People love to tempt fate and then act all surprised and shit when it doesn't turn out well. When I was a kid my family lived in Oklahoma. From about the time I was one until we moved back to KC when I was about seven. We lived way the hell out in the middle of nowhere, I'm talking little house on the prairie, or more exactly, little trailer house on the prairie. My folks were young, just starting out, pops drove over the road. I watched these shows back then, like Sky King, and Twelve O'clock High. One of them, I don't recall which, had an episode where they were dropping shit out of a plane, attached to a parachute. Now, we had this big ass hole in our red dirt yard, the old man was going to put a new septic tank in there, but hadn't gotten around to it, so it was just a big fucking hole, about 12 feet deep and 12 feet across. My parents had warned me not to be dickin around by this crater, which was like telling me to jump right into it. My sister and some little girl up the road convinced me that I could parachute into the hole if I tied a sheet to my trike. Seemed like a good idea at the time.
Now, I knew that I wasn't supposed to be playing around that hole in the ground, and I'm pretty sure I knew that the parachute theory wasn't a good idea. So I did what you would expect, I took a sheet off of the clothesline, tied it to my trike, and prepared to pedal my dumb ass into the gaping chasm. My sister convinced me that speed was the most important factor in making this thing work, so I backed up a good distance to build up sufficient speed. My sister volunteered to help me get up to speed by pushing me a little ways to get my momentum going.
I remember her hands in the middle of my back, I recall lifting my feet off the pedals, and the pedals slapping the soles of my shoes as she pushed me as fast as possible. As I was nearing the hole, I seem to recall having an epiphany, I realized this wasn't such a great idea. I think I told her to stop, I might have heard a giggle. Next thing I knew I was at the bottom of the hole, arm twisted funny, my mother picking me up and carrying me up one of the steeply sloped ends of the hole.
Now at 5 or 6, whatever I was at the time, I knew that trying to float like a feather to the bottom of that hole was a bad idea, and if my sister hadn't pushed me into the fucker, I probably would have pussied out at the last minute. More importantly, I knew I wasn't supposed to be anywhere near the hole. I tempted fate, and it bit me in the ass by way of a broken arm. I spent the next 30 years or so tempting fate, and more often than not, it worked out none too well. I'm not alone in my stupidity, and that makes me feel a little better. The latest folks to tempt fate, then act all surprised when it doesn't go well, The Hyde Park Homeowners Association. Rather than just take their lumps, they want to spread the pain.
Stay with me, I'm actually heading somewhere with this.
For those not familiar with this ongoing hot mess, allow me to enlighten you. One of the loudest voices in the movement to "clean up" a stretch of Armour road is local blogger Toellnor Tells it. Now I'm not out to trash this guy, I don't have anything against him personally. I do have a problem with what he wants to see happen, and at whose expense. Toellner and his cohorts have a beef with section 8 housing, more to the point, they don't like the fact that some buildings along Armour are entirely dedicated to section 8, just as they have been for as long as section 8 has existed. If they have their way, all the folks living in these buildings will be dispersed through out the city. The thinking being, if we get rid of section 8 buildings, spread the people out, it will reduce the killings, crime, drug traffic, and prostitution. On the surface, that sounds like a great idea, sort of like parachuting with a sheet sounds like a good idea to a kid.
I don't know how long these people have been in the midtown area, my time there dates back to the 1970's, and while I've lived in Independence for about 5 or 6 months now, Midtown will always be near and dear to my heart. The problems with uprooting hundreds, maybe thousands of folks who currently live in the area seem to either be ignored by, or totally unimportant to the small handful of people who are calling for it to be done. Toellnors theory, although he may take exception to my view of it, is that this stretch of midtown can be a bargain hunters paradise if they can just get rid of the riff raff. In order to get rid of the riff raff, they want to get rid of the section 8 housing. Sounds good so far, yes? No, not so fast Scooter. The majority of section 8 folks are poor, black, elderly, disabled, single mothers, etc. In other words, they are honest folks with no money. Many of these people have spent their lives living there, they may not want to be uprooted just so a handful of white folks who bought a whole lot of house for relatively little money, can take a Birkenstocked stroll along the tree lined streets without the locals making them nervous.
This theory, and the movement behind it has more holes in it than a Simi Valley porn set. For starters, that particular stretch of road is no more prone to crime and violence than any other area in the city that is made up of mostly poor, mostly minority residents. Getting rid of section 8 isn't going to stop crime in an area that is bordered by Troost. The crime problem isn't about section 8, it's about poverty, lack of police presence and resources. If you move these people out, against their will, crime isn't going to go away. It will however be dispersed to the outlying areas, or wherever the people are forced to move. In other words, if crime is bad on Armour, lets just share the misery with the rest of the city. Never mind that the rest of the city already has crime problems, and forcing people to spread out, will only spread crime out along with it.
