HOPE VI, Section 8, and the Contradictions of Low-Income Housing Policy

Pardee, Jessica W.; Gotham, Kevin Fox

doi:10.1300/j134v09n02_01

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fraser et al (2013) contend that HOPE VI cannot be accepted as a strategy to ameliorate poverty. It may even exacerbate poverty as the shift in housing policy has resulted in a massive reduction of public housing stock and increased wait lists for housing assistance (Pardee and Gotham 2005). Furthermore, while HOPE VI required Community and Supportive Services (CSS), evidence suggests that they are not effective in making meaningful changes in employment and wealth accumulation for residents.…”

Section: Mixed-income Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hope for Cities or Hope for People: Neighborhood Development and Demographic Change

Clark

Negrey

2017

City & Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study, recognizing the longstanding criticisms of HOPE VI as a vehicle for gentrification, compares the goals of local officials with the stated goals of HOPE VI in order to investigate the extent to which local officials are using or misusing HOPE VI to achieve local development and revitalization goals. HOPE VI positioned itself as a program intended to deconcentrate poverty, however, in the case of Liberty Green, the focus on neighborhood development embedded within the federal policy results in HOPE VI developments being described as successful based on physical changes at the site rather than outcomes for public housing residents, who largely do not benefit from these changes. Evidence from this study suggests that most of the emphasis for the Liberty Green HOPE VI development revolves around neighborhood and community development goals. And self‐sufficiency, while a goal of the HOPE VI program, remains secondary.

show abstract

Section: Mixed-income Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hope for Cities or Hope for People: Neighborhood Development and Demographic Change

Clark

Negrey

2017

City & Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the same time, tenantbased Section 8 program seemed to be more effective at targeting housing units to people who otherwise would not have their own. Despite some promising results achieved, it has been indicated that housing vouchers alone do not guarantee improved environments for the poor (Pardee & Gotham, 2005;Rosenbaum & Harris, 2001). Such housing mobility programs as the Gautreaux and the Moving to Opportunity (MTO), which involve intensive counseling and include requirements about where families can move, are expensive and unlikely to be replicated in all locales (Ganapati & Frank, 2008;Wang & Varady, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Location Patterns of Section 8 Housing in Jefferson County, Kentucky

Song

Keeling

2010

International Journal of Applied Geospatial Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The controversial Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program is the largest federal low-income housing program. Using GIS-based spatial clustering analysis (Getis-Ord's Gi statistic) and multiple linear regressions, in this paper, the authors examine the locational patterns of more than 13,600 Section 8 housing units in Jefferson County, Kentucky, and explore key social, economic, demographic, and locational factors underlying the spatial distribution of Section 8 housing. The findings reveal that Section 8 housing continues to concentrate in the central city area with predominantly black residents, a high proportion of families in poverty, and abundant low-cost properties. The Section 8 voucher policy has failed to successfully de-concentrate poor families from these urban areas. Residential mobility of low-income families has been restricted by various factors, most important of which is the lack of accessibility to public transportation across the metropolitan area.

show abstract

“It's all about power and you have none:” The marginalization of tenant resistance to mixed-income social housing redevelopment in Toronto, Canada

August

2016

Cities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HOPE VI, Section 8, and the Contradictions of Low-Income Housing Policy

Cited by 9 publications

References 24 publications

Hope for Cities or Hope for People: Neighborhood Development and Demographic Change

Hope for Cities or Hope for People: Neighborhood Development and Demographic Change

Location Patterns of Section 8 Housing in Jefferson County, Kentucky

“It's all about power and you have none:” The marginalization of tenant resistance to mixed-income social housing redevelopment in Toronto, Canada

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About