Association Between Structural Housing Repairs for Low-Income Homeowners and Neighbor

[Klippenstein]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2782142

Association Between Structural Housing Repairs for Low-Income Homeowners and Neighborhood Crime
Eugenia C. South, MD; John MacDonald, PhD; Vincent Reina, PhD

The main regression analysis demonstrated that the addition to a block face of a property that received a BSRP [City of Philadelphia Basic Systems Repair Program] intervention was associated with a 21.9% decrease in the expected count of total crime
[…]
When restricting the analysis to blocks with properties that had ever received a BSRP intervention, a total crime reduction of 25.4% was observed for each additional property
[…]
This study found that the BSRP intervention was associated with a modest but significant reduction in crime. These findings suggest that intentional and targeted financial investment in structural, scalable, and sustainable place-based interventions in neighborhoods that are still experiencing the lasting consequences of structural racism and segregation is a vital step toward achieving health equity.

[edale]

So...the 'broken windows' theory? It's been around for decades.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by edale

So...the 'broken windows' theory? It's been around for decades.

Broken windows theory was based on the way a block looked and used to justify discriminatory policing. This is a solution that is not about appearances and goes closer to the root of the issue. It is about providing small grants to empower low income home owners to fix structural issues with their houses. If people's needs are met and stabilized then there is less need to turn to crime. Why do you think the pandemic saw such an increase in crime? It wasn't because of how some buildings looked.

I believe that this is just one prong of many that exist outside of policing that are necessary to reduce the continued harm residents of low income neighborhoods face.

[Klippenstein]

Alright. I'm gonna try to start a discussion one more time and then I'll let it go.

Do other cities have programs like Philadelphia's Basic Systems Repair Program? What is your experience with them? How do they work?

Chicago has roof and porch repair lottery and an emergency heating program. The roof and porch repair is open to a much broader segment of the population, up to 80% AMI and is not really based on any emergency need. The heating program is so people don't freeze to death in the winter. While that's great, I don't think it covers the broader swath of needs that the BSRP does and I think low income homeowners are often left to struggle along until they lose their house because any small issues just continue to get worse.

For instance, when I moved into my house, my next door neighbor had a hole in her roof. The family had lived there for generations. The hole continued to grow and she had to move out. Now it is sitting there empty, taxes unpaid and the hole has been growing for going on 4 years. I don't know if this program would have helped because the family was in debt in some other ways as well, but, then again, something like this might have stopped the cycle earlier and maybe even stopped them from falling victim to a predatory loan.

The younger generation had abandoned any future living there because of all that mess, but if they were in a different situation where they were holding on by a thread trying to provide for themselves, people get desperate and hustle however they can. The competition is fierce when there's little opportunity and often violent. That's just how it is on the streets of many Chicago neighborhoods. At the same time, if people have a better option I believe that most of the time they will take it.

[iheartthed]

This doesn't fix the underlying problem, which is the value of property. As the article states, redlining initially depressed the property values, but then that was exacerbated by sprawl. If government addresses sprawl, then the problem fixes itself. Low-income homeowners will have the option to sell and move.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

This doesn't fix the underlying problem, which is the value of property. As the article states, redlining initially depressed the property values, but then that was exacerbated by sprawl. If government addresses sprawl, then the problem fixes itself. Low-income homeowners will have the option to sell and move.

The abandonment of city neighborhoods after the 1960s wasn't caused directly by the government. Far more housing was built between 1960 and 2008 than the United States needed. This overwhelmingly took the form of greenfield sprawl, mega-retirement communities in Florida, and vacation houses/condos on the East, West, and Gulf coasts. It can be argued that "the government" backed the mortgages, and that "the government" built the bridges out to Hilton Head Island and all of the other intercoastal waterway peninsulas and islands, but the banks still took on a ton of risk and got away with it for decades.

Almost every city neighborhood in the United States lost relative value over that time period and thousands if not tens of thousands of prewar homes and apartments were demolished in the big cities.

The banks voluntarily pulled back on speculative construction lending after the 2008 mortgage disaster saw several of the country's biggest banks go bankrupt. Less housing has been built nationwide in the past 13 years than was needed to accommodate population growth and the demographic shifts that have affected the household character of various age groups.

