NIMBY: if not your backyard, then whose?

This is a very difficult subject. I live in Roseland, so I have experienced first-hand the changes this transformation has wrought. Not pretty at all. I have felt all of the aforementioned emotions and then some. Some days I am mad as hell because I come home from work to find bags of litter strewn nearby, and see people lounging in or around boarded up homes (and believe me, there are plenty of these in Roseland). Other days, I shake my head in sorrow because I know that I am very lucky, saying to myself, "there but for the Grace of God go I." I realize that our country's system is set up so that most people will not move beyond where they are now.

Families moved out of CHA housing developments were set up to fail. They were tossed out without proper support and sent packing to the nearest minority community on the far south and west sides of the city. Of the 20,000 + moved out over the years, only 6,000 or so (and that number is sure to dwindle) will be allowed to return to the mixed-income developments (if, of course, they're completed at some point). Some days it's difficult to understand this and feel empathy, etc, especially when you return home to a garage or car that has been broken into (as I have), or you answer your door and a man and his family are looking for work for money and food, but this is the reality. It's easy for us to sit around and say, "Why don't they find a job?" But, each year my office is threatened with layoffs, etc. Many of us are just a stone's throw away from someone saying, "Why don't you find a job?" Easier said than done in today's world.

As a low-income baby boomer who grew up in a working class white ethnic neighborhood - a neighborhood which changed after I went off to college - I cannot fault the writer's legitimate fears and concerns.

As a low-income baby boomer with desirable attributes, I believe I have an unusual and unheard perspective.

By "desirable attributes" I refer to attributes that many people would desire in a neighbor: I have a college degree (liberal arts), I've never used drugs or engaged in crime, I've been on the board of my neighborhood association as well as a local food co-op. So I like to think I am not part of what many perceive as 'the low-income problem.'

On one hand, my neighbors are glad to have me as a neighbor (especially as opposed to, say, a drug addict or criminal). But my neighbors don't decide whether I can live among them; landlords do - and there are plenty of applicants with far more income than I have. (I pay half my income for rent; landlords typically require an applicant to have income three or four times greater than rent.)

Sure, I would like an opportunity to live in subsidized housing of the type at issue here. But the waiting lists are a mile long and at most times are closed to new applicants: I am on a number of waiting lists but could continue waiting a long time.

So I am in the interesting position of both understanding the perspective of the writer, and also desiring an expanded supply of subsidized housing, mixed-income or otherwise.

In this context, I have tried to distinguish myself from other low-income people, and I see the "problem" - and its solution - in (not) establishing and implementing a non-financial hierarchy of eligibility for subsidized housing. For example, how about giving high school graduates housing preference over dropouts?

In short, I would say, I have a dream, that one day, the ability of our children to live in save, decent neighborhoods, will be based not on the content of their pocketbook, but on the content of their character.

megan-nice article. and good comments by tayale and poorboomer.

i must say, having lived in a number of chicago neighborhoods and now in logan square, i fall into the nimby camp. it's not that i don't care about those who are struggling. it's that after living in east humboldt park (potomac 1/2 block west of washtenaw) for three years in the late nineties (and still having friends there), i saw the destructive effects that concentrated low-income housing has on not only middle-income neighbors, but even the low-income residents.
it was overrun by drug and gang violence, trash everywhere, unsupervised small chilren playing in the street until midnight...
there were plenty of low-income residents who were good people, but far too many who weren't.
the main focus should no just be what to do to house low income people, but how to prevent this cycle from repeating itself over and over and over...and over.
as i've responded in comments to another of your thoughtful articles, people have to stop having kids when they're not ready to be parents. otherwise, their kids have absolutely no chance of making it, of becoming productive citizens.
apologies for the redundancy, but for those who weren't privy to previous posts, here's a copy:
hi megan,
nice article on poverty in the city, with lots of good background and data. i very much appreciate your desire to help the less fortunate among us. i share that concern, but have become much more practical, if a bit cynical, after living in a number of impoverished (varying degrees) neighborhoods in chicago (humboldt park, garfield park, little village/north lawndale, and now logan square, not very impoverished where i live).
One of the most important ways to address poverty and crime? For communities and individuals to address the issue of people having kids before they are ready, before they have gotten an education or job. If a person is not able to take care of himself/herself, there is little chance that they will have the means, stability, or maturity to provide a child with a reasonable chance of escaping poverty. When it's the norm in some communities for young people to have kids before they're even able to take care of themselves, there's little chance that kids will have a stable, supportive environment and get the basic preparation and support for succeeding in school. Unless this changes, there's little chance that both the schools and communities will ever improve.
Yes, school reform is needed to address the sometimes appallingly poor levels of school achievement. But the blame needs to extend past the schools to the effect of community and parents. Good teachers are critical, but I think that the community and parents play an equal if not larger role. Unless the core issues of poverty, crime, and community and family stability are addressed, no amount of money spent or committed teachers will solve the problem of poor quality education."
Hi Mark - great comments. Thanks for reading.
Maybe I wasn't entirely clear. I wasn't saying we should spend more money. I think that poverty is very complex, just as you noted. There are a lot of great programs that help families escape the cycle of poverty - for instance, parenting classes for those who become parents young, or job training programs so parents can provide better for their kids. Or alcohol treatment. Or homelessness prevention. Or birth control or sex education.
These things are hard to fix, but we have a lot of great social workers who are dedicated to helping. But if a problem is as big as complex as you and I think it is, we can't pretend that these services are "discretionary." I'm not suggesting we throw more money at the problem - I'm suggesting we stop cutting money from the people and programs that are trying to help.
Some of the issues of poverty are individual. People have kids too early. People get addicted to drugs or alcohol. People don't pursue the education they need to succeed.
But some of the issues are structural. Take, for example, the mental health care system. There used to be about 25 public mental health clinics over the city, doing great work. Now, there's about four, and even those are being cut. Now the parents that had kids too young and need help not turning to abuse or alcohol to cope with their choices don't have it. And it's because we are waiting until the last minute and pretending mental health care is optional. If we want to eliminate poverty, it's not.
Anyway, thanks again for your comments. I really appreciate readers like you who read, think and express their thoughts!
Posted on September 30, 2009 9:58 PM
Reply
mark_in_chicago said:

