Government Housing Study Proves Deceit About Motivation

justin-katz-avatar-smiling

Reading Investor’s Business Daily on a Dept. of Housing and Urban Development study showing that forced integration of neighborhoods doesn’t work by its own accounting, one is tempted to find a progressive foible in the fact that the Obama administration is trudging along with its ideology regardless.  It’s another hoary cliché about government that when a pilot program has negative effects, it must mean that the only viable experiment would be to implement the idea fully.

I’d argue that the study actually does prove two things.

First, the ideologues pushing this stuff are lying about what they hope to accomplish:

From 1994 to 2008, HUD moved thousands of mostly African-American families from government projects to higher-quality homes in safer and less racially segregated neighborhoods. The 15-year experiment, dubbed “Moving to Opportunity Initiative,” or MTO, was based on the well-intentioned notion that relocating inner-city minorities to better neighborhoods would boost their employment and education prospects.

But adults for the most part did not get better jobs or get off welfare. In fact, more went on food stamps. And their children did not do better in their new schools.

The goal isn’t to inspire the inner-city transplants to the suburbs to change their ways and integrate with a healthier form of community.  Some progressives might not mind that if it happened, but it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that the goal is really to inject the suburbs with a large contingent of reliable Democrat voters.

The second lesson from the experiment is that the conservative view of matters is substantially correct.  Simply putting a family in a different environment is not sufficient.

“Moving to lower-poverty neighborhoods does not appear to improve education outcomes, employment or earnings,” the study concluded.

Even then-senior HUD official Raphael Bostic, a black Obama appointee, admitted in a foreword to the 2011 study that families enrolled in the program had “no better educational, employment and income outcomes.”

Worse, crime simply followed them to their safer neighborhoods. “Males … were arrested more often than those in the control group, primarily for property crimes,” the study found.

People have to want to change themselves in order to take advantage of opportunities.  The best plan is to do what we can to give them the tools they need in hard circumstances, but mostly to make sure that there are only minimal barriers for those who’ve decided to go for it. Unfortunately, eliminating barriers decreases the control of government officials and other powerful groups.



  • D. S. Crockett

    “Some progressives might not mind that if it happened, but it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that the goal is really to inject the suburbs with a large contingent of reliable Democrat voters”.

    Once upon a time, I was involved with the financing of “affordable housing units” in a lovely RI town. Two successful applicants were a fireman and teacher who met the maximum income requirements. RI law for some time has mandated to RI cities and towns that all detached and or attached new developments contain up to 20% “affordable” units. Of course, the latter paid for by the taxpayers who pay the interest on the bonds issued to subsidize the program.

  • Warrington faust

    I don’t mean to seem unduly philosophical, but “birds of a feather flock together”. It was not a lack of opportunity that kept Federal Hill and the North End of Boston Italian for generations, In Boston, women fought to get an apartment in the North End of Boston because it was “safe”. When my mother was a girl, Providence had “Irish” neighborhoods. How do you explain all of the “Chinatowns”? The now worst part of Boston, Roxbury, was until the 1950’s a “Jewish” neighborhoods. That is a real story of government action, there have been books written about the politicians and banks combining to push the Jews out of Roxbury, in order to contain blacks there.

    I once knew a young black couple who decided to participate in the “Harlem Renaissance”. From a distance, they bought a Harlem townhouse and began renovations. They went to view the re-construction and found half a body. They returned to a Boston suburb, permanently.

  • ShannonEntropy

    How come we never see any “affordable housing projects” planned for Exeter — with the highest per capita income in
    Li’l Rhody ??

    … or in New Shoreham / Block Island — with the State’s highest average property values ??

    Did you figure out the answer before you even got to the end of the question ??

    • Mike678

      No. Please tell us.

      • ShannonEntropy

        Because the phrase “Liberal hypocrite” is redundant

        The richest people are the ones who either run the State or “know a guy” who does … and they don’t want Section 8 people in THEIR town; they want them in YOURS

        Just like how the Kennedys fought to keep wind farms away from Hyannis

  • Warrington Faust

    Perhaps the government could put a moratorium on creating agencies. When HUD was invented, it was tasked with aiding people in the renovation of old inner city properties. I recall when they had “storefronts” in the South End of Boston. You could walk in and obtain a purchase money mortgage and construction loan, with minimal down payment. This resulted in the “gentrification” of the South End. They helped “gentrify” a number of cities, and took a lot of heat for “driving out blacks”. They had low interest “programs” to aid the elderly in adding rental units to their houses, etc.. All that is gone and they are now “big time”. No small ideas wanted there. Their “loan origination costs” forbid “small deals”. I am reminded of OSHA, a moribund little agency until Pres. Johnson needed a job for his nephew. Truly, they do little that could not be done by Worker’s Compensation laws, in concert with insurance companies.

  • Warrington Faust

    Since we are on housing, I have to clear myself. A little over a week ago I posted that I was evicting a female guest from my house. A case of charity, not a failed romance. In response she got a court order restraining me from forcing, or coercing “involuntary sexual relations”. I am also now permitted to approach within 9 feet of her in my house. That, in itself, is not a problem; but would look bad at the eviction hearing. Yesterday I had the order dismissed. Today at the eviction hearing (nearby Massachusetts) my action was dismissed for failure to give 90 days notice. If she had paid rent, it would be 30 days notice. Since she had never paid rent, it is 90 days. Read down about 4 paragraphs.

    http://www.massbar.org/publications/lawyers-journal/2012/june/mastering-the-notice-to-quit-in-massachusetts-young-lawyer-practice-in-the-early-stages-of-a-summary-process-case

    • ShannonEntropy

      So start the process over and give her 90 days notice from now

      Evictions cannot be dismissed “with prejudice”,, right ??

