and who wear their pathologies as a badge of honor, as opposed to working to overcome them?

4. Why is the middle class often made a villain in these stories? I know many middle and working class black and brown folk who are just as concerned about their property values, and norms of behavior in their communities as white folk? Where is their voice?

5. No, I am not a conservative. Yes, I think there are different norms of behavior across communities. Example: in the now Section 8, scattered site neighborhood that I grew up in, we have had real issues with community standards, i.e. when to put the garbage out on the street, why one doesn't fix their car in the yard, why loud parties and littering are not acceptable, why one shouldn't sit on their porch or that of their neighbors, etc., etc. etc. Is this classism, racism, or something else?

6. Again, where are the black and brown working class voices who roll their eyes and feel imperiled, rightly so, as their neighborhoods transition into something they cannot recognize, and for the worst, as the class composition of their communities changes?

7. Should we expect the black middle and upper class to act any differently, i.e. less self-interested than the white middle or upper class? To expect so, is that not itself "racist?"

8. Playing devil's advocate: We don't expect the white upper class, middle class, and striving working class to live with the white poor. Why should we expect this of black Americans? Why should we be surprised when the black middle and upper class want nothing to do with their poorer brethren?