My biggest issue isn't about the crime being spread out. My issue is with the arrogance of a handful of people who believe that their wants and needs trump those of the poor and disadvantaged. They don't care about the effects and repercussions of forcibly relocating people, they only care about turning this stretch of road into their own idyllic pipe dream. Midtown has always had more than it's share of bad actors. Midtown was a high crime area in 1975, and it's a high crime area today. Forcing poor folks out isn't going to change that. The people who went in and bought a whole lot of house for relatively little money knew what they were getting into. It's not like they assumed Midtown was a Mission Hills annex. I'm all for cleaning up the bad element. I'm all for revitalizing depressed areas in this city, just not at the expense of the people who have spent their lives in the area. If the Hyde Park people really want to clean up Midtown, they should be 6 feet up the mayors ass. I've yet to see them picketing in front of city hall or the police station. They should drag the building owners into court, make them hire security. There is a long list of things that could be done, forcing the poor to bend to their will ain't one of them. All I've seen is pseudo concern on the nightly news, false claims that they want to make the area better for everyone, while they work to displace people who have lived in the area long before the majority of the Hyde Park Home Owners ever set an earth shoe on Armour road.
Moral of the story; Don't move into a high crime area, then act shocked when you encounter crime. A sheet ain't a parachute no matter how much you might wish it to be.
Midtown, you've completely missed the point -- which is really disappointing -- because you should be better than that.
ReplyDeleteSure, the problem spills out into my neighborhood -- and like any respectable person, I prefer to not have a lot of crime in my neighborhood. I think most people are with me on that.
But at any point, I have the financial ability to pack up and move to a different part of the city and live a peaceful life like hundreds of thousands of other people have done over the past 30 years.
The people that live in those buildings -- they don't have that option. There is a limited number of places for them to go. They don't have the ability to just move out - -if they had options, they sure as heck wouldn't be there.
The reality is, that of the 5 people that have died this year in this stretch of road, 4 of them died in the building. I don't go in the building, so my odds of getting killed aren't very high. The people in the buildings aren't so lucky.
In the first nine months of this year, one of the buildings that has about 150 units, has saw a murder, at least four reported rapes, and dozens of sexual assaults, robberies, strong armed robberies, etc.
There is a grandmother who lives in one of the buildings who was in near tears awhile back because she no longer sees her grandchildren because she doesn't feel like it is safe for them to come visit.
That's pretty messed up.
And yes, in many ways, this stretch of road is no different from many of the other areas in the city that have high poverty and that has blossomed into high crime.
However, there is one major difference. While other areas have a geographic concentration of poverty -- that stem from decades of social injustice and suburban flight - -this area is there because the government has mandated it.
Now think about that for a second.
While the other areas of the city have major social problems to overcome in order to fix the problems (problems we, as a community of people, should care about fixing), the crime, drugs, violence, etc -- however, this would be completely fixable with a simple change in public policy. Instead, even people like you, who should be able to see the difference, don't take issue with the city and HUD for issuing millions of dollars in tax credits and funding in order to actually CREATE the situation.
So yes, if things get too bad, at any point, I can pack up and just move out -- and leave the city to once again lose tax revenue, lose people (our population has been declining for 4 decades now) and then create more poverty, lack of police and let the cycle continue.
And let's make no mistake, if the vast majority of the folks who lived in these apartments had other options, they sure as heck move out too. They may still live in midtown, but they also would likely choose to not live in a building where there are shootings in the hallways and lobby, where they can be robbed walking down their hallway, where they don't feel safe in their own homes or for family members to come visit.
They live there, because the government has dictated that they have few options other than live in a high-rise apartment.
So I could leave at any point where others don't have that option. Or i can stay, and try to be part of a permanent solution. I can speak up on behalf of people who have no political clout whatsoever --many of whom are scare for their lives to come forward. For now, I choose to stay.
I really wish more people would try to be a part of the permanent solution vs criticizing those who are trying to be. It's easy to ignore the problem when it's someone else's -- and the problem is that too many have been ignoring the problem for way too long.
Not familiar with the area problems. However, if I lived near there, I'd move out. No different than any other area in any big city with Section 8 Housing. If they move the Section 8 housing out to the burbs or anywhere else, the crime will follow. The people who commit the crimes don't care about anything but their next score or making $$$ dealing, stealing, etc. The government has created the OPPORTUNITY for this to happen by not providing the $$$ for law enforcement to stop it. It will never change until the government model changes.
ReplyDeleteToellnor, you want to move everyone of those people out of their homes. If they wanted to move, there is plenty of section 8 housing out south. Truth is, this is about a handful of folks who bought big homes on the cheap, now you want to sanitize the area, Spare me your voice for the down trodden horse shit. It's about property values and a self serving desire to move out one group that doesn't fit into your ideal. You have no more in common with the poor in Midtown, than I do with the people in Mission Hills. sell that bullshit to someone else, I aint buying it.
