Editorial: Diversity in housing is a must

Wednesday, April 16, 2003 | 8:56 a.m.

Federally subsidized public housing began with a 1937 act of Congress. Its good intentions soon evolved into what is now nationally recognized as an urban failure. In a story last month about the emerging changes in public housing, a reporter for the Christian Science Monitor described the old-style projects as "crowded hotbeds of crime and despair." A major problem was the segregation of low-income people, whether they were consigned to barracks-style, multi-family buildings or high-rises. The stark environments of poverty and unemployment prevented adults from meeting and talking with more affluent people who could offer them opportunities. The environments also limited the chances for children to meet role models for education and careers.

The individual success stories of people rising from the projects and becoming successful on their own were numerous. But that image could not prevail as housing projects across the country became dilapidated and high incidences of crime, drugs and gangs stigmatized nearly everyone living in them. In 1992 Congress committed itself to undoing what it had wrought and created the Congressional Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing. Out of this commission came a program known as HOPE VI.

This $5 billion program took a whole new approach. Instead of segregating low-income people, it integrated them into the larger community. The private sector was intricately involved, building affordable units where families received federal vouchers to help pay the rent. Housing complexes were no longer exclusively for low-income residents. Middle-income, non-subsidized tenants lived as neighbors with those receiving vouchers. Instead of row upon row of nothing but housing units, the new housing designs were of "mixed use" -- which meant child-care centers and businesses such as bookstores were all part of the environment. Demolition of old projects was part of the program and led to its major downside -- many people were displaced before new housing could be built for them. But, overall, the assessment of HOPE VI by housing experts has been positive.

With the exception of one demolition project, Las Vegas and Clark County received no money from the program because its housing projects were not considered sufficiently distressed. Nevertheless, there are projects here that still harken back to the old days. This week, in regard to one such remaining project, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said, "The centralization of public housing has been in most cases an absolute failure and it is time to end this glaring example of a property that does nothing but serve as a crime incubator."

Ensign's voice will be needed in Congress as the Bush administration is evaluating HOPE VI with an eye toward ending the program or making significant changes, such as entrusting states with more of the public housing responsibility. We hope the concept of HOPE VI -- integration as opposed to segregation -- lives on. The Clark County Housing Authority has hopes that the program represents the future of public housing in Southern Nevada. We share the same hope. We see a continued need for strong federal involvement, particularly with states experiencing huge deficits. As the concept takes hold here, private developers will play a big role. They will need federal funding guarantees if housing for low-income families is to be integrated into their master-planned communities and apartment complexes. The HOPE program was aptly named and we see a better future f or Nevada families if its concepts are not abandoned by Washington before they can take hold here.