Qo'shma Shtatlarda uy-joylarni subsidiyalash - Subsidized housing in the United States

Qismi bir qator kuni
Yashash joylari
Vista-kfm home-alt.png
20 qavatli Jon F. Xilan Uylar Bushvik mahalla Bruklin, Nyu-York shahri.

Imtiyozli uy-joy Qo'shma Shtatlarda ta'minlash uchun federal, shtat va mahalliy idoralar tomonidan boshqariladi subsidiya uchun ijara yordami kam daromadli uy xo'jaliklari. Davlat uylari narxlari bozor stavkasidan ancha past bo'lib, odamlarga arzonroq ijara izlash uchun shahardan uzoqlashishdan ko'ra qulayroq joylarda yashashga imkon beradi. Federal mablag'lar hisobidan ijaraga beriladigan yordam dasturlarining aksariyatida ijarachilarning oylik ijarasi ularning uy daromadlarining 30% miqdorida belgilanadi.[1] Endi turli xil sozlamalar va formatlarda tobora ko'proq ta'minlanib kelinayotgan AQShda dastlab uy-joylar asosan bir qavatli va / yoki ko'p qavatli uylarning bir yoki bir nechta kontsentratsiyalangan bloklaridan iborat bo'lgan. Ushbu majmualar tomonidan vakolatli va mablag 'bilan ta'minlangan uy-joy qurilishi davlat va mahalliy idoralari tomonidan boshqariladi Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarining uy-joy va shaharsozlik vazirligi (HUD). Hozirda 1,2 milliondan ortiq uy xo'jaliklari ba'zi turdagi davlat uylarida yashaydilar.[noaniq ]

Subsidiyali ko'p qavatli uylar, ko'pincha deyiladi uy-joy loyihalari, Qo'shma Shtatlarda murakkab va ko'pincha taniqli tarixga ega. Loyihalarning dastlabki o'n yilliklari yuqori qurilish standartlari va bir xil daromadga ega bo'lganlar va bir xil murojaat etuvchilar bilan qurilgan bo'lsa-da, vaqt o'tishi bilan davlat uylari tobora ko'plab shaharlarda so'nggi yashash joyiga aylandi. Ushbu salbiy tendentsiya uchun bir nechta sabablar keltirilgan, shu jumladan Kongressning etarli mablag'ni ta'minlay olmagani, talabalar uchun standartlarni pasaytirish va mahalliy darajada noto'g'ri boshqaruv. Bundan tashqari, uy-joy qurish loyihalari ham sezilarli darajada ko'paygan zich qashshoqlik jamoada, bir nechta salbiy narsalarga olib keladi tashqi ta'sirlar. Jinoyatchilik, giyohvand moddalarni iste'mol qilish va o'qitishning past darajadagi natijalari uy-joy qurish loyihalari bilan, xususan shahar joylarda keng bog'liqdir.[2]

Ularning turli xil muammolari va kamayib borayotgan siyosiy qo'llab-quvvatlashlari natijasida dasturning dastlabki yillarida qurilgan kam daromadli an'anaviy uy-joylarning ko'pchiligi buzib tashlandi. 70-yillardan boshlab federal hukumat boshqa yondashuvlarga, shu jumladan Loyihaga asoslanganga murojaat qildi 8-bo'lim dasturi, 8-bo'lim sertifikatlari va uy-joy tanlash uchun vaucher dasturi. 1990-yillarda federal hukumat HUD uylari orqali an'anaviy uy-joylarni o'zgartirishni jadallashtirdi Umid VI Dastur. Umid VI mablag'lari muammoli davlat uy-joy loyihalarini buzish va ularning o'rnini xususiy sheriklar bilan hamkorlikda qurilgan aralash jamoalar bilan to'ldirish uchun sarflaydi.[3] 2012 yilda Kongress va HUD yangi dasturni boshladi Ijara yordami namoyishi (RAD) dasturi.[4] Namoyish dasturiga binoan, tegishli uy-joylar xususiy uylar va investorlar bilan birgalikda qayta ishlab chiqilmoqda.

Tarix

Dastlabki harakatlar

Jeykob Riis tomonidan Nyu-York shahridagi turar joylarning fotosurati Boshqa yarmi qanday yashaydi, birinchi bo'lib 1890 yilda nashr etilgan.

19-asrda va 20-asrning boshlarida kambag'allarni uy-joy bilan ta'minlashda hukumatning ishtiroki asosan qurilish kodeksini ijro etish sohasida bo'lib, yangi binolar munosib darajada ma'lum standartlarga javob berishini talab qildi. yashashga yaroqlilik (masalan, to'g'ri shamollatish) va uy egalarini mavjud qurilish fondiga ba'zi o'zgartirishlar kiritishga majbur qilish. Fotomuxbir Jeykob Riis ' Boshqa yarmi qanday yashaydi (1890) Nyu-York shahridagi uy-joy sharoitiga katta e'tibor qaratdi va butun mamlakat bo'ylab uy-joy sharoitlariga yangi e'tibor qaratdi.

Dastlabki ijaraga berish islohoti asosan xayriya ishi bo'lib, 1870-yillarning boshlarida Model Tenements qurilgan bo'lib, u kambag'allarning jismoniy va ijtimoiy muammolarini hal qilish uchun yangi me'moriy va boshqaruv modellaridan foydalanishga harakat qilgan.[5] Ushbu urinishlar mavjud manbalar bilan cheklandi va tez orada qurilish kodlari islohotiga yo'naltirildi. 1895 yildagi Nyu-Yorkdagi ijaraga olish to'g'risidagi qonun va 1901 yildagi ijaraga olish to'g'risidagi qonun Nyu-York shahridagi qurilish qoidalarini hal qilishga qaratilgan dastlabki urinishlar bo'lib, keyinchalik Chikago, Filadelfiya va boshqa Amerikaning shaharlarida ko'chirilgan.

1910 yilda Milliy uy-joy uyushmasi (NHA) yanada tartibga solish va xabardorlikni oshirish orqali shahar va shahar atrofidagi uylarda uy-joy sharoitlarini yaxshilash uchun tashkil etildi. NHA tomonidan tashkil etilgan Lourens Veiller, muallifi Pensiya uyining namunaviy qonuni (1910) va o'nlab shaharlar delegatlaridan iborat edi.[5] Vaqt o'tishi bilan uy-joy harakatining yo'nalishi to'g'ri qurilish tipologiyasiga e'tiborni keng ko'lamda jamoatchilikni rivojlantirishga aylandi va NHA 1936 yilda tarqatib yuborildi.

The Miluoki shahri, sotsialistik meri ostida Daniel Xoan sifatida tanilgan mamlakatdagi birinchi davlat uy-joy loyihasini amalga oshirdi Bog 'uylari, 1923 yilda. Baladiylar tomonidan homiylik qilingan uy-joy kooperativi bilan o'tkazilgan ushbu tajriba dastlabki muvaffaqiyatga erishdi, ammo rivojlanish va erni sotib olish muammolari bilan qiynashdi va loyihani nazorat qiluvchi kengash uylar qurilishi tugagandan atigi ikki yil o'tgach, Gardens Home korporatsiyasini tarqatib yubordi.[6]

Jamoat ishlarini boshqarish (PWA) uy-joy bo'limi

Doimiy, federal mablag 'bilan ta'minlangan uy-joylar Qo'shma Shtatlarda Franklin Ruzveltning yangi bitimi doirasida paydo bo'ldi. II sarlavha, 202-bo'lim Milliy sanoatni tiklash to'g'risidagi qonun, 1933 yil 16-iyunda o'tib, jamoat ishlari ma'muriyatiga (PWA) "arzon narxlardagi uy-joylarni davlat nazorati yoki nazorati ostida qurish, rekonstruksiya qilish, o'zgartirish yoki ta'mirlash" dasturini ishlab chiqishga rahbarlik qildi. qashshoq joyni tozalash loyihalar ... ". PWA uy-joy bo'limi boshchiligida va me'mor boshchiligida Robert Kon Dastlab, Cheklangan Dividend Dasturi kam daromadli uy-joylar qurilishini moliyalashtirish uchun davlat yoki xususiy guruhlarga past foizli kreditlar berishga qaratilgan.

Juda kam miqdordagi malakali ariza beruvchilar oldinga qadam qo'ydilar va "Cheklangan dividendlar" dasturi mamlakat miqyosida atigi ettita uy-joy loyihasini moliyalashtirdi. 1934 yil bahorida PWA ma'muri Garold Ikkes uy-joy bo'linmasini to'g'ridan-to'g'ri davlat uylarini qurishni boshlashga yo'naltirdi, bu hal qiluvchi qadam bo'lib, bu namunadir 1937 yil Vagner-Shtagal uy-joy to'g'risidagi qonun va Qo'shma Shtatlarda doimiy uy-joy qurish dasturi. Kon qayta qurish paytida iste'foga chiqdi va 1934-1937 yillarda hozirda polkovnik Horatio B. Xakett boshchiligidagi uy-joy diviziyasi AQSh bo'ylab ellik ikkita uy-joy loyihasini, shuningdek, Puerto-Riko va Virjiniya orollarini qurdi. Atlantada Techwood uylari 1936 yil 1 sentyabrda ochilgan va ochilgan ellik ikkitadan birinchisi.