ReplyDelete...bought a whole lot of house for relatively little money...
ReplyDeleteThe above is true for the most dilapidated homes in the area, many of which were cut into apartments in the 1970s, and probably haven't had maintenance or a new roof put on them since. In those cases, I wouldn't really call them a good deal, as you'd be looking at enourmous deffered maintenance. Historic homes in that area in good shape start at about $180k, and go well north of there, depending on size, location, and amenities. Houses worth $800k are not uncommon. Of course "not much money" is a subjective term. Some pocketbooks are deeper than others? Disclaimer: I don't live in Hyde park, or know Mr. Toellner.
As far as section 8 (and public housing) goes, I've done a great deal of research on the topic -- but it's a deep and complex one. Anyone who thinks they can "solve" these problems with the proverbial silver bullet either has a hidden agenda, or a child-like understanding of the issues at hand (but hopefully not both).
Without getting too deep in the weeds:
1) I do believe that segregating people into low-income housing is a tried-and-true formula for creating a dangerous environment for the 90% of innocent occupants.
There are numerous books published on the Pruitt-Igoe projects in St. Louis (yes, I know section 8 isn't the same as pubic housing, but there are parallels) and similar failed projects all over north america. I can't agree with every root cause analysis of the failures, but the fact is it dosn't work well.
2) The strategy you allege Mr. Toellner would have HUD take has been done before. It almost always "fixes" the neighborhood, yes (it contributed to the cleanup of NYC, even). The results for the former occupants are mixed. For individuals who are in the system who are there because of genuine hard times, it typically helps them on their feet faster. For the other end of the spectrum (criminal actors), there is a little more more than anecdotal evidence they create crime in their new locations (New Jersey?).
3) I'm also pretty sure anyone with the money to hire professional statisticians to run these numbers already have an outcome they'd like to "prove".
4) Moving to the most recently created lilly-white cracker-box suburb isn't the answer. It isn't sustainable, and as far as I can tell, may actually contribute to the problem.
5) There isn't an easy solution to these problems, but we do know what dosn't work (though we don't know 100% of the reasons with 100% conviction). We need to try new things -- but that requires political capitol. Such willingness is hard to come by when the current solution is JUST enough to hide MOST of the problems from MOST middle class Americans.
This isn't my blog, so I'll stop with the HUD stuff now.
So MM: Did your sister what she had coming for her part in your tricycle mis-adventure?
MM,
ReplyDeleteYou don't know me at all -- nor do you know any of my motives. You seem to have a very narrow view of "Hyde Park" -- which is a very diverse neighborhood. When many people think if Hyde Park, they think of Central Hyde Park - -which does have a lot of larger homes. But North Hyde Park (which is where the Section 8 properties properties are located) is very diverse. Some homes in the area will go from $400,000. Some will go for as little as $85,000 -- even when remodelled. Some delapidated properties will go for $25,000 but need a lot of repairs.
The is a lot of diversity in the neighborhood - black, white, gay, straight -- and that diversity is why I moved to the neighborhood. I like it, and I don't want everyone to leave.
But as David noted, the type of Section 8 has been tried and is almost universally declared a failure. Yes, the solution is more complex -- but what is happening here is a renewing of failed policy -- which none of us should accept. We should all demand better -- instead of calling people who want something better impure in their motives when you have no idea who the hell they even are. The same old status quo isn't working.
HP folks have met with the mayor, their council people, Sen. Justus, HUD reps, the mgt of the building and every surrounding HOA including Squire Park, Manheim and Center City - both on the east side of Troost. We have a monthly crime meeting with police. And if you attended any of the meetings on this the Black people in our neighborhood are the most ticked off and people living IN these buildings have attended the meetings in concern for their saftey.
ReplyDeletePeople IN THESE BUILDINGS are dying and innocent residents are getting caught in the crossfire. This area is a hot spot as classedfied by the police. The locks on the doors to these buildings are punched out and the security gates don't lock. People living IN THESE BUILDINGS have gone to mgt and stated they are scared to death.
But of course YOU know more than the people living in this mess because you USED to live there!? And really, who cares that poor black people are dying - you apparently don't.
...If they wanted to move, there is plenty of section 8 housing out south...
ReplyDeleteMM: The section 8 stock out south does not have access to the amenities and transportation that the apartments in question have. It's not an apples to apples comparison. It may well be the case some individuals would very much like to move, but cannot find other similar accommodations because of disability, lack of an automobile, etc.
As an aside: Studies have also shown that (for better or worse) apartments like these do create a sense of place, and a sense of community. Allegedly, this discourages people from moving, even if they can, as they don't want to leave what's familiar. I can't say that's happening here (or even if it happens frequently), because I've never personally lived in this apartment, or any section 8 apartment, for that matter.
