Insightful comment from Friend of the Room, and former po-po Peter Moskos:
I don't know why it shocked so many academics that moving people from urban public housing out to the suburbs would move many of their problems with them.
I don't know why it shocked so many academics to realize that moving troubled people into borderline neighborhoods could push some neighborhoods past a tipping point of decline.
Actually, I think I do know. Too many academics can only “see” in quantitative statistics. And these statistics see income, not culture. These statistics see the aggregate, not the individual. And academics generally practice social NIMBYism. I’d bet that almost no academic in support of moving public housing residents actually had a Section 8 home in their block or even a Section 8 kid in their children’s school. Sure, most Section 8 people are probably great. But it only takes one bad family to screw up a block. And if it’s not your block, it’s a lot easier to support Section 8.
But I also see a silver lining in watching some “urban” problems move out to the suburbs. By dispersing some problems previously isolated in “inner city” neighborhoods, perhaps more people will have to care about solutions. Perhaps we can stop blaming cities for urban woes and provide some real solutions.
America’s cities aren’t to blame for America’s poor and cities shouldn’t be exclusively responsibility for the poor. America—all of America—should help the less fortunate. And America—all of America—should share the fiscal costs and the risks that go with the link between poverty, race, and crime.
As a city resident, I’m quite happy to pay more taxes to help the needy. And as a city resident, I’m also quite happy to see some of the needy move somewhere else.
That being said, I also think we should legalize drugs. Nothing so simple could do so much good. I’ve written about this. There’s more at www.copinthehood.com.
I like to consider myself a public intellectual and I teach in a university. But Ta-Nehisi, I’ve also done the field work. So is it OK if I do NPR interviews? (I won’t even ask about “jacking off in the office.”)
Actually, Mr. Coates, I couldn’t agree with you more.
I had a very similar reaction "Duh" reaction when I read the piece. Some of it just seems like a lack of common sense. If you disperse poor people who live a crime ravaged area, I'm sure some of them will do better, but expect some of the crime to migrate with them. And if they go to more stable moderately poor areas, expect crime to rise. It seems like this all originates from an inability to distinguish between being a "have-not" and being a "social dysfunctionary." Those two things aren't the same. I have absolutely no problem with Section 8 being on my block. I want cops empowered to ignore dumb shit, and with freedom to bag violent offenders.
Anyway, for those that don't know, Peter worked as cop on the East Side of Baltimore, and has written a book about his time on the beat. For that Peter, you can go on NPR and talk as much as you want. I don't have a problem with people who do field work, or with reporters who give their subjects the attention they deserve. I love to hear from historians who can put it all in context. Unfortunately we've got a bunch of English, Philosophy, and "African-American Studies'" professors interpreting black people like s chapter from a Faulkner novel.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
It's also important to remember that Section 8 vouchers themselves aren't the problem: in my neighborhood in Chicago, Section 8 vouchers are crucial for a huge number of families, who otherwise couldn't afford to live in the city. These families, by far, are just ordinary folks who happen to fall into the ranks of the working poor. Do some voucher holders get involved in crime? Sure. But far more of them are part of the stable long-term life of our neighborhood, and it's vouchers that keep them living that way rather than hopping from one lousy, overcrowded apartment to another.
It seems that with the effort to point to a single cause for the rise of crime in cities like Memphis ("it's all because those darn projects were torn down!") there's a huge factor that's blithely brushed over in a single paragraph:
"Crime did not rise in every city where housing projects came down. In cities where it did, many factors contributed: unemployment, gangs, rapid gentrification that dislocated tens of thousands of poor people not living in the projects."
What we're seeing is the inevitable Paris-ification of American cities: a wealthy city center surrounded by poor suburbs. And just as that earlier Atlantic article on McMansion slums pointed out, it's an inexorable process. To be sure, tearing down some densely populated projects and dispersing people to the outskirts of town might hasten the shift and send some into tipping points, but like Moskos, I'm shocked that people are shocked by this.
