• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Jim Bretz of Boulder writes:

Of all the drivel I’ve ever read in any local newspaper, “A new day dawning over public housing” was over the top. As a 50+ year resident of Denver I have been acutely aware of the ever-growing plight of the homeless and those of low-income, and the way they have been treated (or ignored) by city agencies, and the public at large.
There was a time, not that long ago, when indeed, low-income families, especially minorities, were purposely segregated and kept away from the mainstream. There were projects built all over the city, mainly on the west side.
Lincoln Park comes to mind. Just one of many. These projects were built in areas that were either already depressed, or substantially industrial. Out of sight, out of mind. What’s changed? While the attitudes of society in general have softened, there are still many who view these people as a scourge and an embarrassment. And if it was possible, they would have them “quarantined” in distant parts of the city where they would permanently remain out of sight.
The fact is, there is no place left to send them. The formerly down-trodden areas of the city have been discovered in the last two decades by people (Yuppies) who have moved here from similar cities across the country, and who started purchasing low-priced housing in depressed areas, remodeling and upgrading them, and selling them at decent profits to others moving to the area.
And so it has gone on, over and over again. There are very few areas left that haven’t been gentrified, or soon will be. And there are no neighborhoods left anywhere in the city that would welcome the building of a new housing project. So there are no places left for those of low income to move. What to do?
Why, build them nice looking houses to move into. Houses that aren’t offensive to the Yuppie mentality. Houses that denote a “proper” neighborhood.
Sort of like false fronts on the back lot at Universal Studios. Pleasant facade, nothing inside. To say that this effort is to help these people move into the mainstream of society is an insult to the intelligence. It is to make them more invisible - pure and simple.
The same with the city’s efforts to find something to do with the homeless, come time for the 2008 Democratic convention. The city fathers are in a panic racing around trying to find a place to hide these people, until the whole thing blows over. Then it’s back to business as usual.
I wouldn’t be so offended by the article if it wasn’t so dishonest. It’s grandstanding at its worst. Please, tell it like it is.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

Hey Jim, I guess nothing would make you happy would it? Just what do you want to do? You didn't like the "projects" and you don't like mixing low income housing in with market rate housing...so what shall we do? I'll tell you what will happen though, you will be able to tell which units are low income in a matter of months. I have lived in complexes with a high concentration of "section 8" housing and it wasn't long before those units were run down, trash hanging from the balconies, and a general state of disrepair. Giving people something for nothing (or very little) does nothing to instill pride and responsibility.

Must we refer to everyone who takes care of their property as a Yuppie? And is anyone really dumb enough to believe that the new low-income housing is nothing but "false fronts" and a "pleasant facade" with "nothing inside?"

Jim seems to be saying that it was better to house low-income people in decrepit 1960s-era projects rather than in newer, mixed income developments. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What's wrong with including less well-off people in middle class neighborhoods? Isn't it possible that the city actually learned something from the fact that 1960s-era projects that concentrated the poor were eventually overrun with gangs and crime? Changing ideas about poverty housing have nothing to do with the upcoming Democratic convention and everything to do with not wanting to repeat past failures.

Karen, I agree with you. The projects were a disaster. Low income people deserve to have a decent place to live. And if it didn't work, for heaven's sake, don't try it again! I just have a concern about housing that people don't have to work hard for. I think that is when the decay and disrepair come into play. I hope that the mixed-income housing provides the low income residents a chance to have pride of ownership and responsibility.

I have a few questions that I am asking sincerely to better understand the quandary we face with low income housing issues.

Why do people with low income have families they obviously are unable to support? If they can't afford a place to live, why start a family?

I just did a quick search on sublet.com and came up with 19 current vacancies all for under $500/mo rent in the greater Denver area. Even at $8.00/hr, it would seem that someone should be able to afford rent of $500 or less (single person at least).

Isn't the whole point of a better education, strong work ethic, making more money, to be able to afford a place in a nicer, safer neighborhood? Why should someone who did not do the diligence receive the same rewards as those that did?