Also, one thing puzzles me: MM... You've talked extensively in the past about how apathy in neighborhoods creates crime. You've criticized "stop snichin'", not cooperating with police, etc. Why so harsh on Hyde Park residents for wanting a safer environment (and cooperating with police)? You've posted about this neighborhood before. This topic does seem to get you worked up -- but it seems like such a contradiction from my point of view.
Enlighten me?
David
ReplyDeleteI thought I was pretty clear already, but I'll give it one last shot. I agree that crime is a problem. What I don't agree with is shooting the whole litter because one pup has fleas.
The majority of people living in those buildings are not criminals, they are poor, thats why they are on section 8, or they are disadvantage in some way or another. So the solution is to just uproot all of them, spread them out, contrary to what they might want? I also find it more than a little arrogant that a small group of people think they know whats best for a much larger group. I'm not worked up, I just happen to take an intrest in an area where I spent the better part of 30 years, and it wasn't in a stately stone home. I lived in apartments, two of them on armour. I only moved 5 months ago, so it's not like Im out of touch. I agree crime is a problem, and I believe everyone has a right to be safe. I just dont agree with the method being proposed. If that pisses people off, or causes them to make retarded statements like I dont care about a particular group, then so be it. I'm just one voice, so I don't know why people get so rattled. But you have to admit, the tone seems to be that the people living in these buildings are unable to think or help themselves, so it's incumbant upon the small minority of home owners to dictate whats best for the majority of residents. The criminals are the problem, not the majority of law abiding poor people who call that stretch of midtown home. Scattering people to the four winds, forcibly displacing them from their homes, it's just wrong, no matter how it's dressed up. Thats just my opinion, if it pisses people off, thats usually an indication I've hit the nail on the head.
David
ReplyDeleteOne other point, you mentioned a sense of community being the reason some people don't want to move. Thats kind of my point. Why should they have to move? They arent the problem, the criminals are the problem.
"The criminals are the problem, not the majority of law abiding poor people who call that stretch of midtown home. Scattering people to the four winds, forcibly displacing them from their homes, it's just wrong, no matter how it's dressed up."
ReplyDeleteMM, out of curiosity, why is this somehow worse than the government saying "this is the building you are forced to live in because there are no more options for you."
Tenant based Section 8 provides many more options vs the project based system.
Meanwhile, the project-based section 8 doesn't work. Did you see the KCTV 5 story? The one where they interviewed the woman who lived there and was scared for her kids? That didn't want her face on camera or to share her name because of fear?
Please, please watch. There are many more like this woman. http://www.kctv5.com/video/21600860/index.html
This is the set up you're defending...and that's messed up. Even if the motives of the people in the neighborhood are for their own well-being (which is likely at least somewhat true), it still doesn't change that it is a better set up for the residents than they have now. And many of them ARE coming forward -- to neighborhood meetings and the like. But many remain fearful and let's face it, don't usually have a lot of political clout when it comes to fighting city hall.
MM: What's the end-game, then? I don't see it yet. The core of the problem (in this instance) is the apartment managers find it more profitable to lease as section-8 with no meaningful background checks, not evicting people who cause problems, and employing a host of other tactics other agencies use.
ReplyDeleteLets try a thought experiment: Suppose residents took a different approach... instead of banding together and trying to change the trajectory of the situation (albeit in a possibly flawed way), they all stopped and moved out.
The result would be lower tax base, leading to failing city services such as fire and police protection for the city, and a general sense of dereliction. Crime would increase, and ultimately the poor individuals in said apartment would suffer even more. Worse still, the poor as a social group bear all the negative implications, costs, and externalities of this scenario.
Would you applaud the hyde park stakeholders (like Toellner) in that case?
Again my issue isnt with a group trying to improve their enviornment, I'm all for it in fact. My issue is unchanged, I'm against forcing out a majority to placate a few. People live in that area because its home to them. It's not their fault that there is crime in the building or on the street. I'm saying the focus shouldnt be on anyone other than the criminals. The decent people, be they section eight or home owners shouldnt have to suffer because of the criminal element. To answer your question, if every home owner in the area left it wouldnt be good for the area. So maybe the answer is to focus on the elected officials and law enforcement, pressure them, drag the building owners in to court. what I don't agree with is forcing people from an area they have spent their lives in. And lets be honest, even if they empty every building tomorrow, then what. Crime will just dry up and blow away? Criminals will just stay east of troost? No the rents will drop, the tenants wont be under any section 8 constraints, and the apartment owners will rent to anyone they see fit. Personally I think it would make the situation worse. Flawed as section 8 may be, whats going to happen when those landlords are faced with empty apartments? They'll just rent to anyone who can come up with the money. a stronger police presence, and holding landlords accountable will do more than forcing law abiding poor people from their homes. Thats what Toellner wants to do, and I find it to be wrong headed, well intentioned or not.
