MAP Rough Draft

The American home is a brownstone in Brooklyn, a stucco two-story in Los Angeles, a studio in Portland, and a double-wide in Phoenix. It is brick walls and tiled roves, modern decorum and thrift store finds. Regardless of the physical make-up of a house, the memories, traditions, and values within it create a home. One could almost argue that the home is where we begin to define ourselves to ourselves as well as to greater society. Home is our last refuge after a long day at work, but also the centerpiece to family gatherings both large and small. We set our own visual narrative to the home through Norman Rockwell paintings, but also through images of houses destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. The American home however, sometimes struggles to exist. After Hurricane Katrina for example, many houses that were homes to the poor, the elderly, and the disabled were torn down out of necessity, but re-built for the middle and upper class advantage. In a December 2007 article about dangerous confrontations in New Orleans over housing demolition, The New York Times reported that “the federal government is beginning this week to tear down thousands of apartments in the city’s four biggest public housing projects” because, as some see it, “the government’s real aim was to keep the poor, mostly female, almost entirely black residents of public housing from returning to their city, to their homes.” Others argue that it was time for an economic boost in the area. The destruction of the American home however, does not always occur through natural disasters. With the help of an economic crisis, that has raised unemployment in Washington State to 7.1%, many individuals and families are struggling to pay rents and mortgages. In Seattle’s annual One Night Count of homelessness, “Volunteers counted 2,826 people sleeping in vehicles, structures and doorways and under overpasses, among other areas.” These numbers indicate a 2% increase since the 2008 count. Additionally, South King County saw a 68% increase while numbers nearly tripled in Kent. Like a repetitive nightmare, America is seeing many of the same problems of the Great Depression of the early twentieth century. While individuals and families on all economic levels are struggling, those who were already in the midst of personal financial crisis are beginning to feel the weight of a nation; they are losing their homes, their refuge and family strongholds.

So while unemployment rates rise along with debt and homelessness, the private, public, and non-profit sectors must begin to develop and strengthen plans to create affordable housing for those who are unable to survive. Where interests clash, collaboration and sacrifices must be made. What needs to be understood first, is why is the demand for affordable housing rising? Second, how is it being approached? Where government and private development interests collide, there are benefits to be found on both sides. Moreover, non-profit organizations must also shove their way into the equation in order to avoid losing their voice all together. Finally, we must wonder if increasing public housing now will also create lasting benefits for the future. Do these plans make economics sense? Opinions on the matter, both nationally and locally in Seattle, vary greatly. The majority of people involved (or who may simply be interested) in the debate over low and moderate income housing see the obvious and immediate need of such a resource. The split however, occurs on many levels. For example, some argue that the development of affordable housing in their community could introduce a slew of social and economic problems such as increased crime and decreased property value. Others who are opposed believe that the government plays too large of a role in its development; a role that takes away the power of citizens and business owners. For-profit developers, who have an increasing influence over the issue, often find that there are no existing incentives to comply with government regulations. Additionally, some people wonder about its effects on the housing market. Decisions made in regards to the concerns revolving around affordable housing however, are not made by the people who are in need of such resources, but by government officials and for-profit developers who are involved in the long and arduous process to fulfill their own political and business needs. The debate has been divided down the middle, to build or not to build, but there still remain complexities that take the controversy into all areas of grey.

As a topic of debate, affordable housing can be extremely complicated as it is so entwined in the livelihood of so many people. What is at stake are standards of living, economic profits and losses, political balancing, and the transformation of a city – or even a nation. While there are those who are ardent supporters of increasing low and moderate housing, that does not necessarily mean that they support the various programs presented by city officials. Perhaps housing that supports both individuals of high-income bracket as well as those of the low, do not supply (in their opinion) enough units for the latter. In the case of the 2001 Rainier Vista public-housing project, supporters of affordable housing were appalled when the Seattle Housing Authority demolished the sites 481 low-income-housing units and replaced them with 1, 010 new homes, which were targeted at moderate-income residents. This was because the Housing Authority’s plan entailed moving existing residents to another housing complex further from the city; it was considered a plan that could make commuting to jobs almost impossible. On the other hand however, opponents of increasing low-income housing may sometimes be opposed to certain projects in certain parts of Seattle for very specific reasons that may not necessarily reflect their views on affordable housing overall. While the matter is neither black nor white, voters in King County have consistently voted for tax levies that support the development of low and moderate-income housing. On a national level, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its National Housing Trust Fund Act in 2007 by a vote of 264 to 148 in an attempt at the largest expansion in federal housing programs in decades, “with a goal of producing, rehabilitating and preserving 1.5 million housing units over the next 10 years.”