What's more, the thought that dense development causes crime is false. Densely built but wealthy neighborhoods in the United States don't have crime problems. Neither does Hong Kong or the dozens of hyper-dense Asian cities.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

Broken windows theory was based on the way a block looked and used to justify discriminatory policing. This is a solution that is not about appearances and goes closer to the root of the issue. It is about providing small grants to empower low income home owners to fix structural issues with their houses. If people's needs are met and stabilized then there is less need to turn to crime. Why do you think the pandemic saw such an increase in crime? It wasn't because of how some buildings looked.

I believe that this is just one prong of many that exist outside of policing that are necessary to reduce the continued harm residents of low income neighborhoods face.

Providing funding to help improve homes, and thus the homes' values, and thus the neighborhood and neighborhood's value, which in turn results in discouraging crime because of increased scrutiny by property owners of activity that could diminish that value, is the theorized pathway.

It's not about giving low-income homeowners cash so that they don't turn to crime. Not sure if that's what you're intending to communicate, but it's preposterous to think that providing funding to repair homes will lead to the owners not committing crimes. The VAST majority of homeowners (and renters) in poor neighborhoods are NOT criminals!

And relating this to pandemic crime levels is a non sequitur.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The abandonment of city neighborhoods after the 1960s wasn't caused directly by the government. Far more housing was built between 1960 and 2008 than the United States needed. This overwhelmingly took the form of greenfield sprawl, mega-retirement communities in Florida, and vacation houses/condos on the East, West, and Gulf coasts. It can be argued that "the government" backed the mortgages, and that "the government" built the bridges out to Hilton Head Island and all of the other intercoastal waterway peninsulas and islands, but the banks still took on a ton of risk and got away with it for decades.

Almost every city neighborhood in the United States lost relative value over that time period and thousands if not tens of thousands of prewar homes and apartments were demolished in the big cities.

The banks voluntarily pulled back on speculative construction lending after the 2008 mortgage disaster saw several of the country's biggest banks go bankrupt. Less housing has been built nationwide in the past 13 years than was needed to accommodate population growth and the demographic shifts that have affected the household character of various age groups.

What's more, the thought that dense development causes crime is false. Densely built but wealthy neighborhoods in the United States don't have crime problems. Neither does Hong Kong or the dozens of hyper-dense Asian cities.

I mostly agree with what you said except for the first line. This all absolutely was caused by the government. The federal government fueled redlining by refusing to insure mortgages in areas where the black population exceeded a certain threshold. The federal government also provided the capital to finance white flight.

[jmecklenborg]

^Redlining was illegal by the mid-1960s. The decline of the old neighborhoods had only just begun by that point.

Keep in mind that the rapid population loss of the big cities in the 1970s and 1980s was exacerbated by the decline in birthrate enabled by oral contraception, which was legalized at almost the same time that redlining ended. The full effect of the reduced birthrate wasn't felt until about 1985, when those first never-conceived children would have reached age 20 and presumably rented their own apartments and started buying houses.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Providing funding to help improve homes, and thus the homes' values, and thus the neighborhood and neighborhood's value, which in turn results in discouraging crime because of increased scrutiny by property owners of activity that could diminish that value, is the theorized pathway.

It's not about giving low-income homeowners cash so that they don't turn to crime. Not sure if that's what you're intending to communicate, but it's preposterous to think that providing funding to repair homes will lead to the owners not committing crimes. The VAST majority of homeowners (and renters) in poor neighborhoods are NOT criminals!

And relating this to pandemic crime levels is a non sequitur.

I'm suggesting people who do not have enough to provide for themselves and keep their home up might commit crimes in order to get by. I was wrong about it being a grant, but that wasn't really my point. This isn't about the vast majority, this is focused on people who make a low income and thus are likely in a more precarious position with their homeownership. I'm not trying to demonize homeowners or low income homeowners. I think these factors are compounded when poverty is generational especially considering there's less opportunity for the newer generations in these neighborhoods whereas in the past there might have at least been a shitty, but secure manufacturing job.

