Rental Vouchers
Tear Down Housing Projects
By Daniel Muniz

One radical idea promoted by poverty warriors to end poverty is to close down all housing projects and replace them with rental vouchers. So in other words, instead of crowding destitute people into a drug and crime infested area, give them a choice of where they want to live instead of the government making the choice for them. And all too often, when it is the government making the decision, it often is not the best choice.

I personally like this idea although I wish the poverty warriors would embrace the same concept for education because it very much addresses the exact same problems about schools.

In all honesty, decaying and dilapidated neighborhoods are not only an eyesore but they are a haven for crime and drugs. And then there are many people (but not all) who are in the barrios and ghettos that live by an uncivilized code of conduct that fosters lots of bad behavior. In a way, the community-at-large accepts the bad behavior and is even willing to overlook it as part of a double standard especially when it comes to law enforcement.

So sticking people in those kinds of neighborhoods for a housing project puts them in an unsafe dangerous environment.

With the rise of big government, especially with Great Society programs, Liberals earnestly felt that they could wipe out poverty with huge multi-story high density housing projects. But all it did was just create bigger slums that became even more infested with crime and drugs that became more dangerous and unsafe. And today, there is hardly a Liberal around that wants to take credit for those massive housing projects. In fact, most Liberals want them tore down and replaced with lower density mixed use developments.

But the bigger question is why have them at all?

And that is where the rental vouchers come in.

Instead of concentrating poor people into a crime ridden, drug infested part of town, disperse them throughout the community. But most importantly, let the people make the choice of where to live instead of having the government relegate them to the crummiest part of town.

Of course this initiative won’t end poverty although there are some poverty warriors who are naïve enough to believe so. But it does take the poor out of the dangerous environments and it gives them a chance to live in a decent place.

However, the biggest drawback in making such a proposal actually work is that it must use a healthy dose of common sense and good judgment. And that is perhaps the greatest setback to any government initiative. For instance, there are too many poverty warriors who are rabidly engaged in class warfare and all they want to do is just stick it to the upper class regardless of how expensive and wasteful it is.

That happened in my city in which the local housing authority wanted to purchase two high price apartment complexes in an affluent neighborhood. They would still rent out the units at market price but set aside about 60 units for poor families. The cost of buying out the apartment complexes was outrageously expensive and that same money could be spent on helping over a thousand families instead of just several dozen.

Another potential problem is that too many poverty warriors are terrified of holding poor people personally accountable for their actions. Strict rules have to be put in place with these rental vouchers in which the recipients have to be responsible for the houses they rent. And if the rules are repeatedly violated, then the voucher is automatically revoked. And without such strict requirements, such a voucher is worthless.

A decent residential neighborhood will tolerate a handful of rental properties but they generally don’t like having too many of them. And they are weary of government programs like rental vouchers moving into their neighborhoods and that is perfectly understandable. As taxpayers and homeowners, they have an expectation that these people will not ruin their property values and that is why there has to be strict accountability with these welfare recipients. After all, the taxpayer is paying for them.

And except for extenuating circumstances, the rental vouchers cannot be permanent.

The biggest opposition that I have with poverty programs is that they promote dependency. I don’t mind giving a helping hand but I have a problem with giving a lifetime of handouts. A rental voucher has to be temporary in nature and ideally, it ought to follow the concept of tenant ownership in which once a recipient is back on their feet, they can actually buy their house and begin the path of ownership.

Housing projects of the Great Society were a terrible idea and too many ghettos and barrios became worse because of them. Even the new projects are an improvement but it still didn’t solve the problem of poverty. And rental vouchers and tenant ownership won’t eradicate poverty either but they can be a great tool to reduce it.

Although I will be the first to admit that such an initiative can be a recipe for failure if no common sense and good judgment is exercised. It is a radical idea but it does have merit if it can be successfully implemented.

Any opinions or views expressed herein belong solely to the author and does not represent any employer, organization, political party, governmental agency, or any other entity and do not necessarily reflect the views of the site owner or its participants.