Chattanooga's remaining residents in public housing programs have reasonable grounds to fear any new public discussions of how to change or revamp local HUD-funded public housing programs. They've seen the stock of public housing decline through the demolition or abandonment of public housing developments, even as the number of people in need of subsidized public housing climbs into the thousands. They want to scotch the decline before more people get moved out of public units.
The Chattanooga Housing Authority's wait list confirms their concerns: 1,944 people were on the wait list last week for public housing, and more 5,000 are waiting for Housing Choice Vouchers, which subsidize rent in private apartment and housing units. The CHA, moreover, has also decided to vacate the Harriet Tubman apartments in East Chattanooga. The old Maurice Poss Homes site sits vacant. And the successful Hope VI revitalization program that replaced the 600 units in the old Spencer J. McCallie Homes in Alton Park in 2002 now provides just 137 homes -- and houses less than half of the McCallie Homes prior residents.
That current history notwithstanding, the animus toward local public housing advocates who are exploring the Atlanta model concept of Purpose Built housing is misplaced. The Purpose Built program provides an immensely useful, humane and wholly voluntary alternative model for providing needed improvements in public housing units where the depressing history of isolation, crime, violence, fear and lack of educational attainment sorely needs an antidote.
The voluntary nature of the program, and the critical involvement of existing residents in any attempt to establish a Purpose Built model, has apparently not been understood by some residents of the Westside's College Hill Courts, the largest of the remaining older housing projects. They apparently fear that an Hope VI-type program might be imposed on them without their consent, and that their hold on public housing would be jeopardized and leave them in the cold.
That's not what the public housing advocates who are exploring say is contemplated. Their goal, as John Hayes has made plain, is to see if there are applicable lessons and models that can be learned and applied here from the Purpose Built communities in Atlanta -- and subsequently other cities.
No one from Atlanta, or another city, would develop, fund, control or impose such a plan here. If any Purpose Built model is accomplished, it would be done through a nonprofit partnership with current residents of public housing, and would incorporate their needs and priorities.
The initiative is worth study. It would support strong local leadership and a commitment to a birth-to-adult educational program focused on the educational success of all residents. It would be supported by a range of vital social services to boost social and economic success, and physical and mental health.
Any model that can achieve such improvements -- as seen in Atlanta, Indianapolis, New Orleans and elsewhere -- deserves a fair an open hearing. It could foster a sustainable, healthier model of public housing. It should be fairly considered.