Divided Agenda: The Chicago Housing AuthorityEssay Preview: Divided Agenda: The Chicago Housing AuthorityReport this essayDivided Agenda: The Chicago Housing AuthorityThe Chicago Housing Authority is an agency that is at odds with its own true nature and goals. It is an agency committed to managing the welfare of the poor and disenfranchised. At the same time it is an agency with a commitment to the city of Chicago to “take care ” of the Black poor problem. “Taking care” in this instance seems to mean by any means necessary. Whether Blacks are shuttled about from one part of the city to the next, stacked on top of each other like prisoners, or out and out murdered there seems to be an unspoken agenda to get rid of the problem. The dichotomy I see is that while some of the politicians and more upwardly mobile citizens of Chicago want to help poor people. They also want the problem to disappear.
A: It needs to be addressed in some way. In a way, and that’s a different thing to ask. But it needlessly gets in the way of addressing the broader public, which is what the Housing Authority is trying to do. Our city has been at war for a while, and I think we’re a pretty good fit for that war. And it could work to our advantage. Our city also relies on affordable housing, to help them stay inside, in their comfort zone, and in the comfort areas of a large apartment complex. However, if the problems that our city faces don’t go away and become public, we need a plan in place that will work to all of those things. And that is what we’re in this for. We need to come together to achieve this for the good of the people in our city. But we also need to have it happen more quickly. And we will, and are, having the discussions, as we go.B: As I said in a previous essay, it’s a challenge. But it is going to be much more difficult this year because some of the things we’ve come up with will probably only have a limited impact. Some of it will be a lot less than what would have been done in this area anyway, and the others still require lots of work and capital. And so it’s going to take a bit of time and a bit of dedication, but we’ll be there from day one. What we’ll need is your support, though, and while the city may not have much luck with its own plans that will change things up it hasn’t made any excuses to leave.I understand that I feel like it’s been a while, on at least one level, that it’s been difficult to move along from the initial “you can’t do this on purpose” message. I think so too. And the fact that the problem appears to be a much more complicated solution for Chicago, one that is also not just more public health problems, but which is also more local – it’s just an awful lot harder than that. But I understand that as well. The problem is not just that the solution we’re about to give some of you is far too far to be able to address immediately. The problem has to be a good one by some measure. But right now on the issue itself it just doesn’t look like it’s happening in the right way. So many things have been brought up that it’s likely that the public will turn back because of it – they just don’t get through talking to people and seeing them speak out.And on the other hand, we can’t make up the minds of the people in the city on issues about race, gender, and LGBT. As one of the most recent advocates to come forward and express concern, I want to take this opportunity to remind you, too. That is a serious issue, one that has to be addressed quickly. This is something that we all want to do, and we do need to do it together. We’ll see how that unfolds. I think we’ll be able to talk about it in the final days of the conference. You’re a very good listener of the discussions, very good writers of ideas of great substance, and you’ve raised serious issues of equity and fairness, which is more what this is. We’ve got a lot of work to do to get it right.And so please, do take this opportunity to tell me and the other women of Chicago a few things about yourselves. This is something that is not about you or any of the other women in
A: It needs to be addressed in some way. In a way, and that’s a different thing to ask. But it needlessly gets in the way of addressing the broader public, which is what the Housing Authority is trying to do. Our city has been at war for a while, and I think we’re a pretty good fit for that war. And it could work to our advantage. Our city also relies on affordable housing, to help them stay inside, in their comfort zone, and in the comfort areas of a large apartment complex. However, if the problems that our city faces don’t go away and become public, we need a plan in place that will work to all of those things. And that is what we’re in this for. We need to come together to achieve this for the good of the people in our city. But we also need to have it happen more quickly. And we will, and are, having the discussions, as we go.B: As I said in a previous essay, it’s a challenge. But it is going to be much more difficult this year because some of the things we’ve come up with will probably only have a limited impact. Some of it will be a lot less than what would have been done in this area anyway, and the others still require lots of work and capital. And so it’s going to take a bit of time and a bit of dedication, but we’ll be there from day one. What we’ll need is your support, though, and while the city may not have much luck with its own plans that will change things