1. The article creates the impression that the movement of low income households in Memphis was the result of some grand liberal social experiment, suggesting it had something to do with Gautreaux or MTO, when in fact neither had anything to do with Memphis. The article is actually about HOPE VI, the latest generation of urban renewal. In Memphis, as in other cities, public housing families were involuntarily displaced from demolished projects. You have to read the article very carefully to discern that they didn’t move as part of a Gautreaux-type voluntary mobility program, and were relocated to declining city neighborhoods, not the suburbs. HOPE VI should be critiqued for doing relocation “on the cheap.” But there is nothing particularly new or noteworthy about the fact that low income families, when displaced by urban renewal projects, move into the next ring of vulnerable minority neighborhoods.

2. The reporter violates the first rule we all learned in Soc 101 — correlation does not prove causation. There isn’t any data, much less peer reviewed research, from Memphis that shows the movement of the displaced families into the identified neighborhoods “caused” an increase in crime. A more plausible explanation is that the displaced families moved into areas that were already economically declining (that is why the landlords were willing to accept their vouchers) and where crime was on the increase. Certainly the idea that crime rates are higher in poor or declining neighborhoods is no news flash.

(As a sidenote, The Takeaway is a new product of WNYC, New York’s public radio station, as well as a few other media types like the NYT and BBC. After a rocky start a few weeks ago, the show is really coming into its own. It’s like Morning Edition if it went off it’s ADD drugs. This morning, they interviewed two regular guys named Wally to get their reviews of the new Pixar film Wall-E. The show is weird, irreverant and sometimes straight-up rude to its guests….but I’m really growing to love it. Check it out at http://www.TheTakewaway.org)

Dear Editors,

in “American Murder Mystery” Hana Rosin neglects to mention one of the largest factors influencing the lives of Housing Choice Voucher holders who are thrust into the private market - illegal (and sometimes legal) discrimination. The vast majority of Voucher holders are African American and they are disproportionally disabled and single mothers. Race, familial status, and disability-based discrimination are the most frequently occurring forms of housing discrimination. When you add into the mix that landlords in Memphis and its suburbs can legally discriminate against a prospective tenant based on their source of income (such as a Housing Choice Voucher), the picture for a family seeking an affordable apartment in a decent neighborhood becomes awfully bleak. Tack on the prejudices that most hold about those who previously lived in public housing and the picture is downright depressing. How many landlords do you think there are that will willingly rent to disabled, African American single moms who are former residents of public housing? And, for those handful of landlords who will willingly rent to these families, where do you think their apartments are located?

Housing discrimination plays an enormous role in our now mostly voucher-based public housing system. If we expect tenants to be successful in the private market, they need support and training but also the opportunity to fully participate in that market. Otherwise, HUD should re-name their “Housing Choice Voucher” as the “Crappy Apartment in a High Crime Neighborhood Voucher”.

Sincerely,

Justin Massa
executive director
MoveSmart.org

The following link provides more information about the phenomenon of the dual burden of disease:

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2006/TheDualBurdenofOverweightandUnderweightinDevelopingCountries.aspx