And I totally agree that increasing the home values is a part of this. Another great step would be to increase homeownership so that people literally have more stake in their neighborhood prospering. People who have lived in the neighborhood for a long time and have connections with people taking ownership and pride in their community can go a long way in shifting young people away from crime.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

I'm suggesting people who do not have enough to provide for themselves and keep their home up might commit crimes in order to get by. I was wrong about it being a grant, but that wasn't really my point. This isn't about the vast majority, this is focused on people who make a low income and thus are likely in a more precarious position with their homeownership. I'm not trying to demonize homeowners or low income homeowners. I think these factors are compounded when poverty is generational especially considering there's less opportunity for the newer generations in these neighborhoods whereas in the past there might have at least been a shitty, but secure manufacturing job.

And I totally agree that increasing the home values is a part of this. Another great step would be to increase homeownership so that people literally have more stake in their neighborhood prospering. People who have lived in the neighborhood for a long time and have connections with people taking ownership and pride in their community can go a long way in shifting young people away from crime.

Gotcha. I agree.

Homeownership is a huge component of economic and family stability (and the corresponding neighborhood stability) in the US. Black families have long been shut out of this vital part of the "American dream"... and we see the results of that.

Buying a home is a difficult process as a non-minority, but when the rules are stacked against you based on the color of your skin, it's simply an unfair and unjust system in which our country operates. We reap what we sow.

[Gantz]

The best way to increase property values is to increase the desirability of your city or neighborhood.
The following greatly increase property values:
1. accessibility to jobs
2. low crime rates
3. good schools

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by pj3000

= Black families have long been shut out of this vital part of the "American dream"... and we see the results of that.

Buying a home is a difficult process as a non-minority, but when the rules are stacked against you based on the color of your skin, it's simply an unfair and unjust system in which our country operates. We reap what we sow.

All of that stuff ended more than 50 years ago and far more personal wealth comes from stock dividends and capital gains than the appreciation of nearly any primary residence. Many recent immigrants from India and East Asia have blown past white Americans in earned income and net worth in just 1-2 generations, and very little of that net worth comes from their primary residence.

What's more, much of the current value of primary residences in the United States has appeared in the last five years. Many if not most people who sold homes 2009-2015 lost big money.

Minorities have never been prohibited from owning shares in publicly traded companies. The applications for IRAs and trading accounts have been online and completely anonymous for over 20 years. In that time period, the S&P has more than quadrupled.

Most of the the U.S.'s wealth has accrued over the last 20 years. We live in, by far, the easiest time in human history to accumulate wealth. You're mostly just trading your time for a paycheck, not hard physical labor. Put 15% of that income into an IRA. 10 years later you're wealthy.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

^Redlining was illegal by the mid-1960s. The decline of the old neighborhoods had only just begun by that point.

Keep in mind that the rapid population loss of the big cities in the 1970s and 1980s was exacerbated by the decline in birthrate enabled by oral contraception, which was legalized at almost the same time that redlining ended. The full effect of the reduced birthrate wasn't felt until about 1985, when those first never-conceived children would have reached age 20 and presumably rented their own apartments and started buying houses.

Discrimination on the basis of race was outlawed in the 1960s with the Civil Rights Act, but it had been standard policy for 30 years by that point. The damage was done. And the explicit discrimination was just replaced by implicit discriminatory policies that did the same thing. That last part of it kept up until about the 1990s when just about every white family that was ever going to leave the city was gone. In places that had not enacted land use controls by then (pretty much everywhere except the northeast and SF Bay Area), the urban flight then shifted focus to black and other minorities that had mostly stayed behind. That's how you had cities like Detroit and Chicago losing +200,000 residents in a decade into the 21st century.

Also, birthrate decline is not the reason that cities stopped growing. Cities stopped growing in the 1950s, when birthrates were quite high. Many cities, such as New York, were actually growing again by the 1980s.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Discrimination on the basis of race was outlawed in the 1960s with the Civil Rights Act, but it had been standard policy for 30 years by that point. The damage was done. And the explicit discrimination was just replaced by implicit discriminatory policies that did the same thing. That last part of it kept up until about the 1990s when just about every white family that was ever going to leave the city was gone.

Nearly all of those homes and buildings in NYC, Detroit, and everywhere else that went vacant and were demolished 1960-2000 were owned by white or jewish Americans. All of the stylish chatter regarding the rising value of properties owned by whites since 2000 ignores the billions lost in every city by those same ethnicities in the postwar decades as once-stable neighborhoods deteriorated into low-class chaos.

