About the Central Corridor, Myron Orfield Has a Good Point…

Myron Orfield, Commissioner and Professor of L...

Myron Orfield, Commissioner and Professor of Law, University of Minnesota School of Law; Executive Director, Institute on Race and Poverty at the University of Minnesota

Myron Orfield is concerned that an emphasis on building subsidized low-income housing along the Central Corridor light rail line connecting downtown St. Paul and downtown Minneapolis will concentrate poverty in those neighborhoods and he is right.

If I understand this housing correctly, the low-income housing units are offered to people who qualify based on income.  The rent needed to finance the buildings is subsidized through building grants, reducing the amount needed to be financed by rents.  Hence the ability to offer lower rents to people who qualify.

It sounds like a good idea, but Orfield is right.  This sort of strategy concentrates the poor and the problems that follow poverty.

We have seen what happens when low-income and poverty is concentrated in neighborhoods by good intentions.  Public housing complexes in St. Louis and Chicago come to mind.

The neighborhoods along the Central Corridor need stronger, more economically diverse neighborhoods.  If I understand how the subsidized housing now built or being proposed subsidizes the property that then is made available to qualified renters at reduced rates, thus concentrating low incomes while excluding — and dissuading — others to invest in those neighborhoods.

Isn’t it a better idea to subsidize the individual rather than the property?  We do this for education, for example.  In a general sense — excluding privates, primarily — we don’t have subsidized schools for the poor and non-subsidized for the rest.  We still give some grants to those who cannot afford tuition.

We also do this in another more familiar way…the much aligned “food stamp” program, otherwise known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).  We don’t make people who need aid shop at stores subsidized and built just for them, we help them meet their needs along side everyone else.

These programs work.  They help those who could use a boost, but they also put money into the existing economy without creating possible inefficient redundancy and bad externalities people associate with poverty.   In the housing market, I imagine a landlord would welcome the extra guarantee of rents paid if it were backed up by a subsidy program.

So, again, if I understand these housing developments properly, I think Orfield has a point that should be taken up.  If we want the Central Corridor neighborhoods to redevelop and someday thrive again, we need to focus on economic diversity and invest with that goal in mind.  Quick solutions won’t serve that goal well.

Please comment.

Enhanced by Zemanta

2 thoughts on “About the Central Corridor, Myron Orfield Has a Good Point…

  1. Gary Farland

    Of course, the light rail eliminated 85% of the parking on University Avenue, thus destroying many small businesses, especially those owned by minorities. So perhaps now they need subsidized housing.

    1. Shane Schmidt Post author

      I think the parking argument was a bit overdone. I am in that area a lot. I never have trouble finding parking. In fact much of that area is nothing but parking lots. Empty parking lots. True, if you want to park right in front of some businesses, some, but not all, of that space is gone, but in those cases, you can park 50 yards away and be fine. It’s a non issue as I see it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s