Techwood uylari yilda Atlanta, birinchi AQSh davlat uy-joy loyihasi 1936 yilda ochilgan.

Klarens Steyn va Genri Raytning uy-joylarni rejalashtirish konsepsiyalariga asoslanib, ushbu ellik ikkita loyiha me'moriy jihatdan yaxlit bo'lib, bir-to'rt qavatli uylar va ko'p qavatli uylarda tashkil etilgan bo'lib, ochiq maydonlar atrofida joylashgan bo'lib, jamoat ko'tarilishini aniqlaydigan harakatlanishsiz o'yin maydonlarini yaratmoqda. . Ushbu loyihalarning aksariyati qashshoq erlarda qurilgan, ammo erlarni sotib olish qiyin bo'lgan, shuning uchun tashlandiq sanoat maydonlari va bo'sh erlar ham sotib olingan. Leksingtonning ikkita dastlabki loyihasi tashlandiq ot poygasi yo'lida qurilgan. Ickesning ko'rsatmasi bilan ushbu loyihalarning aksariyati oq tanli yoki afroamerikaliklar uchun ajratilgan, ishlab chiqilgan va qurilgan. Poyga, asosan, atrofni o'rab turgan mahalla tomonidan belgilandi, chunki Shimoliy va Janubdagi Amerika turar joylari juda ajratilgan edi.

Asrning boshlarida uy-joy harakatidan chiqib, 1930-lar ham yaratilishini ko'rdilar Uy-joy mulkdorlarining kredit korporatsiyasi (HOLC) uy-joy bozorini barqaror ushlab turish maqsadida kreditlarni qayta moliyalashtirdi. 1934 yildagi uy-joy to'g'risidagi milliy qonunda Federal uy-joy ma'muriyati (FHA), bu ipotekani sug'urtalash uchun federal hukumatning ozgina kapital qo'yilmalaridan foydalangan. Shuning uchun davlat uy-joy loyihalarini qurish Buyuk Depressiya davrida federal uy-joy qurilishining faqat bir qismi bo'lgan.[7]

1937 yildagi uy-joy to'g'risidagi qonun

1937 yilda Vagner-Shtagal uy-joy to'g'risidagi qonun vaqtincha PWA Uy-joy bo'limini doimiy, kvazi-avtonom agentlik bilan uy-joylarni boshqarish uchun almashtirdi. Qo'shma Shtatlarning yangi uy-joy ma'muriyati 1937 yildagi uy-joy to'g'risidagi qonun uy-joylarni topish va qurish bo'yicha mahalliy sa'y-harakatlarga kuchli moyillik bilan ish olib boradi va har bir uy-joy uchun qancha mablag 'sarflanishi mumkinligiga chek qo'yadi. 5000 dollarlik chegara qonun loyihasining qizg'in bahs-munozarali xususiyati edi, chunki bu PWA uy-joyiga sarflangan mablag'larning sezilarli darajada qisqarishi va bu qonun loyihasi tarafdorlari olish uchun lobbi qilganlaridan ancha kam edi.[5]

Yangi tuzilishga binoan uy-joy loyihalarini qurish keskin tezlashdi. Faqatgina 1939 yilda 50,000 uy-joy qurildi, bu PWA uy-joy bo'limining butun faoliyati davomida qurilganidan ikki baravar ko'p.[7] Uy-joy bo'linmasining tashkiliy va me'moriy namunalariga binoan, USHA Ikkinchi Jahon urushi oldidan uylar qurdi, urush ishlab chiqarish harakatlarini qo'llab-quvvatladi va urush tugaganidan keyin yuzaga kelgan uy-joy etishmovchiligiga qarshi kurashdi. 1960-yillarda butun mamlakat bo'ylab uy-joy qurilishi ma'murlari shaharni yangilash ishlarida muhim sheriklarga aylandilar, avtomobil yo'llari, kasalxonalar va boshqa jamoat ishlarida ko'chirilganlar uchun yangi uylar qurishdi.

Ikkinchi jahon urushi davri

Urush safarbarligi doirasida harbiy buyumlar ishlab chiqaradigan fabrikalar atrofida butun jamoalar paydo bo'ldi. 1940 yilda Kongress AQSh uy-joy boshqarmasiga urush harakatlarini davom ettirish uchun ushbu xususiy kompaniyalar atrofida yigirmata davlat uy-joy qurilishini amalga oshirishga vakolat berdi. Bu doimiy yashash joylari bo'ladimi, keng ko'lamli davlat uy-joy qurish maqsadidagi islohotchilarning maqsadlari yoki ehtiyojga o'z vaqtida mos ravishda vaqtincha turar joylar bo'ladimi, degan munozarali munozaralar bo'ldi. Mudofaa uy-joy bo'limi 1941 yilda tashkil topgan va oxir-oqibat sakkizta vaqtinchalik uy-joylarni qurish bilan shug'ullanadi, garchi ko'plari urushdan keyin uzoq muddatli uy-joy sifatida tugagan.[5]

Qo'shma Shtatlarning uy-joy qurish bo'yicha g'ayrioddiy tashabbuslaridan biri bu kechqurun o'rta sinflarning uy-joylarini subsidiyalashni rivojlantirish edi Yangi bitim Homiyligida (1940–42) O'zaro mulkni himoya qilish uy-joy bo'limi ning Federal ish agentligi rahbarligida Polkovnik Lourens Uestbruk. Ushbu sakkizta loyiha Ikkinchi Jahon Urushidan keyin rezidentlar tomonidan sotib olingan va 2009 yilga kelib ularning yettitasi o'z rezidentlariga tegishli bo'lgan o'zaro uy-joy korporatsiyalari sifatida ishlashni davom ettirmoqdalar. Ushbu loyihalar AQShning davlat uy-joy qurilishi bo'yicha sa'y-harakatlari tarixidagi juda kam muvaffaqiyatli voqealar qatoriga kiradi.

Ikkinchi Jahon urushi davrida uylar qurilishi keskin kamaydi, chunki barcha harakatlar urushga qaratilgan edi. Faxriylar chet eldan qaytib kelgach, ular yangi hayotni boshlashga tayyor bo'lishdi, ko'pincha oilalar bilan va buni mablag 'mablag'lari hisobidan amalga oshirdilar. G.I. Bill yangi ipoteka kreditini boshlash uchun. Biroq, talabni qondirish uchun uy-joy fondi etarli emas edi.[7] Natijada, Prezident Truman 1946 yil 26-yanvarda ijro buyrug'i bilan Uy-joy ekspeditorining idorasini yaratdi, unga Uilson Vayt rahbarlik qildi. Ushbu idora orqali hukumat ba'zi fraktsiyalarning uylarni to'g'ridan-to'g'ri qurish uchun siyosiy bosimiga qaramay, asosan narxlarni nazorat qilish va ta'minot zanjirini cheklash orqali uy-joy bozoriga aralashdi. Harakatlar faqat faxriylarning uy-joylariga, xususan uy-joy qurilishi uchun moddiy yordamga qaratildi. Biroq, 1946 yilgi saylovlardan so'ng, Prezident Truman bunday materiallarni cheklashlar va subsidiyalarni davom ettirish uchun jamoatchilik tomonidan qo'llab-quvvatlanmaydi deb hisoblar edi. The Faxriylarning shoshilinch uy-joy dasturi 1947 yil yanvar oyida prezident Trumanning buyrug'i bilan tugadi.[7]

1949 yildagi uy-joy to'g'risidagi qonun

Uy-joy ekspeditori idorasi tugagandan so'ng, uy-joy qurish ishlari uy-joy masalalarini hal qilish uchun yangi, kompleks yondashuvlarni ko'rib chiqishga o'tdi. Natijada edi 1949 yildagi uy-joy to'g'risidagi qonun federal hukumatning davlat va xususiy uy-joylardagi rolini keskin kengaytirdi. Trumaning bir qismi Adolatli bitim, Qonun uchta asosiy yo'nalishni qamrab oldi: (1) Federal uy-joy ma'muriyati va ipoteka sug'urtasidagi federal ishtirokini kengaytirdi, (2) I sarlavhaga binoan, u qashshoqlardan tozalash uchun vakolat va mablag 'ajratdi. shahar yangilanishi va (3) muhim davlat uy-joy dasturini qurishni boshladi. Qonunchilikning II sarlavhasida "har bir amerikalik uchun munosib muhitda munosib uy" maqsadi bayon qilingan va qonun hujjatlarida 13 milliard dollarlik ipoteka kafolatlari, gecekondilarni qayta qurish uchun 1,5 milliard dollar miqdorida vakolatlar berilgan va 810 ming dona davlat uylarini qurish maqsadi belgilangan.[5]