Authorities and social services are going to have to adapt to this new reality and paradigm shift. I don't have the answers and I doubt anyone really does, but it's going to be a pretty stark and rapid transformation that has the potential to become a downward spiral unless we improve our public transportation infrastructure. Rich people are increasingly choosing to live in the city center because they don't want a long and expensive commute, and poor people are going to have to spend an even higher percentage of their income on cars and gas just to maintain a job, at the same time that food is getting more expensive. Those suburbs could get desperate pretty quickly.
Guys, I just wanted to say that these are great, great comments. Please keep it up. Levi, I haven't studied Section 8, but I would tend to agree, and that was the point I was making--Section 8, per se, isn't the problem. I don't think Rosin was arguing for abolishing the program. But we can't just move people into a neighborhood, that is already teetering, and then offer little or no screening or support.
I understand your point, but you shouldn't be so hard on quantitative data. Much quantitative studies have helped debunk racist notions, even if the popular culture doesn't care. Secondly, structural barriers have been a strong strain in criminological theories. It isn't so much common sense that moving poor people wouldn't lower crime when you were thinking the problems were the cities. High populated urban areas have the highest crime rates, they are often characterized by social isolation and a lack of efficacy. This is an understanding grounded in empirical data and theory. It isn't to dehumanize the people you are studying/ say you want to help but at the same time qualitative data can only do so much. It isn't generalizable, so it's explanatory power is limited. Anyway, I agree that just moving poor people wasn't the best idea but I don't think it was just a common sense deductive conclusion.
>
You got a problem with English Professors now?!? You know where to find me... ; )
I am hard on quantitative data. Mostly because it’s too respected. And too many people have been duped by bad quantitative data. And much quantitative data also supported racist notions (phrenology comes to mind).
Here’s the problem with too much academic research:
1) people who use quantitative data tend to be out of touch with qualitative data.
2) quantitative data in much more influential in policy-making circles.
3) despite quantitative data’s supposed reliance on the scientific method (i.e.: repeatable and refutable experimentation) , bad data is actually nearly impossible to refute (can you survey 100,000 people?).
4) things that are hard to measure—like fear or culture or quality-of-life crimes—aren’t considered important.
Qualitative data is generalizable. Really, why not ask cops about crime? Why not ask drug dealers about drug dealing? Why not ask poor people about poverty. Why not ask low-income workers about low-income employment? Some academics do this—I, Bruce Jacobs, Venkatesh, and Ehrenreich, respectively, come to mind—but all too few.
Regarding Section 8 Housing: I entered Harvard sociology graduate school in 1995 with an interest in urban issues. This was just when the supposed effectiveness of these Section 8 housing policies was gaining traction. You’ll just have to take my word on this, but I knew it was bullshit back then. I couldn’t prove it quantitatively, but knew it qualitatively.
I, like every cop I later worked with, knew there was a problem with Section 8 housing. We knew that all Section 8 tenants aren’t bad, but we also knew that every time a new Section 8 tenant moved in, you were rolling the dice. And the odds were worse than with non Section 8 people that I wouldn’t want to live next door to them.
And if I didn’t want to live next to someone, why should I force some poor working-class person to do so? Most people who supported Section 8 policies never had to risk living next to bad Section 8 tenant. Or sending their kid to a school with Section 8 children. And if they did but things went bad, they could afford to move out of the neighborhood.
I could see the quantitative data were only looking at those moved and not the neighborhoods into which they were moving. I knew the data were bullshit because I have urban common sense. I’ve read Jane Jacobs and know have some idea as to how the fabric of neighborhoods work. Most academics don’t live in cities or walk down dangerous city streets. So they have little idea how person-to-person urban interactions work.
What Section 8 managed to do was a many liberals’ dream: blame the environment rather than the individual. Environment does matter. And so do parents. And simply putting bad parents in a semi-detached home isn’t going to make them play the radio softly at night. The best way to understand people is to talk to them. It’s too easier (and much more politically correct) to blame bad architecture instead of bad people (or parents or culture or choice).