Hi Megan,
Wow, thanks for a great, comprehensive, nuanced response. When much of the "debate" is sound-bite, tweet, or uninformed, emotional, vitriolic rant, an informed, respectful response is very refreshing.
yes, there are many factors that lead to poverty, and there are no "magic bullet" (no pun intended with the violence tied to poverty) solutions. there must be a comprehensive look at everything that leads to poverty and how to solve it. a holistic approach is vital.
we need to take a look at all efforts being made and ensure the maximum return on investment (both monetary and human) so the time and money spent do the maximum good, and address not just the symptoms (which will thus continue) but get to the root causes, and result in real improvement through prevention. should more, the same, or less money be spent on programs? my first thought is like yours: don't increase spending, but certainly don't cut it either. but let's look at the whole system and decide what's appropriate, what really works, and how to really solve some of the problems so poverty and the social services systems are not perpetual realities.
again, i think the by far the most important step that can be taken to reduce poverty and violence, and dependence on government and social services, is for unready mothers to stop having children. how can that best be addressed? i'm not sure. but for all the wonderful people who are working to reduce poverty, it must be one of the highest priorities rather than an afterthought. otherwise, i don't believe there will ever be real improvement.
you're right too that there needs to be structural change as well. a prime example is the criminal justice system that criminalizes drug sales and decimates communities where sales are concentrated. some will say that nobody forces people to sell drugs and that putting dealers in jail gets them off the street, which is good, and just.
i disagree. if there's a demand for drugs, there will always be a supply. for those who want tough drug laws, penalties should be every bit as harsh for those who buy and consume drugs as for those who sell them. that would be just. and might also reduce the demand, and thus reduce the dealing.
however, it seems that it would be much more productive to treat drugs as a health/mental health issue, and possibly legalize sales. this would largely decriminalize sales and hopefully greatly reduce demand, by addressing the users. and bring in income for drug-use prevention and rehabilitation, pregnancy prevention/family planning, and other programs that are really needed.
if i had been born in garfield park, to an unready mother, in a terrible community, with little to no education (due to the parents and community as much as the schools), i almost certainly would have been on the street selling drugs. there are few other options. for those who say kids in the ghetto need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, i say it's completely unrealistic.
but putting sellers in jail means a further fracturing of the almost non-existent family structure, turning a person with at least some potential into a lifelong criminal (almost no rehabilitation goes on in prisons any more; for profit prisons have a vested interest in recidivism, not rehabilitation), and spending $30-$50,000 a year on incarceration.
and, as you note, improving the mental health care system is another large, structural challenge.
i must reiterate, unready mothers not having kids until they're ready can address most of these issues by preventing children from becoming products of welfare, prisons, or mental health facilities. there are many roots to poverty, but i think this is the most important, and the most important means to any real solution.

regards,

mark

ps-in another post, i mentioned the importance of spending charitable money wisely by selecting groups that were doing the most with every dollar they receive, because, some well-intentioned groups don't produce much in the way of real results. i wasn't insinuating that heartland alliance is undeserving. i think they do really good work. just noting the importance in not wasting limited resources when trying to do good. charity navigator is a great source of info (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8799)

Excellent post Megan, and thanks for the link. I think calling it "NIMBY" is too simplistic, and I talk more about it in this post.

Great post Megan. I honestly dont think theres a real solution to this issue especially when you want to try to make both sides happy. I think one thing we can no longer do is shove everyone off into a public housing ghetto. As much as I dont like government interference, I think they should hold people who are part of the public housing program more accountable as they should with all programs. I dont think that will solve all the issues but its a start.