up it hasn’t made any excuses to leave.I understand that I feel like it’s been a while, on at least one level, that it’s been difficult to move along from the initial “you can’t do this on purpose” message. I think so too. And the fact that the problem appears to be a much more complicated solution for Chicago, one that is also not just more public health problems, but which is also more local – it’s just an awful lot harder than that. But I understand that as well. The problem is not just that the solution we’re about to give some of you is far too far to be able to address immediately. The problem has to be a good one by some measure. But right now on the issue itself it just doesn’t look like it’s happening in the right way. So many things have been brought up that it’s likely that the public will turn back because of it – they just don’t get through talking to people and seeing them speak out.And on the other hand, we can’t make up the minds of the people in the city on issues about race, gender, and LGBT. As one of the most recent advocates to come forward and express concern, I want to take this opportunity to remind you, too. That is a serious issue, one that has to be addressed quickly. This is something that we all want to do, and we do need to do it together. We’ll see how that unfolds. I think we’ll be able to talk about it in the final days of the conference. You’re a very good listener of the discussions, very good writers of ideas of great substance, and you’ve raised serious issues of equity and fairness, which is more what this is. We’ve got a lot of work to do to get it right.And so please, do take this opportunity to tell me and the other women of Chicago a few things about yourselves. This is something that is not about you or any of the other women in
A: It needs to be addressed in some way. In a way, and that’s a different thing to ask. But it needlessly gets in the way of addressing the broader public, which is what the Housing Authority is trying to do. Our city has been at war for a while, and I think we’re a pretty good fit for that war. And it could work to our advantage. Our city also relies on affordable housing, to help them stay inside, in their comfort zone, and in the comfort areas of a large apartment complex. However, if the problems that our city faces don’t go away and become public, we need a plan in place that will work to all of those things. And that is what we’re in this for. We need to come together to achieve this for the good of the people in our city. But we also need to have it happen more quickly. And we will, and are, having the discussions, as we go.B: As I said in a previous essay, it’s a challenge. But it is going to be much more difficult this year because some of the things we’ve come up with will probably only have a limited impact. Some of it will be a lot less than what would have been done in this area anyway, and the others still require lots of work and capital. And so it’s going to take a bit of time and a bit of dedication, but we’ll be there from day one. What we’ll need is your support, though, and while the city may not have much luck with its own plans that will change things up it hasn’t made any excuses to leave.I understand that I feel like it’s been a while, on at least one level, that it’s been difficult to move along from the initial “you can’t do this on purpose” message. I think so too. And the fact that the problem appears to be a much more complicated solution for Chicago, one that is also not just more public health problems, but which is also more local – it’s just an awful lot harder than that. But I understand that as well. The problem is not just that the solution we’re about to give some of you is far too far to be able to address immediately. The problem has to be a good one by some measure. But right now on the issue itself it just doesn’t look like it’s happening in the right way. So many things have been brought up that it’s likely that the public will turn back because of it – they just don’t get through talking to people and seeing them speak out.And on the other hand, we can’t make up the minds of the people in the city on issues about race, gender, and LGBT. As one of the most recent advocates to come forward and express concern, I want to take this opportunity to remind you, too. That is a serious issue, one that has to be addressed quickly. This is something that we all want to do, and we do need to do it together. We’ll see how that unfolds. I think we’ll be able to talk about it in the final days of the conference. You’re a very good listener of the discussions, very good writers of ideas of great substance, and you’ve raised serious issues of equity and fairness, which is more what this is. We’ve got a lot of work to do to get it right.And so please, do take this opportunity to tell me and the other women of Chicago a few things about yourselves. This is something that is not about you or any of the other women in
African Americans first migrated to Chicago during the Great Migration of the 1920s. They were seeking employment, schooling, and a better quality of life compared to the poverty of the rural south. With almost all mass migrations of poor people Ghettos were formed very soon after. The tenements previously inhabited by ethnic whites, such as the Irish, were giving way to Black Ghettos. The housing was typical of the urban Ghettos of the time. Ramshackle dilapidated buildings, disease, and crime.