Too many people who study poverty don’t talk to poor people. Too many people who study race, don’t talk to black people. That’s the shame of quantitative research.
I agree with much of what Peter says here, but I want to offer a note of caution. I know as a journalist, I get skeptical when I hear phrases like "culture of failure," or "culture of poverty" or "pathology of black culture," mostly because the shit is quite lazy. I'm not saying that's your point, but (as I'm sure you know) even in a "ghetto" the temperature of things differs from block to block.
I've lived in black cities basically my entire life. Never in the absolute worst neighborhoods, but mostly in ones that, as Rosin defines them, stable lower-income neighborhoods. The sort of places most threatened by this sort of thing. I know that there is a difference between what happens in Harlem and what happens in Bed-Stuy and what happens in East New York.
If we are going to talk about culture, we need to be really specific about what we are talking about. We also have to ask where did the culture come from? And how can we change it?
I suppose I'm just piling on here but - it strikes me as absurd that a pattern of crime in one city could be used to cast a shadow on scattered-site subsidized housing.
I'm not an academic or a reporter - but, I am a housing specialist who grew up in, and has pretty much always lived in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston - a low to very-low income neighborhood, with pockets of the middle-class, that has also been thought of as the heart of Black Boston, at least since the 70's
Boston, and it's surrounding small cities, has torn down several large public housing developments over the last 15 years, and displaced tenants received Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers - there has been no corresponding evidence of a spike in crime.
Furthermore - Section 8 does not necessarily equal "cheap" housing. Voucher holders pay 30 to 40 ercent of their GROSS income for rent - the feds set a number for "fair market rent" if the voucher holder can find an apartment for the FMR - they pay 30% of their gross - and they are allowed to pay up to 40% of their income in order to rent a more expensive unit. Because the FMR is set too low for Boston, most local voucher holders are paying 40% of their gross income. So - a parent and two children, w/gross income of $35,000 - way below median income for Boston - will end up paying about $1,100 for a two bedroom...that's not cheap, and it is not an unusual situation.
What Section 8 does provide - is some measure of protection for a lost job...if that $35,000 income goes down to $17,000....the rent goes down, also.
I hear your warning, Ta-Nehisi, and respect it. And then say, yes, let's talk about culture. And not be lazy about it. That's why I liked your book. And the first piece of yours I read, about black police and brutality in P.G. County, Maryland.
And though I disagreed with some of it, I enjoyed your well written critique of Bill Cosby. I think many "public intellectuals" are a bit too harsh on him since he does raise some important and (at least in polite society) generally taboo issues. (I image people who ride the NYC subway when public schools gets out around 3:30 are generally more sympathetic to Cosby's position).
What I liked about your Cosby critique is that you didn't just call him an idiot (or just roll your eyes knowingly as do some of my colleagues). You critiqued what he actually said, and not just the fact he said it. You critiqued him negatively, but fairly. That's good. And it's not lazy.
I was wondering if you had any thoughts on an Orlando Patterson op-ed a while back about academics' failure to address issues of race and culture. I thought it was good stuff. At least inasmuch as you can talk about these things in 1,500 words.
Here's a link to it:
http://petermoskos.com/files/patterson_oped.pdf
Perhaps we who work in lab or computer sciences can contribute to this discussion.
Certainly there are many neighborhoods that fit profiles. It appears that the discussion here is about predominantly black, working-class neighborhoods experiencing an influx of Section 8 housing. An analogous area of interest might be the towns in downstate Illinois and Indiana experiencing similar influxes.
Why not look at aggregate statistics for areas of social dysfunction (school dropouts, crime and incarceration, property values) and see how towns and neighborhoods starting from about the same socioeconomic niche that experience severe decline differ from those that experience no decline or even register improvements?
By the way, Orlando Patterson did not see the same results from the welfare-to-work trend that are plainly visible in metro Chicago. That is, a sudden shift in fast-food employment to African-Americans who are not all young.