Shouldn't low income be a temporary status? With hard work, reliability, continuing education and some good fortune, doesn't it make sense that low income should turn to modest income, to middle income (and beyond) at some point (at least theoretically)? I started out making $5.18/hr in high school, went to college, worked hard, became a valuable asset with a specific skill and earn a good living. I also waited to begin a family.

Now, I have not read or heard anything that Mr. Bretz of Boulder is commenting on, and I am not sure if he is just venting, or what his offer of solution to his perceived problem is. I would think that there are a couple of ways to go about this.

1. Government oversight and responsibility in the housing market. Have state, county, or city owned properties that shall be let to individuals or families that fall under a certain income level at a rate of a certain percentage of their income. The caveat would be that employment must be maintained, and a cap of a certain amount of "family" members may live in an individual domicile (say maybe 4 total occupants). Sacrifices. Those that receive the assistance of the public, must also sacrifice some liberties until they are able to care for themselves.

2. Effect the labor pool. If housing drives away labor, one of two things will happen. Low income employment will relocate to where the labor is, or wages will increase to reflect the cost of living (see San Francisco's teacher pay scale for educators that must live within the city limits).

3. Provide tax credits to private investors that maintain and let to low income families. Rent control.

4. Engage the assistance of non-profits and charitable organizations to become involved in housing for low income persons. Similar to St. Louis, MO and Detroit, MI where thee home builders association has worked in tandem with the local and state government to provide this assistance.

I don't know if those suggestions would work or not, as I have not done a feasibility study, a business plan, or any other research. I would think that we would need to expand infrastructure as far as transportation to allow for the simple execution of getting to and from employment, but we have millions of acres east and north of the city that could be developed specifically for low income families.

I think as a caring society we should assist those that are unable to do for themselves, and teach those that have the ability to do for themselves. What I do not think we should be in the business of is helping those that refuse, for whatever reason, to help themselves, be it drug addiction, callousness towards education, irresponsible behavior and actions, or the expectation of a hand out.

We can and should provide the tools, the training, and the education for success. What the individual does with that, is entirely up to them.

People receiving low income housing assistance should be required to be gainfully employed, have a five year time limit and they should not qualify for a larger unit to accommodate a growing family. (If the family decides to add to their family, they will have to make do with the space they have or, if they are then in violation of occupancy laws, they will have to move into private housing. )

The minimum rent should be increased to $50 per person in the household and possibly increase a small amount each year.

They should also be required to meet with a life-skills counselor or support agency periodically to evaluate their goals and plan for their move into the real world.

All school-age children in the home must be enrolled in school until they are 18.

Everyone in the household must be a legal resident or citizen.

Let's enforce the concept of a hand up instead of a hand out. The children in these families deserve a stable home and a decent start in life. But, it is ultimately their parents' responsibility to provide for them long-term.

idk, I agree with you. I have never heard of a housing project that is well maintained. If you give people who have little respect for themselves free or reduced housing ,they think it's the governments responsibility to keep it looking nice ,instead of doing it themselves.They will have it looking like a slum within 2 years.

I am tired of paying for people who think everything is supposed to be given them on a silver platter.

The social experiment of giving people free or greatly reduced housing is a failure.

Time for a new plan.

I don't want them building houses in my neighborhood for low income people. Their track record for keeping something that was given to them in good condition and fitting in the neighborhoods has not been too great.

I have a friend who used to live across the street. They bought a new house and use the old one as a rental. Some people called and wanted to rent it,they were section 8. She called the office that deals with section 8 to find out more information and found out that if the people who rent it do any damage they cannot be held accountable. If they don't pay their part of the rent it could take up to 6 months to evict them.Section 8 will not reimburse the property owner for any damage done.

She will not rent to section 8 people.

Dan2...

"Why do people with low income have families they obviously are unable to support? If they can't afford a place to live, why start a family?"

Sex good, inexpensive, enjoyable -- oops!

POST A COMMENT

• 'Kid Nation' reality show a new low
• Rivers a shameful hire
• Too little news
• ‘Diesel’ fumes
• Unlocalized story a disservice to readers
• Riled up by Christian music
• Darling of the left
• Solutions too costly