O'tish paytida Truman matbuotga shunday dedi:

"[Ushbu qonunchilik] hozirda kambag'al oilalar ahvolida yashayotgan kam ta'minlangan oilalar uchun foydali muhitda yaxshi uylar istiqbolini ochib beradi. Federal hukumatni birinchi marta hayotiy vazifada shaharlarga yordam berish uchun samarali vositalar bilan jihozlaydi. Bu qonunchilik millionlab fuqarolarimizning farovonligi va baxtini oshirish yo'lida uzoq qadam tashlashimizga imkon beradi, ushbu oliy maqsadni kechiktirmaylik.[8]

1960-yillarda uy-joy

1965 yildagi uy-joy va shaharsozlik to'g'risidagi qonun

Urban Renewal-dan norozilik I sarlavhasi va 1949 yildagi "Uy-joy to'g'risida" gi qonun qabul qilinganidan so'ng juda tez sodir bo'ldi. Shaharlarning yangilanishi ko'plab shaharlarda xafagarchilikni yo'q qilishning bir usuli bo'ldi, ammo yangi uy-joy qurish uchun mustahkam vosita emas edi. Masalan, qonun loyihasi qabul qilinganidan keyingi o'n yil ichida uning homiyligi ostida 425 ming dona uy-joy vayron qilingan, ammo atigi 125 ming uy qurilgan.[5] I va the sarlavhalari orasida 1956 yildagi Federal yordam avtomagistrali to'g'risidagi qonun, kambag'al, shahar mahallalaridagi butun jamoalar zamonaviy taraqqiyot va transport ehtiyojlarini qondirish uchun buzilgan, ko'pincha "parkdagi minoralar "uslubi Le Corbusier. Jeyn Jeykobs yangi mahsulotlarni mashhur tarzda ta'riflagan bo'lardi: "Kam ta'minlangan, huquqbuzarlik, buzg'unchilik va umumiy ijtimoiy umidsizlik markaziga aylanadigan loyihalar, ular o'rnini egallashi kerak bo'lgan mahallalardan ko'ra. O'rta daromadli uy-joy loyihalari xiralik va regimentning mo''jizasi, muhrlangan. shahar hayotining har qanday ko'tarilish kuchiga yoki tirikligiga qarshi. Ularning befarqligini engillashtiradigan yoki vahshiylik bilan harakat qiladigan hashamatli uy-joy loyihalari ... Bu shaharlarni qayta qurish emas. Bu shaharlarni ishdan bo'shatish. "[9]

1949 yildan keyin bir nechta qo'shimcha uy-joy hujjatlari qabul qilindi, bu dasturni kichik yo'llar bilan o'zgartirdi, masalan, keksa yoshdagi uy-joylar uchun stavkalarni o'zgartirish, ammo biron bir yirik qonunchilik davlat uylarini qurish mexanizmlarini o'zgartirmaguncha 1965 yildagi uy-joy va shaharsozlik to'g'risidagi qonun. Ushbu harakat Uy-joy va shaharsozlik bo'limi (HUD), uy-joy bilan shug'ullanadigan kabinet darajasidagi agentlik. Ushbu hujjat, shuningdek, birinchi marta ijaraga beriladigan subsidiyalarni joriy etdi, bu xususiy ravishda qurilgan kam daromadli uy-joylarni rag'batlantirishga o'tish boshlandi. Ushbu qonun bilan FHA notijorat tashkilotlari uchun ipoteka kreditlarini sug'urtalaydi, keyinchalik kam ta'minlangan oilalar uchun uylar quradi. Keyinchalik HUD ushbu birliklarning narxi va uy xo'jaliklari daromadlarining belgilangan foizlari o'rtasidagi farqni bartaraf etish uchun subsidiyalarni taqdim etishi mumkin.[5]

1961 yildagi Uy-joy to'g'risidagi qonun 23-bo'limga binoan tinchgina dasturni taqdim etdi, bu mahalliy uy-joy ma'muriyatiga shaxslar o'zlarining navbat ro'yxatlarida shaxsiy ijaraga olingan xonalarda yashash mexanizmi vaucher bu uy xo'jaliklarining to'lov qobiliyati va bozor ijarasi o'rtasidagi farqni qopladi. Ushbu mexanizm keyingi qonunchilikda bir necha bor kengaytirildi.[10]

1968 yilgi uy-joy va shaharsozlik to'g'risidagi qonun

Loyihalashtirilgan Minoru Yamasaki, Pruitt va Igoe tasvirlangan o'ttiz uchta binodan iborat edi. Uning buzilishi haqidagi dramatik tasvirlar butun mamlakat bo'ylab gazetalarga aylandi.

Yangi uy-joy qurilishi bilan bog'liq ko'plab paydo bo'lgan xavotirlarga javoban, 1968 yilgi uy-joy va shaharsozlik to'g'risidagi qonun Garden Cities modeliga qarab, uy-joylarni rivojlantirish uslubini o'zgartirishga urinish Ebenezer Xovard. Ushbu qonun bolali oilalar uchun ko'p qavatli uylarni qurishni taqiqladi. Ko'p qavatli uylarning roli har doim bahsli bo'lib kelgan, ammo vandalizm va bo'sh ish o'rinlari ko'payib borayotganligi va qashshoqlik kontsentratsiyasidan xavotirlanganligi sababli, ayrimlar ushbu rivojlanish oilalarga yaroqsiz deb topilgan.[5] Ushbu voqealarning eng mashhurlaridan biri bu edi Pruitt-Igoe rivojlanish Sent-Luis, Missuri, 1955 va 1956 yillarda qurilgan. Ushbu rivojlanish o'ttiz uchta baland binolarda 2870 ta qurilmani joylashtirdi.[5] 1960 yillarning oxiriga kelib, bo'sh ish o'rinlari darajasi 65 foizga etdi va loyiha 1972 yildan 1975 yilgacha buzib tashlandi. Pruitt-Igoe haqidagi so'nggi stipendiyalar, ko'pincha keng miqyosdagi muvaffaqiyatsizliklar uchun masal sifatida ishlatilgan. Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlaridagi davlat uylari, ushbu kompleksning ochilishi ko'proq qurilish me'morchiligiga qaraganda, qurilish irqchiligiga, shahar yadrosidagi investitsiyalarga, oq parvozga va binolar aholisining postindustrial daromadlarining kamayishiga bog'liqligini aniqladi. davlat tasarrufidagi va ishlatilayotgan uy-joylarning tabiati.[11][12]

Qonun FHA-ni kengaytirish orqali uy-joy mulkdorlari bozoriga ham ta'sir ko'rsatdi. Jinni Mey dastlab xavfli davlat uy-joy loyihalarini sotib olish va ularni bozor narxlarida qayta sotish uchun tashkil etilgan. Bunga qo'chimcha, 235-bo'lim kam ta'minlangan oilalar uchun ipoteka kreditlari bo'yicha foiz stavkasini FHA ipoteka kreditlari bilan taqqoslanadigan stavkaga tushirish orqali ipoteka subsidiyalarini yaratdi. Dastur garovga qo'yilishning yuqori stavkalari va ma'muriy janjaldan aziyat chekdi va 1974 yilda keskin kamaytirildi 236-bo'lim Dastur xususiy ishlanmalar bo'yicha qarzdorlik xizmatini subsidiyalashtirdi, keyinchalik ma'lum daromad darajasidan past bo'lgan uy xo'jaliklariga arzonlashtirilgan narxlarda taqdim etiladi.[10]

1970-yillarda uy-joy

Tajriba asosida uy-joy ajratish dasturi

1970 yilgi Uy-joy to'g'risidagi qonunda Tajriba asosida uy-joy ajratish dasturi (EHAP), uy-joy vaucherlarining yuzaga kelishi mumkin bo'lgan bozor ta'sirini uzoq muddatli tekshirish. Dastlab 1965 yilda joriy qilingan vaucherslar, uy narxiga mos kelmaguncha, uy xo'jaliklarining ijaraga beriladigan nafaqasini to'ldirish orqali ta'minot emas, balki uy-joy bozorining talab tomonini subsidiyalashga urinish edi. EHAP vaucherlar ta'sirining uchta jihatini sinash uchun ishlab chiqilgan:

  • Talab: foydalanuvchilarning harakatchanligi, shu jumladan harakatchanligi, qatnashish stavkalari, ijara stavkalari va uy-joy standartlari o'rganildi.
  • Ta'minot: Bozorning subsidiyaga bo'lgan munosabatini, ya'ni qurilish yoki uy uchun ijara stavkalarini o'zgartirganligini, katta yozilishini kuzatdi.
  • Ma'muriyat: Dasturlarni tuzish va boshqarish bo'yicha bir necha xil yondashuvlarni ko'rib chiqdi.

