Elaine Saijan

PS 1010 Section 525

Andrew Cavin

Policy Paper: Failure to Work

Detroit has around 70,000 abandoned buildings (Breger), not including 31,000 empty

homes and 90,000 vacant lots (Binelli). There had been many efforts taken by the national

government to fight blight, for instance, giving federal money to State governments, for the State

to decide how to best use it to fight blight. However, most of the efforts often end in the State

government running out of money, being held up in investigative cases and inefficient plans. One

such effort was the Housing Act of 1949. The policy promised a decent home and apt living

atmosphere for all citizens in the United States of America. Although the Housing Act of 1949

failed to work due to structural barriers that caused many limits to be endorsed on the policy by

economic, social and political domains, it served as a notable example for generations of urban

revitalization policies that came into effect to eradicate blight in America.

The social problem being addressed is abandonment of buildings in Detroit. It is also

known as urban blight and it is defined as vacant lots, buildings and homes that are damaged or

in hazardous shape that makes it inhabitable. The root causes of blight are heavily related on the

economic market. Looking back at the beginnings of the blight, it reached its peak during the

Great Depression, the economic crash led to less investment into the housing market. Blighted

neighborhoods are also born out the outcomes of a powerful decisions made by institutions that

provisions property disinvestment and neglect. Some of the decisions include: the change of a

lands uses; change in technology; different social standards of an area; tax system that does not
give incentives to property investments; rise in crime in an area; etc. However, the main

underlying cause of blighted neighborhoods and abandonment of buildings is to be blamed on

economic decline. A special instance where abandonment of buildings increase is during a

natural disaster and war. People are forced to move away from their homes and they can choose

to not return depending on the habitability of their homes. This social problem matters because it

can affect a community economically and socially. Blighted properties effect a community

economically because for that community to go back to what it was before blight, they would

need funding to fix up the blighted properties and put them back in to market for sale. Blighted

properties also bring down the value of sales prices of the surrounding properties. The

percentages vary from 1.1 to 2 percentage in the reduction of the surrounding properties. The

economic impact of blighted properties not only effect surrounding properties but neighborhoods

and, eventually, the local government. Blighted properties also effect the community socially

because the crime rates in a blighted community will start to rise. Abandoned buildings often

serves as a cover for criminals, fugitives, corruption, etc. Residents living in these conditions

have to often deal with situations that put them at risk of their safety and health. In turn, the idea

of safety gives the residents more incentive to abandon their homes. Blighted areas also tend to

have lower employment opportunities and higher percentage of youth exposed to crime and

violence.

As stated before, there has been many efforts taken to solve this problem. One such

effort, taken by the government sphere, is the Blight Removal Task Force, built under the Obama

Administration. This was taken at the national and local level. The Task Force was given $300

million by the national government to eliminate blight in Detroit. The force is made up of private

companies, federal and non-profit organizations. The effort was to collect data on the blighted
properties and calculate how much it would cost to clear blight in Detroit. Then, based on the

calculation and need, the money from the national/federal government is to be distributed among

the local governments. Unfortunately, $300 million was not enough to cover the cost, which was

estimated to be $850 million in total. Another effort was taken by the civic sphere, it is the Urban

Farming Initiative. This was initiated at the local government level of Detroit. This organization

took a vacant plot and turned it into a successful 2-acre farm that provided fresh produce to 2,000

households nearby. The organization is completely run by volunteers. This effort has been very

successful in that it provides an example for Detroit to follow. Another effort, taken by market

sphere, is the investment of JPMorgan Chase Bank in Detroit. This private bank gave $100

million to Detroit to fight blight. Although throwing money at a problem is not the best way to

go about it, this investment was taken as a positive impact. Positive impact, in that, it sends a

message that Detroit is still worth the investments. It also brought the national governments

attention to take another look at Detroits blight fight. Even though some of the solutions that the

spheres came up with did not go as planned, it was still a heroic effort in their part to better the

blight situation in Detroit.