      • Warrington Faust

        “Dismissal”, you are correct. Some of these laws are not well thought through, or erroneously interpreted. The restraining order on me was issued “ex parte” and lasts for 10 days pending a “two party” hearing. While I use the term dismissal, it was “not extended”. I am now permanently on a “registery” of persons who have been restrained. Expungement is, as a practical matter, impossible. The judge must find a fraud on the court, write a decision and dismiss “nunc pro tunc”. Never happen. I knew none of this two weeks ago.

        The eviction law MGL 186 s.12 speaks of “estates at will MAY be terminated” on four months notice. “Estates at will” were last defined in 1829, I am not at all sure a “guest” qualifies. “estates” are ancient law and many tokens are missing “feoffment”, “livery of seizen”, even “cuffing the kid”. I inquired of the court if it would apply if a dinner guest refused to leave, would I have to feed her for 3 months? That was not well received, nor answered. What offends me is that the court has extended my charity, I am forced to support her for nearly 4 months. I was of the opinion that a guest required no notice, I inquired of the clerks in the same court; they recommend 30 days as the judge might act erratically. Now I find “90 days”.Actually the law says “3 months”, there is law that 30 days is not a “month”. I wonder if I can “petition for instructions”.

        More appropriate for this forum. I gave the Health Inspector a bit of heat for his “warrantless search” at her request. He insisted she was a “tenant” because of the duration of her stay. Some states have such a law. Massachusetts still recognizes a “tenancy” as “contractual relationship” which does not arise from mere passage of time. The police and building inspector tried to tell me the same. To many laws and regulations and poorly informed minions trying to enforce them.

        It seems that until about 20 years ago “guest law” was well defined. With the rise of “stay at home kids”, “returning graduates”, homeless in-laws, etc the courts are attempting to “legislate”. This is always patchwork. The case law is almost all “family”.

    • Mike678

      No good deed goes unpunished….

      Frankly, while many like to believe that poverty isn’t anyones fault, there is usually a reason people are homeless, poor, and so forth–apart, of course from the occasional divorce, loss of job, etc. For the homeless, it is usually a mix of substance abuse/mental illness. For others it is usually poor impulse control, poor decision making, they are ethically challenged and/or ignorant–though it’s funny that many seem pretty savvy on how to use the law to get what they want from others.

      Good luck with your “‘grateful’ resident, Warrington.

      • Warrington Faust

        You are probably correct. Although I had known this woman for 25 years, I did not know she was an alcoholic. Shortly after moving in she collapsed from liver failure. I called an ambulance and had her hospitalized. I am told she would have died if I had not. It is difficult to describe how sick she was after returning from several hospitalizations. Seeing that most of her immediate family was alienated and that there was no one to look out for her, I told her to stay. She is on her feet now. She owes me, but I do not owe her.

        “savvy” Since beginning recovery she has befriended people who “know the ropes. She told me that the police had recommended the restraining order. I think someone had told her to summon them. Cops do not like to appear ineffectual. Seeing nothing criminal, they probably suggested a “civil action” which a restraining order is. Violation is very criminal and you can be arrested merely on her say so.

        I intend to stay more “on topic” with this forum. Having mentioned the restraining order while still in shock from service, I felt I had to clarify.

        • ShannonEntropy

          We just saw the movie AMY over at the Avon on Tuesday. It is a documentary about jazz singer Amy Winehouse (( appropriate last name )) who died of alcohol poisoning at age 27 yrs. A 5-star flick fer shur & I highly recommend it, then dinner afterwards at Kabob ‘n Curry across the street (( Try the curried goat — ‘homestyle’ … it is delish !! ))

          Anywayz, that movie + your posts supra gave me an idea for you:

          Every ‘hardcore’ alcoholic I ever knew ♥Loves♥ Vodka … so go buy a case of 100 proof Smirnoff® or Absolut® and leave them conspicuously around the house for her to get into

          The next time she slips into hepatic failure, DON’T call 911 until a call to the medical examiner’s office would be more apropos ;^)

          Cold … but solves the problem for good

          • ShannonEntropy

            Fair enough I guess …

            Warrington,

            If you would like to hear my idea, contact me at alexdq1357@hotmail.com

            This situation just goes to show you how totally skewed towards women our “Justice” system is … I guarantee you if the genders were reversed here, Warrington would be in the ACI; and the woman homeowner wouldn’t be suffering the indignity of having a judge tell her, “He’s *your* problem for the rest of the year”

            I have always said that if a man was naked in his own home and a woman walking by saw him thru a window, the cops would come arrest him as an “Exhibitionist”

            … but if the woman was naked in the house and it was a man walking by, the cops would come arrest cuz obviously he is a “Peeping Tom”

            p.s. my RL name is George, not Alex … that username alexdq1357 comes from the punchline of one of my fave jokes. It’s clean so I may tell it here some day …

Quantcast