Oxir oqibat, uy-joy kuponlari to'g'risidagi yangi qonunchilik eksperiment yakunlanishini kutmadi. Dastur o'n yil ichida yakunlangach, dastur atrofdagi ijara haqlariga minimal ta'sir ko'rsatishi, ammo kam daromadli uy-joylar bozorini keskinlashtirish imkoniyatiga ega ekanligi aniqlandi va jamoalar qo'shimcha bo'linmalar infuzioniga muhtoj edilar. Ba'zilar, davlat uylari xarajatlar va ta'minot zanjiri sabablari uchun mos model bo'lganligini ta'kidladilar, garchi voucherlar mahalliy uy-joy bozorlarini haddan tashqari buzib yubormadi.[10]

Uy-joylarga moratoriy

1973 yilda Prezident Richard Nikson oldingi yigirma yil ichida qurilgan uy-joy loyihalari bilan bog'liq xavotirlar tufayli ko'plab uy-joy loyihalarini moliyalashtirishni to'xtatdi. Hud kotibi Jorj Romni moratoriy Urban Renewal uchun barcha pullarni qamrab olishini va Namuna shaharlar dasturlar, barcha imtiyozli uy-joylar va 235 va 236-bo'limlarni moliyalashtirish.[10] Federal hukumatning uy-joy qurilishidagi rolini tahlil qilish va baholash uchun Milliy uy-joy siyosati sharhidan intensiv hisobot topshirildi. Ushbu hisobot Etmishinchi yillarda uy-joy keyingi yil yangi uy-joy qonunchiligini ishlab chiqishda muhim rol o'ynadi. EHAP tomonidan namoyish etilgan Niksonning bozorga asoslangan yondashuviga muvofiq, Nikson sentyabr oyi oxirida 23-bo'lim vaucher dasturiga qo'yilgan moratoriyani bekor qildi va 200 ming yangi uy xo'jaliklarini moliyalashtirishga imkon berdi. To'liq moratoriy 1974 yil yozida Nikson duch kelganidek bekor qilindi impichment izidan Votergeyt.

1974 yilgi uy-joy va jamoatchilikni rivojlantirish to'g'risidagi qonun

The 1974 yilgi uy-joy va jamoatchilikni rivojlantirish to'g'risidagi qonun yaratgan 8-bo'lim Xususiy sektorni arzon uylar qurishga undash uchun uy-joy dasturi. Ushbu turdagi uy-joy yordami kambag'al ijarachilarga uy egalariga oylik subsidiya berish orqali yordam beradi. Ushbu yordam "loyihaga asoslangan" bo'lishi mumkin, bu o'ziga xos xususiyatlarga taalluqli yoki "ijarachiga asoslangan" bo'lishi mumkin, bu esa ijarachilarga vaucherlar qabul qilingan har qanday joyda foydalanishi mumkin bo'lgan vaucherni taqdim etadi. Ijarachilarga asoslangan uy-joylarga beriladigan vaucherlar uy daromadining 25% o'rtasidagi farqni qoplagan va belgilangan adolatli bozor ijarasi. 1983 yildan beri deyarli hech qanday yangi loyihaga asoslangan 8-bo'limda uy-joy ishlab chiqarilmadi, ammo hozirda ijarachilarga asoslangan vaucherlar yordam uylarining asosiy mexanizmi hisoblanadi.

Qonunning yana bir asosiy xususiyati Jamiyatni rivojlantirish blokining granti (CDBG). To'g'ridan-to'g'ri davlat uylari bilan bog'lanmagan bo'lsa-da, CDBGlar bir martalik pullar bo'lib, ularning miqdori aholi soniga yo'naltirilgan formulada aniqlandi, uy-joy qurish va jamoatchilikni rivojlantirish uchun davlat va mahalliy hukumatlarga berildi.[13] Ushbu mablag 'jamoat tomonidan belgilab qo'yilganidek ishlatilishi mumkin edi, ammo qonunchilikda ham ishlab chiqilishi kerak edi Uy-joy qurish rejalari (HAP), bu mahalliy jamoalardan mavjud uy-joy fondini o'rganish va kataloglashni hamda yordamga eng muhtoj aholini aniqlashni talab qildi. Ular CDBG dasturining bir qismi sifatida taqdim etildi.

Yana davlat uy-joylariga bo'lgan norozilikning kuchayishiga javoban, shaharsozlar arzon, kam daromadli uylarning muqobil shakllarini izlay boshladilar. Ushbu tashvishdan kelib chiqib, yaratilish boshlandi tarqoq uy-joy kichik ko'lamli, yaxlit integratsiyalangan davlat uy-joylarini turli xil mahallalarda joylashtirish uchun mo'ljallangan dasturlar. Tarqalgan uy-joy qurish dasturlari 1970 va 1980-yillarning oxirlarida ommalashgan. O'sha paytdan boshlab mamlakatning turli shaharlarida bunday dasturlar turli darajadagi muvaffaqiyatlar bilan amalga oshirildi.

1980-1990 yillarda uy-joy

1980-yillarda davlat uy-joy dasturlariga o'zgartirishlar kiritildi. Ostida Reygan ma'muriyat, uyning 8-bo'lim ijara haqiga qo'shgan hissasi uy daromadlarining 30 foizigacha oshirildi va adolatli bozor ijarasi pasaytirildi. Uyni qisqartirish paketining bir qismi sifatida uy-joy qurilishi bo'yicha davlat yordami qisqartirildi. Bundan tashqari, uysizlar uchun favqulodda vaziyatlar uchun uylar kengaytirildi va kam ta'minlangan oilalar tomonidan uylarga egalik qilish darajasi yanada yaxshilandi.[10]

1990 yilda Prezident Jorj H. V. Bush Krenston-Gonsalesning arzon uy-joylar to'g'risida milliy qonuni (NAHA) ni imzoladi, bu HOME mablag'larini ijaraga berish uchun foydalanishni yanada kengaytirdi. Bush o'z murojaatida "Federal hukumat hozirgi kunda 4,3 millionga yaqin kam ta'minlangan oilalarga xizmat ko'rsatayotgan bo'lsa-da, yana 4 millionga yaqin qo'shimcha oilalar mavjud, ularning aksariyati juda kam daromadli, ularning uy-joy ehtiyojlari qondirilmagan. Biz kerak yordamni eng muhtoj bo'lganlardan ajratmang. "[14]

Davlat uylarida navbatdagi yangi davr 1992 yilda ishga tushirilishi bilan boshlandi Umid VI dastur. HOPE VI mablag'lari sifatsiz davlat uy-joy loyihalarini buzishga va ularni zichligi past bo'lgan qurilishlarga almashtirishga, ko'p hollarda aralash daromadlarga sarflandi. Mablag'larga qurilish va buzish xarajatlari, ijarachilarni ko'chirish xarajatlari va yangi qurilgan binolar uchun subsidiyalar kiradi.[15] HOPE VI yangi federal subsidiyalangan birliklarni qurish uchun asosiy vositaga aylandi, ammo 2004 yilda Prezident davrida mablag 'sezilarli darajada qisqartirildi Jorj V.Bush.

1998 yilda Sifatli uy-joy va ish uchun javobgarlik to'g'risidagi qonun (QHWRA) qabul qilindi va Prezident tomonidan imzolandi Bill Klinton.[16] Ramkasidan keyin ijtimoiy islohot, QHWRA oilalarni davlat uylaridan ko'chirishga qaratilgan yangi dasturlarni ishlab chiqdi, 8-bo'lim uchun uyga egalik modelini ishlab chiqdi va an'anaviy uy-joylarni almashtirish uchun HOPE VI dasturini kengaytirdi. Ushbu dalolatnoma tomonidan tashkil etilgan davlat uy-joylari soni samarali ravishda cheklangan Faircloth limiti 1937 yildagi Uy-joy to'g'risidagi qonunga 1999 yil 1 oktabr holatiga binoan barcha birliklarni qurish yoki ulardan foydalanishni moliyalashtirishni cheklagan tuzatish sifatida.[17]

Ijtimoiy muammolar

Konsentratsiyali qashshoqlik

HUD-ning uy-joylar uchun xarakteristik hisobotiga ko'ra, 2013 yilda jamoat uylari rezidentining o'rtacha yillik daromadi 13 730 AQSh dollarini tashkil etadi.[18] Xuddi shu hisobotda aholining 68 foizi juda kam daromadli deb tasniflanadi, yillik daromadning eng katta qismi 5000 dan 10000 AQSh dollarigacha, davlat uylarida yashovchilarning 32 foizini o'z ichiga oladi.[18]

Dan reklama Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarining uy-joy boshqarmasi jinoyatchilik uchun echim sifatida qarama-qarshi joylarni tozalashni targ'ib qilish.

