`Howard Husock’s book The Poor Side of Town: And Why We Need It systematically critiques past urban housing reform policies in the United States. It reviews the past urban housing strategies implemented by policymakers in the urban housing and planning sector, the influence of reformers and housing developers like Lawrence Veiller, and influential urban housing critics like Jacob Riis. Husock’s primary argument in the book is that the private sector produced affordable housing alternatives for urban slum residents and that policymakers in the urban housing sector should revitalize the private sector’s approaches to enhance housing affordability, and social cohesion and eliminate race and class-based segregation in the American urban neighborhoods. Notably, most critics of the United States social housing policies argue that the private sector is incapable of producing affordable housing for low and middle-income households in American cities and that government should remedy the challenge of slums (failed neighborhoods) by subsidizing housing programs. However, Husock rejects these arguments and proposes a contrasting approach to social housing policies for low- and middle-income households. He argues that the government and social housing policymakers should back away from public housing programs and other subsidized low-and middle-income housing programs and focus on privately developed and owned houses to enable the development of mixed-income and physically diverse neighborhoods that foster economic prosperity for the poor. The author points out that public housing and government-sponsored housing subsidies eliminated privately developed and owner-occupied homes that fostered social mobility in urban neighborhoods. The author also proposes that the government should recall the zoning housing reforms like single-family zoning neighborhoods to support communities of varied incomes. Overall, Husock points out that policymakers and reformists should engage more with the poor side of the town in order to understand and reconsider the long-standing urban and social housing issues.
Husock demonstrates that the private sector is a viable alternative to public housing and a feasible solution to housing problems that lead to homelessness and the growth of slums in urban settings. He criticizes the proposals of public housing put forward by Edith Elmer Wood and Catherine Bauer as a great and costly mistake that resulted in disastrous displacement and destruction of healthy communities that accommodated middle and low-income households. For instance, the author recalls the demotion of Black Bottom, a densely populated Black neighborhood in Detroit, Paradise Valley, and other thriving settlement areas for low-income households in the name of slum clearance, which left many urban slum residents homeless. The main problem with the public housing program and other government-subsidized alternatives is that the houses remain unoccupied when residents of poor sides of the town gain economic stability, leading to the wastage of government resources. Contrarily, privately developed and owned houses overcome this challenge because homeowners can upgrade their homes according to their incomes and financial stability. Husock argues that the government should only support housing programs by providing city services like proper roads, good schools, and other social amenities and forgivable down-payment loans for low-middle and low-income earners to own and occupy their houses. For instance, he recounts the impactful efforts of the East Brooklyn Congregations led by Pastor John Ray Youngblood in collaboration with I D Robbins which developed and sold affordable one and two-family housing units to low-and middle-income earners in Brooklyn. Notably, Husock’s argument that the government should promote inexpensive, privately developed, and owned houses are viable and cost-effective because high-quality subsidized houses require a long-term financial commitment from the government for maintenance, which is expensive in the long term for the occupants and government. For instance, most public housing properties in major US cities are in poor conditions (mold infestation, damage to water systems, and deteriorating facades) due to poor maintenance. In addition, the private sector provides a more viable and effective solution for housing problems in urban settings than public housing because of the timely delivery of the private sector housing programs, enabling many low-income households to access affordable housing in a shorter time. Constructing government-subsidized housing is more expensive and slower than privately owned and occupied houses because of the complexity of soliciting finances and several bottlenecks involved in government projects. Thus, based on Husock’s arguments, the private sector is a viable and more cost-effective alternative to public housing.