ReplyDeleteMM,
ReplyDeleteI bet if you did some research you would realize that the feds abandoned Section 8 housing a long time ago. It is only continued in certain areas b/c they lack voucher based programs. No one wants to force these people from their homes. Vouchers can be used towards and housing unit anywhere in the city, no matter how expensive. If the folks choose to spend their voucher to stay on Armour, they are more than welcome. If they choose to move downtown, Waldo, Plaza, etc. they can! Nothing would force them from the residences on Armour, the only thing that would change is that in the future, low income folks receiving voucher could spend them anywhere, instead of being forced to live in crime ridden buildings along one stretch of road. Sounds like a fair deal to me.
On another note, it's pretty base of you to attack people who want crime reduced.
PEOPLE DO NOT LIVE IN "THAT AREA" BECAUSE IT IS HOME TO THEM. They live there because it is Project Based Section 8 Housing and they have no choice. If they leave the project, they lose the subsidy. That's a pretty powerful motivator to stay even if violence escalates. I'd go so far as to say a lot of the folks along Armour would classify themselves as trapped. Only about 1/3 of the people who need subsidized housing are able to get it. There is a long line of people waiting for their chance to get into a subsidized residence. Thus, the people who are currently in the project are unlikely to leave because that would put them at the bottom of the list to get into another subsidized residence that is unlikely to be of a substantially better quality. Study after study after study has shown that voucher or certificate based subsidized housing is better for everyone, ESPECIALLY THE TENANTS, than project-based. God bless you, but you are simply wrong on this.
ReplyDeleteFirst off MM, you're operating under the assumption that everyone is in those buildings because they WANT to be there...when in reality, many of them would move almost anywhere else if they had the means to do so. The problem here is that you see it as forcing people out -- when it is likely closer to the truth that you are giving them opportunities to get out.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why project-based section 8 is flawed - -and why HUD doesn't recommend it any more -- is that any time you concentrate low-income housing in one area, crime follows. While there are definitely things the managment companies need to be doing to help out the good tenants (which is most of them), it really isn't going to matter. High concentrations of low income people breed crime. HUD, along with virtually everyone else, knows this.
While you perceive this as "forcing them out", I see it as providing more opportunities beyond vertical segregation - -something is known to fail. Maybe it's just semantics, but virtually every expert in this field agrees with my side on this (which is why I have the opinion BTW).
Even if the crime still happens (because some people are just bad people), but just in different areas, it is STILL an improvement because it isn't all in one spot. When it is all in one spot, it creates more of a sense of fear, more of a sense of unrest, and more of a sense of not being controllable....sort of a broken windows theory if you will.
And yes, we do need to be very careful about what opportunities await for the people who will be inevitably displaced. We need to be sure there is enough housing available, and that it has viable access to jobs and public transit. Which is why the city needs a comprehensive housing plan (it currently does not have one).
You're proposing we keep a model that is a) proven to fail the people who it was designed to support and b) the neighborhoods they live in and c) based on 1970s segregation that was just less "official" than it was the decade prior.
There are better, smarter solutions out there -- we just need people willing to make a difference and develop them.
MM, urban pioneers repopulated Hyde Park in the 70's, 80's and 90's, providing something that midtown desperately needs - successful people willing to risk their hard earned dollars.
ReplyDelete99% of the section 8 residents have been living in the Hyde Park neighborhood for less than two years, because of a recent move by a developer.
Everybody knows that if you put 100's or 1000's of low income people together BY DESIGN (aka intense Section 8 housing developments)you're just asking for trouble. For the section 8 residents and surrounding area.
Know about urban renewal, MM? It happended in the 40's, 50's and 60's when they removed great old housing stock, created "projects" and we all know how well that worked out.
Listen to me carefully: a mix of incomes living on the same floor of an apartment building is better for everybody - get it?
Hmmmm, it's more inclusive, more diverse, more accpeting of other people's differences, and it results in much less vioplent crime.
This is common knowledge in city planning, and it's intuitive, except that with Tom Coyle leading this city's planning department, we're not actually doing any city planning, but I digress.
It's amazing, you say you live in midtown but are clueless about the dynamic of Armour Blvd and Hyde Park. 15 years ago no one would want to walk down that stretch of Armour on a warm summer evening. With the ultra-intensive, NEW section 8 development things have gotten much, much worse.
Mixed income development serves everybody better.
And remember, the people you're critical of were taking a financial risk in Hyde Park decades before the arrival of this recent section 8 development and their renters.
The city, who has the authority and responsibility to allocate and manage section 8 housing, WAS ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL.
