By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The American experiment with public housing, initiated during the New Deal, has been widely considered a failure, marked by deteriorating conditions and concentrated poverty in many projects. However, this outcome wasn’t inevitable; other nations have successfully implemented mixed-income public housing models. From its inception, US public housing faced deliberate undermining through legislation such as the George-Healey Act and the Faircloth Amendment, restricting funding and fostering segregation. Ultimately, decades of underfunding and policy failures led to the current state of disrepair, despite the positive impact public housing has had on millions of residents.
Read the original article here
Public housing in the US didn’t fail due to inherent flaws; rather, it was systematically undermined through a series of deliberate actions and policies designed to ensure its downfall. This wasn’t a matter of incompetence but a calculated strategy, a slow burn orchestrated to achieve specific political and economic goals.
The narrative of failure conveniently overlooks the intentional dismantling of public resources. Funds were slashed, leaving social programs severely underfunded, making it nearly impossible for them to function effectively. This underfunding was then used as justification for further cuts, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of inadequacy. The subsequent complaints about underperforming programs served as a perfect cover for privatization, further shifting wealth and power away from the public sphere. This cycle of cutbacks, criticism, and privatization has repeated relentlessly, consistently prioritizing the interests of the wealthy over the needs of the population.
The argument that residents themselves are to blame ignores the context of systemic inequality. The concentration of low-income families, often disproportionately people of color, into poorly maintained housing projects is not accidental. Redlining, gerrymandering, and other discriminatory practices actively created and perpetuated these conditions. This is not simply a matter of individuals failing to maintain their housing; it is a consequence of decades-long policies that deliberately marginalized specific communities and limited their access to resources and opportunities.
The financial constraints faced by public housing are also frequently cited as reasons for its supposed failure. The high costs of construction, maintenance, and staff are undeniable. Yet, these costs are often inflated by regulatory burdens and the complexities of navigating a web of often contradictory laws. ADA compliance, while crucial, adds substantial expense, particularly for projects with limited budgets. The sheer volume of legal challenges and the potential for costly lawsuits further constrain already stretched resources. These financial challenges are not insurmountable; they are a direct result of a system that places excessive burdens on public housing while simultaneously providing generous support to private entities.
The frequently cited problems with residents, such as drug addiction, mental health issues, and uncooperative behaviors, are undeniably present. However, these problems are not uniquely found in public housing; they are societal issues that require comprehensive solutions beyond simply blaming the residents. These challenges are often amplified by the lack of adequate support services and the chronic underfunding of mental health and addiction treatment programs. Public housing has been left to shoulder the burden of these systemic problems without the corresponding resources to address them effectively.
Furthermore, the assertion that public housing failed because of inherent incompatibility within laws and regulations is a testament to the complexity of the problem and not an explanation for its failure. This complexity of navigating ADA compliance and discrimination laws simultaneously, alongside the practical challenges of balancing reasonable accommodations for diverse needs within a single housing unit, is not a sign of inherent weakness but a deliberate creation of obstacles. These regulations are not necessarily flawed; rather, they reveal how systemic issues create a situation where the system works against its intended purpose.
The successful implementation of public housing models in other countries demonstrates that it is not an inherently unworkable system. The key difference lies in the approach and commitment. While the US focuses on a system deliberately weighted against its success, other nations prioritize the creation of sustainable and supportive environments that empower their residents. This stark contrast illustrates that the problems plaguing public housing in the US are not inherent but are the direct result of specific choices and strategies. Public housing in the US hasn’t failed; it has been systematically undermined, and the blame falls squarely on the architects of this slow, deliberate sabotage.