Notably, the recently enacted federal infrastructure law has initiatives that might advance the low-cost, privately owned, and occupied housing policy that Husock proposes. The federal infrastructure law will rebuild local road networks, bridges, water, and sewerage systems to improve Americans’ access to clean water and improved transport systems. The infrastructure project will foster the development of privately owned and occupied houses and homes by enhancing access to underserved areas and communities. For instance, improving road networks and water systems in underserved neighborhoods will encourage private developers to develop houses in locations where more private investment in housing is needed. Husock supports such developments by asserting that instead of using government resources in expensive subsidized rental housing programs, the government can support and revitalize the private sector by providing city services like good schools and roads. Also, the recently enacted infrastructure law can support Husock’s proposal of privately-owned houses by increasing land value in rural areas, attracting private developers to invest in the areas. Notably, the recently enacted Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal also aims to increase employment opportunities for vulnerable populations by providing an average of 1.5 million jobs annually. The increased job opportunities will increase the demand for privately developed houses by increasing consumers’ disposable income. Thus, the recently enacted infrastructure law has several initiatives that can advance Husock’s proposal of private sector dominance in urban and social housing issues.
Husock further notes that public housing policy focused on the physical characteristics of slum areas but missed the critical elements that made slums accommodative for vulnerable populations. For instance, the author suggests that Jacob Riis, who set the stage for the government’s revision of housing policies, focused more on the social pathologies of slum experience and missed the positive aspects of slum life, like its provision of upward mobility to immigrant residents and economic opportunities for the indigenous communities. Riis’ views and proposals motivated Wood and Bauer to launch the movement to rid cities of the slums and privately-owned low-cost housing. However, Wood and Bauer’s public housing policy and aggressive use of zoning only increased the number of unmanageable and poorly maintained public properties and exacerbated racial segregation since the public housing units were mainly dominated by Black Americans. Contrarily, Levitt “would disprove Wood and Bauer: the private sector could provide housing for the working man” (Husock 55). In this quote, Husock recognizes the impactful efforts of William Levitt, who advocated for more privately-owned housing units as effective strategies to solve housing problems for low-and middle-income households. According to Husock, Levitt championed the development of inexpensive suburban housing units and single-family homes in several places in the country (56). However, Levitt’s construction practices were stained with racial segregation concerns as he discriminated against African Americans (Husock 56). Besides Wood, Bauer, and Levitt, another influential housing reformer was “the minister and the builder,” Reverend Johnny Ray Youngblood, who collaborated with real estate developer I. D. Robbins to establish cheaper privately-owned houses by “reinventing dispersed, private management” (Husock 88). Ray Youngblood’s efforts were premised on providing affordable housing for single-family homeowners in Brooklyn, and he managed to sell about 2800 units to the target customers (Husock 88). Notably, Ray Youngblood’s housing policies and approaches were better and more customer-targeted than other reformers’ policies because he did not exacerbate racial segregation but helped the targeted low-income groups to access affordable privately-owned single-family homes. Thus, among the several housing reformers mentioned in the book, Ray Youngblood’s work stands out as the most interesting because it targeted the most affected population groups and did not promote racial segregation.
In conclusion, Husock rejects the policies of influential housing reformers like Catherine Bauer and Edith Elmer Wood, which promoted public housing and subsidized social housing programs. Instead, he proposes a radically contrasting approach that promotes privately-owned homes and housing units. His main arguments against public housing and government-subsidized houses are that the houses are expensive in the long run and that government policies like public housing and zoning promote racial segregation, limiting social mobility for marginalized communities. In addition, he opposes public housing policies because they break social ties by destroying healthy communities in the name of clearing slums. A prime example of this disastrous outcome of public housing is the gentrification in Detroit’s Black Bottom neighborhood, which led to forced displacements for multiple low-income households. Notably, Husock’s proposal of increasing the private sector dominance in social housing is viable because it is less expensive, promotes social ties, and is more manageable compared to public housing. Also, the proposal will be enhanced by initiatives of the recently enacted infrastructure law, which will improve road networks and water systems and provide more jobs, thus increasing the demand for low-cost privately-owned housing unites and homes. Husock concludes by emphasizing the need for housing reformers and policymakers to engage more with the poor side of town in order to understand the dynamics of communities living in these areas to promote upward social mobility.
Works Cited
Husock, H. The Poor Side of Town and Why We Need It. Encounter Books. ISBN 9781641772020 (ISBN10: 1641772026), 2021.
write