Qashshoqlikning geografik kontsentratsiyasining o'sishi tendentsiyalari 1970 yillarda yuqori va o'rta sinf aholisi AQSh shaharlarida mol-mulkni bo'shatishlari bilan aniqlandi.[19] Shaharlarning yangilanishi dasturlar keng ko'lamli tozalashga olib keldi va bu bo'shatish tufayli ko'chirilganlarni joylashtirishga ehtiyoj tug'dirdi (Massey va Kanaiaupuni 1993).[19] Biroq, shahar hokimiyatlarida, siyosiy tashkilotlarda va shahar atrofidagi jamoatlarda bo'lganlar, o'rta va ishchi mahallalarda jamoat uylarini yaratishga qarshilik ko'rsatdilar, bu esa bunday binolarni atrofida qurishga olib keldi. getto allaqachon qashshoqlik alomatlarini namoyish etgan mahallalar.[19] Massey va Kanaiaupuni (1993) umumiy uy-joy bilan bog'liq bo'lgan uchta qashshoqlikning manbalarini tavsiflaydi: daromadga bo'lgan talablar, qashshoqlik hududlarini tuzish, qashshoqlik namunalarini davlat uylari joylashgan joyi orqali kuchaytirish va qashshoq odamlarning ko'chishi jamoat uylari, garchi bu ta'sir boshqa manbalarga nisbatan nisbatan kichik bo'lsa.[19]

In davlat uy-joylarini o'rganish Kolumbus, Ogayo shtati, jamoat uylari oq qashshoqlikka nisbatan qora qashshoqlik kontsentratsiyasiga turlicha ta'sir ko'rsatayotganini aniqladi.[20] Davlat uy-joylarining konsentratsiyalangan qashshoqlikka ta'siri oq tanlilarga nisbatan qora tanlilar uchun ikki baravar ko'paydi.[20] Tadqiqot shuni ko'rsatdiki, davlat uy-joylari iqtisodiy jihatdan eng ko'p kurashadiganlarni konkret joyga yo'naltirishga, qashshoqlik darajasini yanada oshirishga intiladi.[20]

Freeman (2003) tomonidan milliy darajada o'tkazilgan boshqa tadqiqot, davlat uylari qashshoqlik kontsentratsiyasiga mustaqil ta'sir ko'rsatishi haqidagi nazariyani shubha ostiga qo'ydi.[21] Tadqiqot shuni ko'rsatdiki, kambag'al bo'lmaganlarning migratsiyasi va kambag'allarning migratsiyasi davlat uy-joylarini yaratish bilan bog'liq bo'lsa-da, statistik nazoratni joriy qilish bilan bunday uyushmalar yo'q bo'lib ketdi, bu migratsiya darajasiga mahallaning xususiyatlari sabab bo'lganligini ko'rsatdi davlat uy-joy birligidan ko'ra o'zi.[21]

Davlat uy-joylaridan tushgan qashshoqlik atrof-muhit iqtisodiyotiga ta'sir qiladi va o'rta sinf uylari bilan maydon uchun raqobatlashadi.[22] Sababli ijtimoiy patologiyalar davlat uylari tomonidan inkubatsiya qilingan Husock (2003) atrofdagi binolarda birlik narxlari pasayib, shahar daromadlarini kamaytiradi mol-mulk solig'i va yuqori maosh oladigan korxonalarga ushbu hududda joylashishlariga to'sqinlik qilish.[22] Bundan tashqari, u qashshoqlik kontsentratsiyasi natijasida kelib chiqadigan patologiyalar atrofdagi mahallalarga tarqalishi va mahalliy aholi va korxonalarni boshqa joyga ko'chishga majbur qilishini ta'kidlamoqda.[22]

Friman va Botein (2002) davlat uy-joylari qurilishi ortidan mulk qiymatining pasayishiga ko'proq shubha bilan qarashadi.[23] A meta-tahlil empirik tadqiqotlar natijasida ular davlat uylarida bezovtalanuvchi me'morchilik yo'qligi va uning aholisi qo'shnilarnikiga o'xshashligini aniqlaydilar, xususiyat qiymatlari o'zgaruvchan bo'lishi mumkin emas.[23] Shu bilan birga, adabiyotlarni ko'rib chiqishda davlat uy-joylarining mulkiy qadriyatlarga ta'siri to'g'risida aniq xulosalar chiqarilmadi, faqat ikkita tadqiqotda aralash natijalarga ega bo'lgan yoki ta'sir ko'rsatmagan uslubiy nuqsonlar etishmadi.[23]

Boshqalari esa ijtimoiy patologiyalarning sababi bo'lgan davlat uy-joylaridan kelib chiqqan zich qashshoqlikka shubha bilan qarashadi va bunday tavsif ijtimoiy hodisalarning ancha murakkab to'plamini soddalashtirish deb ta'kidlaydilar.[24] Crump (2002) fikriga ko'ra, "konsentratsiyali qashshoqlik" atamasi dastlab fazoviy kontseptsiya bo'lib, u qashshoqlikning ancha keng va murakkab sotsiologik tavsifining bir qismi bo'lgan, ammo keyinchalik fazoviy tarkibiy qism keng tarqalgan bo'lib qoldi metafora zich qashshoqlik va uning atrofidagi ijtimoiy patologiyalar sababi uchun.[24] Kosmik kontsentratsiya shunchaki ijtimoiy patologiyalarning keng tavsifining bir qismi bo'lish o'rniga, Crump (2002) bu tushuncha keng tavsif o'rnini egalladi, deb noto'g'ri fikrni kambag'allikning jismoniy konsentratsiyasiga olib keldi.[24]

Irqiy ajratish

Hud 2013 yil Qo'shma Shtatlarda davlat uylarining joylashuvi va irqiy tarkibi Hisobotda shuni ko'rsatdiki, yakka tartibdagi uy-joy binolarida yashovchilarning irqiy taqsimoti ancha bir hil bo'lib, afroamerikaliklar va oq tanli aholi alohida mahallalarga tabaqalashgan. Kuzatilayotgan tendentsiyalardan biri shundan iboratki, qora tanli mahallalar pastroq ijtimoiy-iqtisodiy maqomni aks ettiradi va oq tanli mahallalar demografik jihatdan ancha boyroq.[25] HUD hisobotiga ko'ra, davlat uylarida yashovchilarning 40 foizdan ko'prog'i asosan qora tanli mahallalarda yashaydi.[25] Konstitutsiyaga zid masalada o'zgartirishlar kiritilgan bo'lsa ham uy-joylarni ajratish, davlat uylari loyihalari atrofida stigma va xurofot hali ham keng tarqalgan.[25]

1940-yillarda Detroytda ko'plab oq tanli aholi yangi uy-joy binolarini yaratishga qattiq norozilik bildirishdi. Ularning noroziliklari yordam bermagach, ular shahar atrofi tomon, ya'ni nomi bilan ham jo'nab ketishdi oq parvoz.

Davlat uylarida ajratish dastlabki rivojlanish va faoliyatga asoslangan Federal uy-joy ma'muriyati (FHA), tomonidan yaratilgan 1934 yildagi uy-joy to'g'risidagi qonun.[26] FHA irqiy cheklov shartnomalari orqali irqiy bir hil bo'lgan mahallalarni saqlab qolishga intiladigan amaliyotni institutsionalizatsiya qildi - bu uyning aktiga yozib qo'yilgan aniq kamsituvchi siyosat. Ushbu amaliyot 1948 yilda Oliy sud tomonidan urib tushirilgan Shelli va Kraemer chunki bu 14-tuzatishni teng himoya qilish bandini buzadi.[26] Biroq, Gotham (2000) ma'lumotlariga ko'ra, 1968 yildagi Uy-joy to'g'risidagi qonunning 235-moddasi rag'batlantirildi oq parvoz shahar ichkarisidan, shahar atrofidagi mulklarni oqlarga va shahar ichidagi mulklarni qora tanlilarga sotish, boshqalardan irqiy izolyatsiya qilingan mahallalarni yaratish.[26]

Oq parvoz - irqiy yoki etnomadaniy jihatdan heterojen bo'lib qolgan mahallalardan chiqib ketayotgan oq tanlilar - davlat uylari va arzon uy-joylar atrofidagi stigma va hukm shahar uylarining irqiy demografik ko'rsatkichlarida sezilarli o'zgarishlarga olib kelganiga misoldir. Oq parvoz - bu irqiy xilma-xil mahallalar ularning uy qiymatini pasaytiradi va jinoyatchilik darajasini oshiradi degan tushunchalarga sotsiologik javob.