I Travel for JOOLS:
ReplyDeleteDon't flatter yourself. People like you move to the next suburb over when you see a dark face two blocks down. But I'm sure your real estate agent loves you.
You all make some good points, but it doesnt change my opinion a whole lot. You also, to a man, totally glossed over or ignored my contention that the problem is crime, not the residents, and crime in midtown wont stop just because you end section 8. The landlords will just rent to every dope dealer and criminal who can pony up the cash. So you'll go from bad to worse. Im basing my opinions on toellnors writing, and I think I said as much. I wont pretend to be an expert on section 8, but with all due respect, I dont need lessons on crime, its effects, especially in Midtown. I was a big part of the problem for a long time, so I think I speak with some authority on the matter. I wouldnt get too bent over what I think or write, you folks are going to do what you do, regardless of what I think or how it effects others. Have a good weekend, and keep coming back, i'm sure to say something else that will piss you off sooner or later.
ReplyDeleteDear Jools,Please stop hanging off of MM's ball sack. Its getting so old.
ReplyDelete"you all make excellent points. I'm not an expert on Section 8, but in spite of what the experts say, I still hold to my point of view that I am right and the experts are wrong."
ReplyDeleteWow MM, I would have thought you'd be a bit more rational than that.
No one is saying it will end crime in Midtown. Only that it will not consolidate it into one area. It's no secret that diverse neighborhoods are safer for everyone than neighborhoods that have really high poverty rates. There is a reason there is a lot of crime on the east side of KCMO -- and much of it stems from a high concentration of poverty. Not all the people are bad -- in fact, most are good people. It's just how it works.
The project-based Section 8 areas are nothing more than the same problem that we have on the Kansas City's east side, but actually government mandated and government funded. If we have the ability to undo it, then we should make every effort to do so.
MM - answer honestly - in your worst crime days you weren't hanging around section 8. Living in it, or wanting any part of it.
ReplyDeleteSelf respecting criminals that YOU hung with wanted nothing to do with section 8, other than when in tangentially crossed your business path.
Correct?
There's a diffrenec between bad areas where you operated and section 8.
I think that says something.
I'm a long term (South) Hyde Parker (since the 70s) who bounced back after a sojourn in another city a few years back, and I can't say that I agree with you. I remember watching the renovations along Armour and being a bit optimistic about the process, and since the completion I've been slapping myself on the back of the head for stupidity.
ReplyDeleteI lived in a major southern city for a few years recently as a relatively impoverished grad student and found a place that was mixed use. A certain percentage of my complex HAD to be section 8, and the other percentage had to NOT be. The only violence in the complex the years that I lived there was when a retired cop shot a burglar who came at him with a knife. I knew all of my neighbors and they knew me. The city had just tried breaking up the project system and this was their method in my section of town. People started moving back in droves after shunning the place for years, local business districts were revived, and crime plummeted.
If you read the actual article that you link it states that the HPNA has tried to work with the owners who do nothing. Court can take years. So if we involve the authorities at higher levels than the city so that something is accomplished in the next decade, what the hell is wrong with that?
Take our lumps? A bullet is a hell of a lump.
To the anon posters who don't have enough balls to name themselves, I really could care less what you think. I am simply stating a fact. The government provides money for the Section 8 housing but doesn't provide enough to make it a safe and hospitable place to live for these people. If they really gave a shit about them, they'd make sure the people were safe in the housing they provide them. And, yeah, I don't have to live near there and I won't. Why the fuck would I? Why would I live in or near a high crime area when I can live elsewhere and not worry about getting robbed or worse.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion if the government is going to spend taxpayer money to house people, the least they can do is provide them with one where they don't have to worry about getting raped or killed. What the fuck kind of existence is that..one where you can't have your family over for fear of them getting attacked?
So, hire some frigging security guards. Get some of that OBAMA money to do it. Hyde Park residents might try utilizing some of their communication skills to write some stimulus grant requests for money for police protection. Maybe if the people in Section 8 housing were safer, you'd be safer too. Or, how about chipping together to hire a guard or two? Talk gets you NO WHERE.
Caffiene72, thank you for your dose of sanity.
ReplyDeleteJools,
ReplyDeleteThe Hyde Park Neighborhood Assoc in the past has hired off duty cops. They've stayed busy, and I think many in the community think that the KCPD should keep things under control with the taxes they already pay. Which is a reasonable expectation regardless of whther it's realistic. The section 8 renters ceretainly won't be funding the off-duty cops.
Also, thiink about this - if you're a moonlighting cop, do you really want to be on that section of Armour on a Sat night to help pay for your kids football uniform?
FYI Jools - normal $10/hr security guards riding around in their Securitas Ford Focus does not provide a lot of security. On a Saturday your $10/hr guy who was selling Payless Shoes last week JUST MIGHT muster the courage to call 911 and get put on hold for 15 min like everybody else.