68 years ago, Congress, under the Truman Administration, passed the Housing Act of

1949. The mission was simply for every American to have a decent house and a habitable

atmosphere. Considering the economic state of America at the time and coming up with the

mission was Problem Definition and Recognition step of the policy process. The policy tried to

meet the mission by implementing programs though its 3 parts/goals named Titles. The three

titles were the part of Policy Formulation step. They also adopted another bill to formulate the

titles. The bill was called the W.E.T. Bill (explained later in the essay) and it acted as the policy

adoption of the policy process. Title I was put in place to clear up the slums by financing it
through renewal programs. Title I did its part with an authorized loan of $1 billion to help cities

eliminate slums and blighted property for urban redevelopment. After the clearance of slums and

blighted property, the vacant land is to be used to for the housing programs mentioned in Title III

of this act. Title II promoted the mortgage insurance authorized by the FHA (Federal Housing

Administration). This allowed the FHA to make mortgages more inexpensive and favor low-

income mortgagors, only if they had a good history with loans and can financially pay it back in

payments. This came into place because, at the time, private financers were judicious against

low-income borrowers and not many mortgages were given out. Title III would use the federal

money to build 800,000 home units. These home units are to be constructed on the vacant lands

after slum clearance and on other vacant lands. This act was the first of its kind to consider

formation of national housing as a means to have general wellbeing and security for the nation.

While Title I and Title III was more concerned with the private and government spheres, Title II

was concerned with the market sphere.

Granting that this policy aimed to give every American the opportunity to have decent

housing, it still faced many structural barriers. The initial stages of the policy were on the

clashing grounds. It relied too much on simplicity of the goal, which was new housing units and

slum clearance. The policy is a product of seven long years of debate between lawmaking enemy

groups. The major barrier was that it had a simple and concise goal, but the supplies and

mechanisms provided to the reach that goal was very limited. As stated before the policy was

given $1 billion in loans to help cities with slum clean-ups, but it wasnt enough to cover the

cost. So, the local governments still had to pay a price. Another barrier faced by this policy was

the change of houses that controlled the congress during the legislation of the act. This policy

was loosely based on another bill known as the W-E-T Bill, named after the authors that came up
with the bill. This bill helped to expand financial aid to private companies from the federal

government and more government role in the housing department. However, this bill caused a lot

of conflict between the liberalists and conservatives. The liberals urged for this bill, saying that

urban housing is necessary for redevelopment, while, the conservatives opposed, saying that

urban housing is a socialistic intrusion into the private market (Hoffman 2000). If it wasnt

for the supporters of the Roosevelts New Deal, Conservatives, the policy wouldve passed

earlier. Another barrier that the act faced was the fact that market sphere, such as private home

builders, real estate companies, and banks, tried to hijack the parts to stop it from passing as a

policy (Kempke). These private businesses only benefited from anti-government intrusion in

the market sphere and when this policy came into place, they realized that there will more

governmental influence, which would mean less benefit and profits for them. They hijacked the

policy by capping an income level on the residents who can occupy the 800,000 home units.

Even though the policy faces these great barriers, it overpowered those walls and became

a policy in action. The policy overcame the limited resources barrier by allowing the local

government to pay for only one third of the cost of clearing up slums. This one third cost to the

local government was not as bad, considering that they would have helped by using the vacant

land, after clearance, to build schools, roads, etc. The policy overcame the government control

barrier in 1946, which marked the beginnings of Trumans presidency. Truman demanded the

republicans to pass the W-E-T bill, which was the first step towards the Housing Act of 1949.

Passing of the bill allowed for the congress to make amends to it and in 1949, helped put

together and pass the Housing Act of 1949. However, The policy did not overcome the barrier of

private companies trying to hijack the policy by adding a bill amending ban on segregation

within public housing (Kempke). By adding this bill to the act, the legislation thought it would
stop the private companies from using eminent domain to acquire land in minority

neighborhoods. Instead, it only caused the beginning of segregation within public housing.

So, how did the Housing Act of 1949 fell apart? As stated in the Title III of the policy, it

vouched for 800,000 home units to be built over 6 years, but this title was not fulfilled to it best.

This title fell apart for two reasons. The first reason was because of the Korean War; The Truman

Administration began to focus more on the war and grew less determined towards the

construction of home units. Tracing this failure, the limit was the focus of implementing Title I

and it was imposed by governmental and national security structures, that focused all their time

to the Korean War. The second reason was due to the formation of local resistance to the notion

of public housing; which, led to the creation of a provision that says, for every public housing

(unit) built, one slum dwelling must be demolished (Kempke). The provision meant that there

was to be a severe shortage of housing units for the ones replaced by the demolishing of the slum

units. This would mean that public housing would be exclusive and the a housing unit for a

dwelling would only lead to more dwellings being demolished rather than units being built.