Legislature like the National Housing Trust Fund Act as well as federal and state taxes are a small but important piece of a larger picture that supporters of low and moderate-income housing rely on to further their programs. For example, in their January 23, 2009 opinion piece for the Seattle Times, Mia Navarro Wells and Rachael Myers argue we must prevent and reduce homelessness because, “Everyone should have the opportunity to live in a safe, decent, affordable home.” They call to Congress to act on three specific measures that target low-income families’ housing struggle. First, they believe that $2 billion should be allocated to the Emergency Shelter Grant program to “support local efforts to keep families in their homes, or to help families get into safe, affordable housing.” Next, Wells and Myers address long-term goals by pointing to a $2.1 billion allocation that would be used for the creation of 200,000 one-time, nonrenewable housing vouchers. Finally, they argue that $10 billion should be distributed to the National Housing Trust Fund. If the suggested amount were placed in the “right” places, the supporters believe that low-income individuals and families will be able to help to contribute to the local economy by purchasing goods and services that they could otherwise not afford. With a little extra “breathing room in their wallets” low-income people will be able to live apart from rents that Stephen Norman and Tom Tierney believe, can absorb 50 percent of a person’s total income.

Like Wells and Myers, Norman and Tierney contributed an opinion piece to the Seattle Times in support of government control of and re-investment in low-income housing. Their article argues for an increase in public housing as a way to lighten the loads of waiting lists while also attempting to decrease the disparity between wages and fixed incomes. Norman and Tierney call for a “bold investment” that would “provide a timely, targeted and effective means of stimulating the local economy, providing green jobs and improving energy efficiency.” They are not alone. There exist many other opinions that agree that investing in green public housing could show itself to be a wise long-term investment. The two opinion pieces cite dollar for dollar ratios to demonstrate what kind of an effect this type of building would have on our communities and economy. For example, Norman and Tierney argue that many studies have be proven to show that for every dollar invested in construction in public housing, $2.12 would be returned to the economy. Myers and Well believe that, “With the housing trust fund, we find that for every dollar spent, an additional $8 is generated by the construction and services created by the fund.” Both supporters of low and moderate-income housing are interested in preventing homelessness through government programs that would in return help to stimulate the sagging economy.

All four contributors have a unique interest in the debate over housing in Seattle. For instance, Norman is the executive director for the King County Housing Authority and Tierney for the Seattle Housing Authority. Additionally, Wells is the executive director of the Washington State Coalition for the Homeless and Myers is executive director of the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance. Along with their roles within the community come a set of assumptions about their readers and the topic. Clearly they have a deep interest in the well being of low-income individuals and families and are also interested in reducing homelessness in our region, but both of their articles lack any real response to those would oppose the development of their programs as well as those of the city. After all, for-profit developers have a strong influence in the matter and are an additional audience to address. By ignoring some of their claims and needs, the appeal for more affordable housing lacks depth and appears on the surface as a light fix for a heavy burden.

We must ask what kind of a response the writers were seeking to evoke anyway. In my opinion, the two articles address the same topic and seek similar goals but were written for different audiences. For example, in “Wise to invest in public housing” Norman and Tierney were writing, I believe, for an audience of city officials and the citizens of Seattle who would be able to affect legislature through the vote. Their piece appealed to the emotional through the loci of the quantity, “Public housing serves more than 3 million people nationally.” They rely on “disparity” and the idea of inequality to generate an awareness for a need. Perhaps they write to bring about a feeling of guilt, the idea would make a voter or city official think, “Gee, I have my home and safety net but 3 million people plus rely on public housing and more remain on waiting lists!” Norman and Tierney do not fail to mention the kinds of people affected by homelessness and a lack of housing - seniors living on fixed incomes, people with disabilities, low-wage workers and families with children.

Wells and Myers on the other hand, have created a more ambiguous piece that argues for the movement of Congress, but do not provide any vehicles for readers to use in order to take action should they agree with their argument. Yes, Congress should use this money in this fund