Sociology 3001: Outline--Week Nine
I. The Hollman Consent Decree (continued)
A. Implementing Hollman
1. Focus groups and community speakups on site.. well intentioned, scheduled at diverse times, open to public, with childcare and food. Effectiveness compromised by a division between Southeast Asian residents(by then a majority) and African Americans (historically the most numerous group)...no interpreters present... neighborhood representatives and property owners also upset at not being invited...those who attended agreed they were well run, but many stayed away, not convinced it could have any positive effect on their lives..
2. Focus groups initially resistant to idea of mixed income housing... wanted most of the replacement housing to be for low income families... but after two months of meetings, voted to approve a plan for new units to go 25% to public housing, 25% to moderate income housing, 50% market rate... more negotiations with city council and plaintiffs over next few year, with final plan calling for 800 units of housing, 55% rentals, with 25% public housing and 25% subsidized for moderate income families.... in the meantime, demolition and displacement went ahead
3. Resistance and Protest! Quotes, p. 137
a. Southeast Asians opposed demolition... loss of family networks, absence of housing suitable for large families...
b. Many residents opposed the deconcentration argument... many doubts about dispersing to suburbs... loss of established networks, lack of transportion... also increased awareness of the city's revelopment plans (155-156
c. Resistance from inner ring suburbs who argued that they already had an overconcentration of poverty
d. December 1998: founding of Northside Neighbors for Justice ...opposition to idea that families couldn't be moved to communities that were already more than 29% nonwhite....
e. By June 1999, only 47 replacement units had been built, and this became another huge issue, and there was also a tremendous backlog on finding rental units that would accept section 8 vouchers... e.g. Six out of every seven households given the special mobility vouchers in 1998 unable to find an apartment that qualified and a landlord willing to accept them... most of those displaced had to make their own arrangements for housing
f. Star Tribune article on Lucy Mae Hollman, the original plaintiff: p. 164
4. New units in the suburbs... Despite offer that replacement housing built or purchased from Hollman monies, if located in suburban communities, could go 30% to needy local residents, few suburbs stepping forward... "successful" project in Minnetonka showed some of the obstacles...p. 185
5. The Tide Turns
a. St. Paul Housing Authority indicates willingness to take 100 units in Summer 1999... consent decree amended to allow up to 300 to be constructed there, provided it was in non-concentrated neighborhoods and that 30% of units be filled from people on St. Paul's waiting list
b. Minneapolis made plans for 88 units, scattered across many neighborhoods
c. Small projects in Carver and Washington counties
d. Met Council offered deals to include senior housing for suburbs that accepted construction projects... worked behind the scenes, never seeking city council votes unless they were sure of victory... in March 2001, announced agreement with 4 suburbs including Maple Grove for a total of 75 units and soon after got agreements totaling 150 units..Total of 416 replacement units by end of 2002
5. Summary, p.195-196
B. Being Deconcentrated
1. Fewer than 10% initially targeted a destination outside the the central city or the inner ring suburbs
2. More than half ended up elsewhere on the north side of Minneapolis and 87% in Minneapolis St. Paul; another 10% in inner ring suburbs; and just 3% moved beyond the inner ring
3. Distinct possibility that they are just reconcentrating poverty
4. 400+ replacement units.
a. Neighborhoods 7% poor vs 76% poor on near north side.
b . Only 57% of replacement units inhabited by families from Minneapolis, and many of those not from the near north side... few of the displaced families chose to move so far from the central city
5. In-person interviews with stratified sample of 600 families, including people displaced from the north side site and participants in the special mobility program and two comparison groups, participants in regular Minneapolis section 8 program and public housing residents still living in concentrated areas.
a. Results not consistent with previous research on the Gautreaux program
b. Parents not happier with schools or teachers... voluntary participants reported more support from neighbors... Hollman families actually less satisfied with bus service, schools, and proximity to health care
c. There was more uniform satisfaction among Hollman families with their new housing and with the safety and reduced crime rates in the new neighborhoods.
d. In terms of employment, no difference pre and post move, and no difference in relation to comparison groups.
6. The effects of involuntary deconcentration... p. 225
III. Exam Two
I