Tracing this failure, the limit was the notion of house for a house, which led to more people

without homes, and it was imposed by the enemies of the act, who opposed the policy. Another

way this policy fell apart was because of private businesses and relators, who took advantage of

Title I, which claims for all slums to be cleared as to make vacant land for urban renewal. They

used slum clearance as an excuse to seize minority neighborhoods and demolish them down to

make land for commercial and industrial uses. As said before, this led to segregation within the

housing market that, for some races, led to inferior housing standards and segregated

neighborhoods. Inevitably, the segregation within public housing was also a cause of the

downfall of this policy. Tracing this failure back, the limit was segregation, and how private
business used eminent domain to cheat the people living in slums to acquire their land and this

was imposed by the loosely crafted Title I and the local resistance that was against the Housing

Act of 1949. The Housing Act of 1949 was a failure that we can learn many lessons from. The

first lesson is on having an understanding with all the political groups involved and come up with

resourceful notions together, instead of having to add bills in fear of the opposition (like the

addition of the segregation ban in public housing, as explained above). A way to emulate this

instance would be for all the spheres to come together to work on an agreed solution. The second

lesson to consider are the effects of this policy on the social and economic conditions and not just

the factual plans. The policy came into effect, right as the Korean War started and the focus was

on the war, rather than the urban renewal back home. A way to emulate this would be to also

spend time doing what was promised, while protecting/helping other countries. Another lesson to

be learned is on how to get the public involved and make the local decisions on what to do with

the land, instead of only having private companies, using eminent domain, to take over people

land. And so on, the list of lessons doesnt end there. A way to emulate this is with increased

public participation and consensus between the public and the market sphere. From the examples

of lessons to be learned, the underlying way to emulate the lessons is to fully include

participation from all the spheres and come up with a consensus solution that benefits everyone.

The Housing Act of 1949 was a remarkable step that the national government took, by

merging public housing, as a necessity, with government intervention. Before and after it came

into effect, this policy faced many structural barriers and one that, eventually, was one of the

reasons for his downfall. Being passed under the Truman Administration, this policy became one

of the most contradictory policies. Even though, during 1950s, the legislation of this policy

might have answered the question for a solution to blight for the first few months, but it was not
an efficient one, rather a memorable one that legislators often refer to when it came to making

some of the housing proposals we have today.

 Works cited

Berger, G.E. (1967). The concept and causes of urban blight. Land Economics, 43(4),

369-374

Binelli, Mark. How Detroit Became the World Capital of Staring at Abandoned Old

Buildings. The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 Nov. 2012. Web. 29 Jan. 2017.

Alexander von Hoffman (2000) A study in contradictions: The origins and legacy of

housing act of 1949, Housing Policy Debate, 11:2, 299-326

Foard, Ashley A., and Hilbert Fefferman. Federal Urban Renewal Legislation. Law and

Contemporary Problems (n.d.): 635-84. Web.

Robert E. Lang & Rebecca R. Shomer (2000) Legacy of Housing Act of 1949: The Past,

Present, and Future of Federal Housing and Urban Policy, Housing Policy Debate, 11:2, 291-298

Jon C. Teaford (2000) Urban Renewal and Its Aftermath, Housing Policy Debate, 11:2,

443-465

(1956) Discrimination Against Minorities in the Federal Housing Programs, Indiana

Law Journal: Vol. 31: Iss. 4, Article 5.

Urban Redevelopment. Dictionary of American History. . Encyclopedia.com. 29 Mar.

2017 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.

Plyer, Allison, Elaine Ortiz, and Kathryn Pettit. Optimizing Blight Strategies. Rep. no.

Annual Report November 2010. New Orleans: GNOCDC, 2010. Print.

Kempke, Chris. "Failure to Deliver: How the 1949 Housing Act Was Hijacked for Special

Interests." Academica (n.d.): 1-9. Web.

<http://www.academia.edu/6909991/Failure_to_Deliver_How_the_1949_Housing_Act_was_Hij

acked_for_Special_Interests>.

Small, Andrew. "The Wastelands of Urban Renewal." The Atlantic 13 Feb. 2017: n. pag.

Print.

Beyer, Scott. "Tax Increment Financing Is The New Urban Renewal." Forbes. Forbes

Magazine, 11 May 2015. Web. 30 Mar. 2017.

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2015/05/11/tax-increment-financing-is-the-new-urban-

renewal/#955c2c354018>.

Trent, Kim. "A Strategy for Diluting Concentrated Poverty in Detroit." Michigan Future

Inc. N.p., 21 Feb. 2017. Web. 30 Mar. 2017. <http://www.michiganfuture.org/02/2017/a-strategy-

for-diluting-concentrated-poverty-in-detroit/>.

Bruckbauer, James. "Building Cities from the Crowd up." Michigan Land Use Institute.

N.p., 5 Apr. 2014. Web. 30 Mar. 2017. <http://www.mlui.org/thriving-communities/news-

views/news-views-articles/building-cities-from-the-crowd-up.html#.WN0b7DsrLIU>.