ReplyDeleteSecurity guards are a waste of money, and why would a seasoned cop want to risk his life when he could earn $60+/hr working at Tivol Jewelry on the Plaza?
Have the Hyde Park people ever gotten together with the section 8 people to discuss ways to solve the crime problem?
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the poor being forced to move from the area, is that it's very hard for them to relocate; most don't have a car, so they'd have to be relocated to a place with bus access, and then if they're lucky enough to have a low wage job, they're probably going to lose that, so honestly, it's really going to suck for them; but on the other hand, they're probably pretty used to getting the shaft, so one more time won't be anything out of the ordinary to them.
It reminds me of those old James Garner movies, Support Your Local Sherif, for one; everybody just needs to get together, rich, poor, and everywhere in between, hold some meetings in the apartments, and find a way to drive out the outlaws.
E S
There is something about being five or six and attempting to defy grafity. My own experience involved a towel around my neck, an old sewing machine and a window on the back porch. Fortunately couldn't make the window from my perch but the window sill and basement steps were not soft.
ReplyDeleteSection 8 seems to be designed for landlords/property owners rather than the people he is supposed to be housing. The vast majority of Section 8 housing is in Northeast KC. Seems a large number of the property owners are fire and police persons. And everyone knows what a rat's nest it has become.
But I digress. The hoity-toities of Hyde Park are only interested in what's good for them. The Section 8 folks can eat cake.
In Philadelphia they have seen success in mixing Section 8 families into neighborhoods. People in these neighborhhoods have "adopted" the families and taught them skills and behavior they never knew. And the Section 8 families have become productive additions to both the neighborhood and society.
If these property owners have no plans for the people they want to displace then they are selfish and arrogant.
Ayn Rand would be proud.
A few facts. The newly renovated buildings, Loma Vista, Bainbridge, and Georgian Court, have a 25 year contract with HUD to provide project based Section 8 housing - only 23 years left. The city made these deals, apparently without community input. It will be extremely difficult to undue these agreements. It the short term, the community needs to apply constant pressure to the ownership to provide adequate security. The other Section 8 buildings, Homestead andKenwood, have expired contracts that are renewing on a year-to-year basis. They are for sale. An investor affiliated with the renovated buildings proposed buying and renovating them in exchange for a 25 year HUD contract and historic credits. The community objected. The neighborhood is not against poor people, but the concentration for long term contracts. The market rate apartments on Armour Blvd accept Section 8 vouchers. The difference in crime, buildings right next to each other is significant.
ReplyDeleteI'm with MM on this one. Crime is the problem not the section 8 housing. I think whats pissing him [MM] off is the whiny (read white) people that move into a gentrified area and flip shit when they become a victim.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that's going to help the situation is more law enforcement. Lots of it.
Dedicated neighborhood patrols, maybe even foot and bike patrols.
But that not going to happen.
Our city is broke in both, finance and spirit.
You are right. Crime is the problem. And the section 8 housing is the location of a hugely disproportionate amount of crime. The owners of these properties are refusing to spend the money required to keep them safe. That's where pressure needs to be applied in the short term. However, concentrated poverty in project based section 8 housing is bad policy and needs to be changed. That's the longer term goal.
ReplyDeleteAnd can we agree to drop the profiling in this discussion. No one, no matter their skin color, economic position, or tenure in the neighborhood wants to be a victim of crime. Everyone has the right to demand to walk down the street in peace.
Crime certainly is the problem, but crime is a direct result of poverty, and when a large number of poor people are forcibly clustered together(thanks for the re-up, Barnes!), no amount of security or police presence will quell the crime. The greater problem of poverty certainly needs to be addressed, but the policy of sweeping the poor all under the same rug is an immediate actionable problem that can be realistically discussed and solved.
ReplyDeleteHas anybody in the HPNA explained why they did not know about the section 8 development when it was being approved?
ReplyDeleteHas anybody in the HPNA asked Jan Marcason and Beth Gottstein if they knew about the request?
Was someone asleep at the HPNA, or were they not informed when all of this Section 8 was being approved?
Did anybody in the HPNA ask John Debauche, the city planner responsible for their area, why section 8 got approved?
Unfortunately the City Planning department leadership may be the problem here.
We need some answers, and we need to hold the city accountable.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteWho's the developer for Loma Vista, Bainbridge, and Georgian Court? I know MAC properties is actrive on Armour, but I thought they were doing all of the market rate...
Goddamn, my comment section looks like a chat room.. Kidding. So i'm still trying to understand here, and not a single one ofyou have answered my question, lets try one last time. Lets say you get the section 8 only restriction lifted, or even get them all out entirely. Then what? Art school students and skinny jeans people are just going to flock there? What I think will happen, the landlords will just rent out to whoever has the money, then you will have dope and crime really jumping off. I'm not trying to be glib, but I think all of you missed my point, and you don't seem to have a plan other than forcing the government and landlord to clear out one problem, only to find it replaced by another. I just don't understand why you don't band together and drag the owners into court.