McNulty and Holloway (2000) jamoat turar joylari geografiyasi, irqi va jinoyatchilik chorrahasini o'rganib, jamoat uylarining yaqinligi nazorat qilinganda jinoyatlar darajasida irqiy farqlar mavjudligini aniqlashdi.[27] Tadqiqot shuni ko'rsatdiki, "irq va jinoyatchilik munosabatlari geografik jihatdan shartli bo'lib, davlat uylarini taqsimlash funktsiyasi sifatida o'zgarib turadi".[27] Bu shuni ko'rsatadiki, irqqa nisbatan jinoyatchilikning institutsional sabablariga e'tibor, irq o'rtasidagi madaniy farqlarga e'tibor berishdan ko'ra ko'proq mos keladi jinoyatchilik darajasi.[27] Jamoat uylari ko'pincha kambag'al va qora tanli hududlarda qurilib, mahallalar o'rtasidagi irqiy va iqtisodiy farqlarni kuchaytirdi.[19]

Ushbu ijtimoiy naqshlarga 20-asrda irqiy ajratilgan uy-joylar haqida hikoya qiluvchi siyosat ta'sir ko'rsatmoqda. 1967 yilda Detroytdagi qo'zg'olon, adolatsiz uy-joy siyosati tufayli qisman paydo bo'lgan irqiy ziddiyatning alomati edi. 1967 yil iyul oyida, Prezident Lindon Jonson Illinoys gubernatori boshchiligida komissiya chiqardi Otto Kerner tartibsizliklar sabablarini aniqlash. The Kerner komissiyasi uy-joy tengsizligi faqat aniq kamsitish siyosati bilan aniqlanganligini aniq ifoda etdi. Unda "Oq institutlar uni yaratdilar, oq institutlar uni saqlab turadilar va oq jamiyat uni ma'qullaydi".[28] The Kerner komissiyasi tengsiz uy-joy imkoniyatlarini yaratganligi uchun oq tanli tashkilotlarni ochiqchasiga qoraladi, xususan cheklov shartnomalarini shaharda Amerika aparteid turar joyi sababi sifatida ta'kidladi.[29]

Martin Lyuter King kichik uy-joy integratsiyasini o'zining fuqarolik huquqlari kampaniyasining muhim qismiga aylantirdi va nashr etilganidan bir oy o'tgach Kerner komissiyasi nashr etildi, King o'ldirildi. Uning qotilligi tartibsizliklarning navbatdagi to'lqinini qo'zg'atdi va bunga javoban, keyin esa bir haftadan kechiktirmay Martin Lyuter Kingning o'ldirilishi, Kongress o'tdi Adolatli uy-joy to'g'risidagi qonun bu uy-joylarni kamsitishni taqiqlagan.[30]

Ammo, beri Adolatli uy-joy to'g'risidagi qonun ozchiliklarning uylarini ajratilgan mahallalarda cheklashni cheklash bo'yicha uy-joy siyosati hali ham munozarali bo'lib kelmoqda, chunki bu erda noaniq til ishlatilgan. Adolatli uy-joy to'g'risidagi qonun. 2015 yilgi Oliy sud ishida Texas uy-joy va jamoat ishlari departamenti "Inklyuziv jamoalar" loyihasiga qarshi, Adolat Kennedi aniqlik kiritishicha Adolatli uy-joy to'g'risidagi qonun was intended to promote equity, not just eliminate explicit acts of discrimination. Changes in both public policy and social narrative are equally necessary for establishing equitable housing opportunities for all Americans.

Sog'liqni saqlash va xavfsizlik

Public housing units themselves offer very few amenities to occupants, providing the minimum necessary accommodations for living.[31] The original wording of the 1937 Housing Act meant that units were built with minimal effort in order to give amenities only slightly better than kechqurunlar.[31] The units had poor insulation, roofing, electricity, and plumbing, were generally very small, and built to use as few resources as possible.[31] Tyorner va boshq. (2005) documents more physical deterioration, with backlogged repairs, vandalism, cockroaches, mold, and other problems creating a generally unsafe environment for occupants.[32] A Boston study showed that dampness and heating issues in public housing create concentrations of dust mites, mold, and fungi, which causes Astma at a rate much higher than the national average.[33]

Other studies have been less negative in their assessments of living conditions in public housing units, showing only marginal differences caused by public housing units.[34] The study by Fertig and Reingold (2007) concluded that of a large list of possible health effects, public housing units only seemed to affect oiladagi zo'ravonlik levels, with only a mixed effect, a mother's overall health status, and the probability of mothers becoming overweight.[34]

Crime is also a major issue in public housing, with surveys showing high amounts of giyohvandlik bilan bog'liq jinoyatlar and shootings.[32] Potential causes include inefficient management, which leads to problematic residents being able to stay in the unit, and inadequate policing and security.[32] Public housing units are far more susceptible to homicides than comparable neighborhoods, which Griffiths and Tita (2009) argue is an effect of social isolation within the units. Bular qotillik tend to be localized within the public housing unit rather than around it.[35]

Satisfaction with one's living environment is another variable affected by public housing.[36] Residents of public housing units and voucher holders are more likely to express higher satisfaction with their current residency than low-income renters who are not receiving government assistance.[36] However, the study also concluded that residents of public housings units and voucher holders are more likely to express lower satisfaction with the neighborhood in which they live compared to low-income renters.[36] This suggests that while the accommodations of public housing are better than comparable options, the surrounding neighborhoods are less desirable and have not been improved by government assistance.[36]

Ta'lim

Another concern about public housing is the availability of quality education for children living in public housing units in areas of concentrated poverty.[37] In a study of student achievement in New York City, Schwartz et al. (2010) found that those children living in public housing units did worse on standartlashtirilgan testlar than others who go to the same or comparable schools.[37] Furthermore, the study found that the resources of the schools serving different populations of the city were roughly the same.[37]

Other studies refute this result, stating that public housing does not have a unique effect on student achievement.[38] In a study for the Milliy iqtisodiy tadqiqotlar byurosi, Jacob (2003) found that children who had moved out of public housing due to demolition in Chicago fared no better and no worse in school and often continued to attend the same school as before demolition.[38] However, among older children (14 years or older), dropout rates increased by 4.4% after demolition, though this effect was not seen in younger children.[38]

A separate study conducted by Newman and Harkness (2000) produced findings similar to Jacob (2003).[39] It concluded that public housing did not have an independent effect on educational attainment levels.[39] Instead, variation in educational attainment was associated with poor economic standing and characteristics of the family.[39] Additionally, the study found very little difference between educational attainment in public versus subsidized private housing developments.[39]

More positive educational outcomes have been recorded in other analyses. A study by Currie and Yelowitz (1999) found that families living in public housing were less likely to experience overcrowding in their units.[40] Children living in public housing were 11% less likely to be held back a grade, suggesting that public housing may help low-income students.[40] A 2011 report from the Center for Housing Policy argued for the benefits of stable and affordable housing in regard to education.[41] Reasons for such educational benefits included less sporadic moving, community support, reduction in stress from overcrowding, less health hazards, provision of maktabdan keyingi dasturlar, va kamaytirish uysizlik.[41]

Jamiyat idroki

Several negative stereotypes associated with public housing create difficulties in developing new units.[42] Tighe (2010) reviewed a breadth of literature on perceptions of public housing and found five major public concerns: a lack of maintenance, expectation of crime, disapproval of housing as a handout, reduction of property values, and physical unattractiveness.[42] While the reality of certain aspects may differ from the perceptions, such perceptions are strong enough to mount formidable opposition to public housing programs.[42]

In a separate study, Freeman and Botein (2002) found four major areas of public concern related to public housing: reduction in property values, racial transition, concentrated poverty, and increased crime.[23] The study concludes that such concerns are only warranted in certain circumstances, and in varying degrees. While negative consequences have potential to occur with the building of public housing, there is an almost equal chance of the public housing having the opposite effect of creating positive impacts within the neighborhood.[23]

Muqobil modellar

Scattered-site housing

"Scattered-site" or "scatter site" refers to a form of housing in which publicly funded, affordable, low-density units are scattered throughout diverse, middle-class neighborhoods. It can take the form of single units spread throughout the city or clusters of family units.[43]

Scattered-site housing can also be managed by private not-for-profit organizations using a permanent, supportive housing model, where specific barriers to the housing of the low-income individual or family are addressed in regular visits with a case manager. In New York City, The Scatter Site Apartment Program provides city contracts to not-for-profits from the HIV/AIDS Services Administration under the New York City Human Resources Administration. Also, Scattered Site is one of two models, the other being Congregate, which are utilized in the New York/New York housing agreements between New York City and New York State.

Fon

Scattered-site housing units were originally constructed as an alternative form of public housing designed to prevent the concentration of poverty associated with more traditional high-density units. The benchmark class-action case that led to the popularization of scattered-site models was Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority in 1969. Much of motivation for this trial and lawsuit stemmed from concerns about yashash joylarini ajratish. It was believed that the placement of public housing facilities in primarily black neighborhoods perpetuated yashash joylarini ajratish. The lawsuit was finally resolved with a verdict mandating that the Chikagodagi uy-joy ma'muriyati redistribute public housing into non-black neighborhoods.[44] U.S. District Court Judge Richard B. Austin mandated that three public housing units be built in white areas (less than 30% black) for every one unit built in black areas (more than 30% black).