Today's trendy chatter regarding the construction of interstate highways through black neighborhoods ignores the fact that nearly all of the affected property was owned by whites (and that far more white owned & occupied properties were taken or saw their values nicked by highway noise). Those who had their rental properties taken were paid fair market value but those whose properties stood on the edge were stuck holding the bag - they could no longer command the income necessary to service the preexisting mortgage.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Nearly all of those homes and buildings in NYC, Detroit, and everywhere else that went vacant and were demolished 1960-2000 were owned by white or jewish Americans. All of the stylish chatter regarding the rising value of properties owned by whites since 2000 ignores the billions lost in every city by those same ethnicities in the postwar decades as once-stable neighborhoods deteriorated into low-class chaos.

Today's trendy chatter regarding the construction of interstate highways through black neighborhoods ignores the fact that nearly all of the affected property was owned by whites (and that far more white owned & occupied properties were taken or saw their values nicked by highway noise). Those who had their rental properties taken were paid fair market value but those whose properties stood on the edge were stuck holding the bag - they could no longer command the income necessary to service the preexisting mortgage.

You should study up on the history of blockbusting.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

You should study up on the history of blockbusting.

I read up on all of this 25+ years ago. I created one of the first urbanist websites back in 1998. Back then I held many of the beliefs that are now popular on NPR, Twitter, Strongtowns, etc. I came to see the faults in those sentiments well before all of that stuff became a cottage industry in the 2010s (really, post-2015).

The NUMTOTs and Twitter loudmouths think that they are able to predict the future by pointing fingers at events from the past. The passage of time will prove them wrong. The things - good or bad - that people like me predicted that have come to pass have occurred for different reasons than we anticipated.

The S&P 500 in mid-2021 is well over 4,000 - or 10X what it was when I was in high school. This means the 500 biggest U.S. companies are 10X more valuable than they were 30 years ago. The rural land and farm homes and houses and other structures in small towns are not 10X more valuable today than they were in the early 1990s.

So yes - those white Americans whose primary residences are in NYC, LA, SF, Seattle, and on a beach have experienced wild appreciation - perhaps the 10X that the S&P has experienced over the past 30 years. But the white Americans in small towns and out in the country - which comprise tens of millions of households - haven't experienced any appreciation at all.

NPR, etc., don't care about those people. In fact, they sneer and look down on them. The owners of rural property and homes in uncool small cities and towns don't have anything at all to do with what might or might not have happened in Chicago, Detroit, etc., back in the 1960s. But continuing to antagonize those people by connecting them to things they had nothing to do with is fomenting an ugly backlash.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

I read up on all of this 25+ years ago. I created one of the first urbanist websites back in 1998. Back then I held many of the beliefs that are now popular on NPR, Twitter, Strongtowns, etc. I came to see the faults in those sentiments well before all of that stuff became a cottage industry in the 2010s (really, post-2015).

The NUMTOTs and Twitter loudmouths think that they are able to predict the future by pointing fingers at events from the past. The passage of time will prove them wrong. The things - good or bad - that people like me predicted that have come to pass have occurred for different reasons than we anticipated.

The S&P 500 in mid-2021 is well over 4,000 - or 10X what it was when I was in high school. This means the 500 biggest U.S. companies are 10X more valuable than they were 30 years ago. The rural land and farm homes and houses and other structures in small towns are not 10X more valuable today than they were in the early 1990s.

So yes - those white Americans whose primary residences are in NYC, LA, SF, Seattle, and on a beach have experienced wild appreciation - perhaps the 10X that the S&P has experienced over the past 30 years. But the white Americans in small towns and out in the country - which comprise tens of millions of households - haven't experienced any appreciation at all.

NPR, etc., don't care about those people. In fact, they sneer and look down on them. The owners of rural property and homes in uncool small cities and towns don't have anything at all to do with what might or might not have happened in Chicago, Detroit, etc., back in the 1960s. But continuing to antagonize those people by connecting them to things they had nothing to do with is fomenting an ugly backlash.

This thread is about neighborhoods in large cities, and not about small towns. The issues are different.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

I created one of the first urbanist websites back in 1998.

Wow, I first boned two chicks at the same time back in 1998. Good year!

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Wow, I first boned two chicks at the same time back in 1998.

That was you?