ReplyDeleteThe last place I lived in midtown was on central, behind the red cross, half block off armour. The big apartment building on the north west corner of central and armour was 10 or 12 floors of riff raff. Cars constantly got broken into , cops were there constantly. Guess what, its not a section 8 building.
I'll give you people credit for tenacity and single mindedness, but your plan is heavy handed and it wont solve the problem, just replace it with a bigger one.
To whoever asked if I'd lived in a section 8 building. The answer is no. But Ive lived in some real crappy buildings. and they were bad without section 8, some probably worse.
MM, I think you've completely underestimated how how bad the crime is in these centralized Section 8 apartments. Here are some crime stats through mid-October, for the apartment buildings along Armour -- these numbers are from KCMO Police Department. I have this in a graph form so I'm estimating the numbers based on the chart but don't have the exact #:
ReplyDeleteApartment Units 911 Calls
Bainbridge (Sec. 8) 160 610
Homestead (Sec 8) 70 250
Georgian Court (Sec 8) 90 180
Kenwood (Sec 8) 60 160
Locust St. Apts (Sec 8) 40 110
Newbern (market rate) 130 70
Armour Towers (MR) 80 40
Hamilton (MR) 70 40
Armour Flats (MR) 40 50
Sombart (MR) 40 20
Does crime go away in market rate apartments? No. But every one of the Section 8 apartments has a 2:1 (or worse) 911 call to apartment unit ration -- while every one of the market rate apartments is essentially at a 1:2 ratio. Your theory can be measured right now -- and things are significantly safer in the market rate apartments (that do allow for Sec 8 vouchers) than in the highly concentrated Sec 8 apartments.
The numbers just don't suggest that your theory is true -- it's certainly not true in the current market rate apartments along Armour.
These stats say it all.
ReplyDeleteThanks Brett.
or the market rate apartments dont have the safety net of govt. oversite, and people are either directly involved in the criminal activity, or too afraid to call the cops. There are stats to back up every argument under the sun. We will just have to agree to disagree.
ReplyDeleteJOOLS - the anon poster(s) was/were accusing you of:
ReplyDelete1) Hanging off of MM's scrotum and/or performing oral sex (possibly true... but as yet unverified).
2) Being a closet racist and/or white flight suburban troglophile. The result of such offhanded and anonymous accusation was a defensive and self-justifying diatribe on your part. I'd say it hit a nerve.
3) I don't see a name on your profile? It seems you're as anonymous as everyone else.
MM. It sounds like someone has come up with an opinion and doesn't want any data that will get in the way of that opinion. Hopefully our local politicians will look at the data first and then form their opinion.
ReplyDeletelulz...Jools blowing MM...lulz!!
ReplyDeleteGuys with the vile comments. Stop. It's not about me.
ReplyDeleteTo the residents of Hyde Park: Get some of your people together and meet with the people in the Section 8 housing. Talk your problems over. Imagine if you had funding from a governmental authority and how you would use it. What would it take in terms of money and ideas??? Then, utilizing that information that you have jointly agreed would solve (or at least greatly help) the problem, make a proposal starting with your congressional representatives. And, I'm not saying "cure world hunger". Be reasonable. If it were me, I'd contact Claire McCaskill but that's up to you. The point is, you want to solve a problem for all of you that you can agree on.
I had a problem with HUD long ago - not about Section 8 housing, but my own home that was funded with energy grants which was a disaster. I got in touch with HUD via my congressman at the time. In 3 months, my home was completely fixed. It can happen and I hope it happens for you.
Oh God !! Now your hanging off her teet..WOW.
ReplyDeletekidding MM,dont ban me.
Okay, two things.
ReplyDeleteFirst, ban him.
The nasty comments against Jools should be deleted immediately. They're gross, way out of line and horribly rude. Ban that little fucker after you smack him around.
Second, this has been a really great thread. I've been following it since Saturday morning and it's been interesting watching the ideas, stats and debate flow on this issue.
Eekk.
ReplyDeleteBlack text on a white background...
I cant read it.
lolrz BC
ReplyDeleteSo the KC star reports more problems in the area you've highlighted:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kansascity.com/115/story/1584112.html?commentSort=RecommendationsDescending&pageNum=1
As an aside, I find it obnoxious there is a debate in the KC star comments about fetus vs. baby vs. unborn baby language in the article. The fact there were 2 (possibly 3, if one individual doesn't pull through) lives lost in that event is irrelevant to some than the language that's used elsewhere in a pro-life / pro-choice debate.