These percentages have decreased since then and a wide array of programs have developed across the United States. While some programs have seen great successes, others have had difficulties in acquiring the land needed for construction and in maintaining new units.[45] Eligibility requirements, generally based on household income and size, are common in these programs. In Dakota County, Minnesota, for example, eligibility ranges from a maximum of $51,550 for two people to $85,050 for 8-10 people.[46]

Eligibility requirements are designed to ensure that those most in need receive relief first and that concerns regarding uy-joylarni kamsitish do not extend into the public housing sector.

Public policy and implications

Scattered-site housing programs are generally run by the city housing authorities or local governments. They are intended to increase the availability of affordable housing and improve the quality of low-income housing, while avoiding problems associated with concentrated subsidized housing. Many scattered-site units are built to be similar in appearance to other homes in the neighborhood to somewhat mask the financial stature of tenants and reduce the stigma associated with public housing.[iqtibos kerak ]

An issue of great concern with regards to the implementation of scattered-site programs is where to construct these housing units and how to gain the support of the community. Frequent concerns of community members include potential decreases in the retail price of their home, a decline in neighborhood safety due to elevated levels of crime.[45] Thus, one of the major concerns with the relocation of scattered-site tenants into white, middle-class neighborhoods is that residents will move elsewhere – a phenomenon known as oq parvoz. To counter this phenomenon, some programs place tenants in private apartments that do not appear outwardly different. Despite these efforts, many members of middle-class, predominantly white neighborhoods have fought hard to keep public housing out of their communities.[44]

Amerikalik sotsiolog Uilyam Yulius Uilson has proposed that concentrating low-income housing in impoverished areas can limit tenants' access to social opportunity.[43] Thus, some scattered-site programs now relocate tenants in middle-class suburban neighborhoods, hoping that immersion within social networks of greater financial stability will increase their social opportunities.[43] However, this strategy has not necessarily proved effective, especially with regards to boosting employment. When placed in neighborhoods of similar economic means, studies indicate that low-income residents use neighbors as social resources less often when living scattered throughout a neighborhood than when living in small clusters within a neighborhood.[43]

There are also concerns associated with the financial burden that these programs have on the state. Scattered-site housing provides no better living conditions for its tenants than traditional concentrated housing if the units are not properly maintained. There are questions as to whether or not scattered-site public facilities are more expensive to manage because dispersal throughout the city makes maintenance more difficult.[47]

Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program

Inclusionary zoning ordinances require housing developers to reserve a percentage between 10 and 30% of housing units from new or rehabilitated projects to be rented or sold at a below market rate for low and moderate-income households. Ga binoan Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarining uy-joy va shaharsozlik vazirligi (HUD),market-rate projects help to develop diverse communities, and ensure access to similar community services and amenities regardless of socioeconomic status.[48] Ko'pchilik inclusionary zoning is enacted at the municipal or county level. For example, San Francisco's Planning Code Section 415 (set forth the requirements and procedures for the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program) "requires residential projects of 10 or more units to pay an Affordable Housing Fee, or to provide a percentage of units as affordable "on-site" within the project or "off-site" at another location in the city (Planning Code § 415, 419)."[49]

Yo'llanma

Asosiy maqola: 8-bo'lim (uy-joy)

Housing vouchers, now one of the primary methods of subsidized housing delivery in the United States, became a robust program in the United States with passage of the 1974 Housing and Community Development Act.[50] The program, colloquially known as Section 8, currently assists more than 1.4 million households.[51] Through the voucher system, direct-to-landlord payments assist eligible households in covering the gap between market rents and 30% of the household's income.[52]

Umid VI

Asosiy maqola: Umid VI

The Hope VI program, created in 1992, was initiated in response to the physical deterioration of public housing units. The program rebuilds housing projects with an emphasis on mixed-income developments rather than projects which concentrate poorer households in one area.[53]

City programs

Qo'shimcha ma'lumotlar: Qo'shma Shtatlardagi davlat uy-joylarini qurish ro'yxati

Chikago

The class-action lawsuit of Gautreaux v. CHA (1966) made Chicago the first city to mandate scattered-site housing as a way to desegregate neighborhoods. Dorothy Gautreaux argued that the Chikagodagi uy-joy ma'muriyati discriminated based on race in its public housing policy. The case went to Supreme Court as Hills va Gautreaux and the 1976 verdict mandated scattered-site housing for residents currently living in public housing in impoverished neighborhoods.[44]

Since that time, scattered-site housing has become a major part of public housing in Chicago. In 2000, the Chicago Housing Authority created the Plan for Transformation designed to not only improve the structural aspects of public housing but to also "build and strengthen communities by integrating public housing and its leaseholders into the larger social, economic, and physical fabric of Chicago".[54] The goal is to have 25,000 new or remodeled units, and to have these units indistinguishable from surrounding housing. While properly run scattered-site public housing units greatly improve the quality of life of the tenants, abandoned and decrepit units foster crime and perpetuate poverty. The Chicago Housing Authority began demolishing units deemed unsafe, but the Plan for Transformation set aside $77 million to clean up sites not demolished in this process.[44]

Xyuston

The Historic Oaks of Allen Parkway Village yilda To'rtinchi palata, Xyuston.

The Xyuston uy-joy boshqarmasi has created the Scattered Sites Homeownership Program to promote home ownership amongst those who would otherwise not be able to afford it. The program delineates strict requirements based on 80% of the Houston area's median income.[55] In 1987, the HHA received 336 properties throughout the city and it has worked to clean up these properties or sell them as low cost housing. As of 2009, the HHA had helped 172 families achieve home ownership through the scattered-site program and with the properties received in 1988.[55]

Sietl

The Sietldagi uy-joy boshqarmasi created its Scattered Site program in 1978. The program to date has a total of 800 units that range from duplex to multi-family. The program is currently in the process of "portfolio realignment," which entails successive upgrading of over 200 units and a continued effort to distribute public housing in various neighborhoods throughout the city. In choosing site locations, proximity to public facilities such as schools, parks, and transportation, is considered.[56]

San-Fransisko

In 1938, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors established the San-Fransisko uy-joy boshqarmasi (SFHA), making it today one of the oldest housing authorities in California. The Uy-joy tanlash uchun vaucher dasturi (formerly Section 8) was adopted in 1974 by the SFHA, and today it serves over 20,000 residents of San Francisco. Primary funding for the SFHA program comes from the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the rents paid by the housing choice voucher participants. Participants pay approximately 30 percent of their earned income for rent.[57]

Shuningdek qarang

Odamlar:

  • Xarold Xarbi (1894–1978), Los Angeles, California, City Council member whose vote switch killed public housing in that city

Umumiy:

Izohlar

  1. ^ "HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)". www.hud.gov.
  2. ^ Semyuels, Alana. "New York City's Public-Housing Crisis". theatlantic.com. Arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2016 yil 31 mayda. Olingan 16 iyun 2016.
  3. ^ Eckholm, Erik (March 21, 2008). "Washington's Grand Experiment to Rehouse the Poor". The New York Times. Arxivlandi 2013 yil 10 fevraldagi asl nusxadan. Olingan 2012-11-29.
  4. ^ "Rental Assistance Demonstration - HUD Exchange". www.hudexchange.info. Arxivlandi from the original on 2016-08-09.
  5. ^ a b v d e f g h men Bauman, John F.; Biles, Roger, eds. (2000). From Tenements to the Taylor Homes: In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth Century America. Pensilvaniya shtati universiteti matbuoti. ISBN  0-271-02012-1.
  6. ^ "Arxivlangan nusxa" (PDF). Arxivlandi (PDF) from the original on 2017-02-01. Olingan 2016-08-17.CS1 maint: nom sifatida arxivlangan nusxa (havola)
  7. ^ a b v d Keith, Nathaniel S (1973). Politics and the Housing Crisis since 1930. Koinot kitoblari. ISBN  0-87663-912-0.
  8. ^ "157 - Statement by the President Upon Signing the Housing Act of 1949". Arxivlandi asl nusxasidan 2016-03-03. Olingan 2013-01-11.
  9. ^ Jeykobs, Jeyn (1961). Buyuk Amerika shaharlarining o'limi va hayoti. Amp kitoblar.
  10. ^ a b v d e Hays, R. Allen (1995). The Federal Government and Urban Housing: Ideology and Change in Public Policy. Nyu-York shtati universiteti matbuoti. ISBN  0-7914-2326-3.
  11. ^ S., J. (15 October 2011). "Why the Pruitt-Igoe housing project failed". Iqtisodchi. Olingan 15 iyul 2019.
  12. ^ Bristol, Katharine. "The Pruitt-Igoe Myth" (PDF). RASMUS BRØNNUM – en Arkitektur Blog. Olingan 15 iyul 2019.
  13. ^ "Community Development Block Grant Program - CDBG". HUD. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2013-01-16. Olingan 2013-01-11.
  14. ^ "Statement on Signing the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act". Amerika prezidentligi loyihasi. Arxivlandi from the original on 2013-07-20.
  15. ^ Erickson, David J. (2009), The Housing Policy Revolution: Networks and Neighbors, Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, ISBN  978-0-87766-760-5.
  16. ^ "Public Housing Reform Overview". United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  17. ^ Guidance on Complying With the Maximum Number of Units Eligible for Operating Subsidy Pursuant to Section 9(g)(3)(A) of the Housing Act of 1937 (aka the Faircloth Limit) (PDF), United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
  18. ^ a b HUD. "Resident Characteristic Report." Arxivlandi 2013-10-21 da Orqaga qaytish mashinasi PIC.HUD.gov. US Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d. Internet. 20 Oct. 2013.
  19. ^ a b v d e Massey, Douglas S. Kanaiaupuni, Shawn M. "Public Housing And The Concentration Of Poverty." Social Science Quarterly (University Of Texas Press) 74.1 (1993): 109-122. Religion and Philosophy Collection. Internet. 12 Sept. 2013.
  20. ^ a b v Holloway, Steven R., Deborah Bryan, Robert Chabot, Donna M. Rogers, and James Rulli. "Exploring the Effect of Public Housing on the Concentration of Poverty in Columbus, Ohio." Urban Affairs Review 33.6 (1998): 767-89. Internet. 5 Nov. 2013.
  21. ^ a b Freeman, Lance. "The Impact of Assisted Housing Developments on Concentrated Poverty." Housing Policy Debate 14.1 and 2 (2003): 103-41. Internet. 5 Nov. 2013.
  22. ^ a b v Husock, Howard. "How Public Housing Harms Cities." Arxivlandi 2013-10-21 da Orqaga qaytish mashinasi Shahar jurnali. City Journal, 2003. Web. 12 Sept. 2013.
  23. ^ a b v d e Freeman, Lance, and Hillary Botein. "Subsidized Housing and Neighborhood Impacts: A Theoretical Discussion and Review of the Evidence." Journal of Planning Literature 16.3 (2002): 359-78. Internet. 5 Nov. 2013.
  24. ^ a b v Crump, Jeff. "Deconcentration by Demolition: Public Housing, Poverty, and Urban Policy." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 20 (2002): 581-96. Internet.
  25. ^ a b v HUD. "Report Explores Race and Poverty in Public Housing." Arxivlandi 2013-10-21 da Orqaga qaytish mashinasi HUD.USER. US Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d. Internet. 20 Oct. 2013.
  26. ^ a b v Gotham, Kevin Fox, "Separate and Unequal: The Housing Act of 1968 and the Section 235 Program." Sociological Forum , Vol. 15, No. 1 (Mar., 2000), pp. 13-37
  27. ^ a b v McNulty, Thomas L., and Steven R. Holloway. "Race, Crime, and Public Housing in Atlanta: Testing a Conditional Effect Hypothesis." Social Forces 79.2 (2000): 707-29. Internet. 5 Nov. 2013.
  28. ^ "The Supreme Court's Challenge to Housing Segregation".
  29. ^ Farley, Reynolds (September 27, 2018). "Detroit Fifty Years After the Kerner Report: What Has Changed, What Has Not, and Why?". RSF: Russell Sage Foundation ijtimoiy fanlar jurnali. 4 (6): 206–241. doi:10.7758/rsf.2018.4.6.10 - MUSE loyihasi orqali.
  30. ^ Bissoneault, Lotaringiya. "Martin Luther King Jr.'s Assassination Sparked Uprisings in Cities Across America". Smithsonian jurnali. Olingan 2020-04-24.
  31. ^ a b v Schill, Michael H. "Distressed Public Housing: Where Do We Go from Here?" The University of Chicago Law Review 60.2 (1993): 497-554. Internet. 20 Oct. 2013.
  32. ^ a b v Austin Turner, Margery, Susan J. Popkin, G. Thomas Kingsley, and Deborah Kaye. "Distressed Public Housing- What It Costs to Do Nothing." The Urban Institute (2005): n. sahifa. Internet.
  33. ^ Patricia Hynes, H., Doug Bruggie, Julie Watts, and Jody Lally. "Public Health and the Physical Environment in Boston Public Housing: A Community-based Survey and Action Agenda." Planning Practice & Research 15.1/2 (2000): 31-49. Internet.
  34. ^ a b Fertig, Angela R., and David A. Reingold. "Public Housing, Health, and Health Behaviors: Is There a Connection?" Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 26.4 (2007): 831-59. Internet.
  35. ^ Griffiths, Elizabeth and Tita, George, "Homicide In and Around Public Housing: Is Public Housing a Hotbed, a Magnet, or a Generator of Violence for the Surrounding Community?" Elizabeth Griffiths, George Tita Social Problems , Vol. 56, No. 3 (August 2009), pp. 474-493
  36. ^ a b v d Ross, Lauren M., Anne B. Shay, and Mario G. Picon. "You Can't Always Get What You Want: The Role of Public Housing and Vouchers in Achieving Residential Satisfaction." Cityscape 14.1 (2012): 35-53. Internet. 5 Nov. 2013.
  37. ^ a b v Schwartz, Amy E., Brian J. McCabe, Ingrid G. Ellen, and Colin C. Chellman. "Public Schools, Public Housing: The Education of Children Living in Public Housing." Urban Affairs Review 20 (2010): 1-22. Internet.
  38. ^ a b v Jacob, Brian A. "Public Housing Vouchers, And Student Achievement: Evidence From Public Housing Demolitions In Chicago," American Economic Review, 2004, v94 (1,Mar), 233-258.
  39. ^ a b v d Newman, Sandra, and Joseph Harkness. "Assisted Housing and the Educational Attainment of Children." Journal of Housing Economics 9 (2000): 40-63. Internet. 5 Nov. 2013.
  40. ^ a b Janet Currie, Aaron Yelowitz "Are public housing projects good for kids?" Journal of Public Economics, Volume 75, Issue 1, January 2000, Pages 99–124
  41. ^ a b Brennan, Maya. "The Impacts of Affordable Housing on Education: A Research Summary." Arxivlandi 2017-07-30 da Orqaga qaytish mashinasi NHC.org. Center for Housing Policy, May 2011. Web. Nov. 2014, 16 pp.; (kirish ).
  42. ^ a b v Tighe, J. Rosie. "Public Opinion and Affordable Housing: A Review of the Literature." Journal of Planning Literature 25.1 (2010): 3-17. Internet. 5 Nov. 2013.
  43. ^ a b v d [1] Arxivlandi 2010 yil 12 iyun, soat Orqaga qaytish mashinasi
  44. ^ a b v d Oldweiler, Cory. "Scattered-Site Era Coming to an End." Chikago muxbiri. 2007 yil 28 sentyabr.
  45. ^ a b Bass, Sharon L "Public Housing Entering New Era." The New York Times. 1989 yil 5 fevral
  46. ^ "Dakota County Community Development Agency - Scattered Site Public Housing Program". Dakotacda.org. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2012-09-05 da. Olingan 2012-11-29.
  47. ^ "Scattered-Site Housing: Characteristics and Consequences | HUD USER". www.huduser.gov. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2010 yil 2 fevralda.
  48. ^ Keep Barnes, Jai (Winter 2017). "Inclusionary Zoning as a Taking: A Critical Look at its Ability to Provide Affordable Housing". 49 Urb. Qonun 67 (2017). 49 (1): 42 pages, 67 to 108 – via Academic Search Complete.
  49. ^ "San Francisco Planning Department". sf-planning.org/housing. 2018 yil dekabr.
  50. ^ David Erickson (2009). The Housing Policy Revolution: Networks and Neighborhoods. Urban Institute Press. ISBN  978-0-87766-760-5.
  51. ^ "Section 8 Rental Certificate Program". HUD. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2012-10-18 kunlari.
  52. ^ "Housing Choice Vouchers Fact Sheet". HUD. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2012-10-25 kunlari.
  53. ^ "About Hope VI". HUD. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2012-04-14.
  54. ^ "Scattered Site Properties | Chicago Housing Authority". Thecha.org. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2012-10-28 kunlari. Olingan 2012-11-29.
  55. ^ a b "Houston Housing Authority Letter to Mr. Dolcefino" (PDF). Dig.abclocal.go.com. Arxivlandi (PDF) asl nusxasidan 2012-03-09. Olingan 2012-11-29.
  56. ^ "Scattered Sites - Seattle Housing Authority". Seattlehousing.org. 2009-05-31. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2012-07-22. Olingan 2012-11-29.
  57. ^ "Pages -". sfha.org.

Qo'shimcha o'qish