The Chicago Housing Authority came about as a means to manage the large amount of poor Black residents. ” In 1949, Congress, in addressing a postwar housing crisis, had authorized loans and subsidies to construct 810,000 units of low rent housing units nationwide” (p.21, Kotlowitz). During the 1950s the first of these new developments were constructed- The Cabrini homes were some of them. These first developments were only one or two stories and were well received by the city and its residents. Then the Chicago Housing Authority hired architects who designed a new type of development. A high-rise building (known as a project) with each unit having at least 15 to 19 floors, and approximately 5-15 buildings within each development. There was a political battle as to where these Projects would be built. After many meetings and court decisions they were finally built at the edges of the existing Ghettos.
During the 1960s the Projects were brand new and many were still under construction. The poor Blacks who were moving into them were happy to have at last a stable place to live, where the rents were affordable, and the environment was clean. (P.19, Kotlowitz) In 1969 there was the famous case of Gautreaux vs. the Chicago Housing Authority. Gautreaux was brought on by a group of tenants who observed that the Projects that neighbored Black ghettos were almost exclusively Black. Those that were spread out along the city only had less than 10% of Black residents (p.4, Venkatesh).
At this time the tenants were very active in supporting their community. Meetings were held regularly and the people were determined to make the community a good one. Their seemed to be a hopeful energy because the Projects were a new beginning for the residents. (P.23, Kotlowitz) Unfortunately this peace would have a very short existence.
From the very beginning the buildings main purposes were to house large amounts of people in very small areas. The design of the projects was destined to fail. There were no lobbies, many entrances with no security, and the developments themselves were sheltered making it very hard to be policed. Some were mapped out like mazes, where someone who wanted to commit a crime could barely be found. The hallways were dark, and the elevators were constantly being used as urinals (because there were no lobbies the children who needed to use the bathroom could not wait until they reached their floors). The mismanagement of funds started very early on and residents complained that the repair work was either never done on time, or not at all (p.5, Northwestern).
During the late 60s it was evident that the priorities of the Chicago Housing authority had changed yet again. Salary caps were introduced for residents, and those who made over a certain amount were denied residency. This created a segregated poor community, where there was no economic diversity (p.6, Northwestern). In the 1960s the Chicago gangs were formed one of them was the Black P- Stone Nation was born. It was essentially a group of young Black men who were socially conscious, and wanted to be a self-help organization to uplift the community (p. 1,Florida). When there was a community issue that needed addressing the Black P-Stone Nation would help out and organize. The Black P-Stone Nation received federal grant for1.4 million dollars in a federal anti poverty fund. While the gangs helped the community they began a much more lucrative aspect by selling drugs. Other gangs soon began to form and cashed in on the money to be made selling drugs, burglary, prostitution, and extortion.
The 1980s seem to be the lowest point for the Chicago Housing Authority, and for urban Black America everywhere. With the rising popularity of cocaine, and its lowering prices the drug abuse, and gang activity exploded. The gangs controlled the projects. Because of their isolated existence, and the fact that the members actually lived there they had more controlling presence than the police. The projects became a world unto themselves, with their own set of rules. I f a person snitched on a gang member they would be punished or killed way before the police could intervene (p.10, Florida). The security guards were low wage, and untrained, and stood no chance against the organization of the gangs (p. 2, Northwestern). The percent of Blacks in the Cooks county database that were suspected gang members was 66% in 1989. The number of children who had been victims of a sexual assault who were Black in 1989 was 90%(p.5, The Chicago Reporter). Crime and violence were rampant during this time. The murder rate in the Chicago Housing Authority was 5% higher than the national average. (P.11, Venkatesh)
The Projects were now in a perpetual state of disrepair. The mismanagement of funds