Crime, Armour Boulevard, and redefining and urban struggle

Earlier today, Blog KC pointed out a new article from the Pitch on crime along Armour Boulevard.

Sadly, the title of the article, gives you the initial sense that The Pitch has used the same lazy journalism that has been (barely) covering this story from the start: Along Armour, Hyde Parkers Battle Low Renters in and Epic Urban Struggle.

I'll talk about the real "Urban Struggle" in a bit --  as well as a few key points from the article -but let me provide a bit of background:

There are two different types of Section 8 Housing.

1) Tenant-based Section 8 -- This is where qualifying residents get government-funded support that will pay a substantial part of the cost of their market-rate housing.

2) Project-based Section 8 - Where entire buildings, blocks, or apartment complexes are designated to be solely occupied for Section 8 Tenants.

In the mid 1970s, following the civil rights movement of the 60s, urban (often white) flight led to many urban cores being evacuated by middle-income people in favor of our suburbs. At that time, project-based Section 8 became a new way of "dealing with" low-income housing -- and it was easy to institute because large areas of our urban core were becoming abandoned.  In 1970, the population of Kansas City, MO was 507,087. By 1980, it had declined by 12% to 448,159. During this time, many of the apartment buildings that had become empty were filled up with project-based Section 8. Most of these leases were signed for 20-30-40 year projects.

Over the course of the last 40 years or so, we've learned a lot about the "success" of Project-based Section 8 Housing.  Here is what theUS Department of Housing and Urban Development has to say about Project-Based Section 8:

Most housing professionals agree that concentrating assisted-housing for low- and very low-income Americans in dense, urban areas is not an effective use of scarce affordable housing resources. Over the past decade, professionals in the affordable housing industry have turned increasingly to mixed-income housing as an alternative to traditional assisted-housing initiatives. Mixed-income housing is an attractive option because, in addition to creating housing units for occupancy by low-income households, it also contributes to the diversity and stability of American communities.

However, in spite of the learnings about project-based Section 8, as these Section 8 agreements have come up for renewal, HUD and the city of Kansas City have been renewing the Projects because Kansas City lacks a detailed housing plan for the city that would provide alternatives that would allow for preferable mixed-income housing.

The result has been the renewal of two major projects along Armour Boulevard -- two projects that had not been completely full in nearly a decade, opening up in full in late 2008. With the opening of these two buildings as project-based Section 8 Housing, 45% of the tenants along a 12 block stretch of Armour are in Project Based Section 8. Approximately 20% of the city's 92 Section 8 buildings reside in the 64109 area code.

In 2009, with all of the Section 8 buildings fully occupied, the crime statistics increased in the area dramatically -- including many violent crimes. The corner at Armour & Harrison has been a KCPD "Aggravated Assault Hot Spot" for 4 consecutive quarters.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The article in the Pitch was at least well researched. The article rightly points out three particular buildings that have caused a majority of the problems.

At the Kenwood -- (which has 60 units) - police reports for 2009 show one rape, two aggravated assaults, one armed robbery, five burglaries, six non-aggravated assaults, six cases of possessing drugs with intent to sell or distribute, five reports of property damage, one case of resisting an officer, three incidents of stolen auto parts, four cases of trespassing and one car theft.

At the Homestead - (70 units) - five aggravated assaults, two car thefts, three burglaries, one report of harassment, two of concealing a dangerous weapon, one of intimidating behavior, six non-aggravated assaults, nine cases of possessing narcotics (eight of which included sale or distribution), two counts of resisting an officer, one report of a pickpocket, one of stealing from a car, two of trespassing, and one dead body.

And at the Bainbridge - (160 units) - 61 cases of non-aggravated assault, 26 cases of drug possession (of which 24 included sale or distribution), four rapes, 37 reports of trespassing, one of resisting arrest, two weapons violations, five of resisting an officer, a dozen reports of property damage, three of forgery, 13 aggravated assaults, six of intimidation, four auto thefts, four armed robberies, five strong-arm robberies, 11 burglaries, and four incidents of a person concealing a dangerous weapon.

The list is pretty outrageous for 3 buildings all located about 6 blocks apart -- and two of the buildings, the Homestead and the Bainbridge sit right across the street from each other and occupy the same city block. In the first 9 months of 2009, this one city block, which consists of 230 apartment units, registered 860, 9-1-1 calls. 84% of the 9-1-1 Calls along Armour occurred at Project 8 Section 8 buildings, which make up 45% of the total units.

The article relies on a lot of quotes from various people throughout the neighborhood -- Eugene Lipscomb from HUD, David Kimmis from the Hyde Park Neighborhood Association, a few residents from some of the Section 8 buildings, and a handful of residents from local neighborhood. Unfortunately, instead of venturing outside of the neighborhood, the Pitch article stops short, and calls the story "a classic story of the tensions between old-timers and newcomers, black and white, rich and poor."

It was the lazy way out -- and unfortunately, the direction the position many in the mainstream media and the blogging community, has chosen to take.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a few realities that the article missed -- and a huge opportunity lost for the Pitch article.

1) While Hyde Park has been on the forefront of the complaints, other neighborhoods have less vocal in their support of the city developing a comprehensive housing plan that would create less Project-based Section 8 and more mixed-use, voucher based Section 8. Old Hyde Park, Squire Park, Center City, Manheim, and Ivanhoe have all joined in signing a plea from the neighborhoods for the city to create the detailed housing plan necessary to break up the project-based Section 8.

2) There have been multiple neighborhood meetings on the subject. Even though the article made it sound like none of the residents from the buildings were invited to attend, several of the speakers at those meetings that spoke out about the need to fix the problem of crime associated with these apartments were residents of the buildings. Most mentioned living in fear, and others not stepping forward because they feared retribution.

3) How is it that this story was written and NO ONE from City Hall was interviewed?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back in September, a 20 year old woman -- 9 months pregnant with a child -- was shot in the head at point blank range while she sat in the car with her boyfriend out in front of of the Linda Vista Apartments - a project based Section 8 apartment along Armour. She died immediately, as did her unborn infant.  She was the fourth person shot to death along a 3 block stretch of Armour just this year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While much of the media has gone the direction of painting this as a race/class issue, many realities have been ignored.  While the Pitch Headline paints this as a "classic urban struggle" -- it is a different one than the one it paints.

The "Urban Struggle" isn't based on newcoming, rich, white people moving into the city and trying to drive out it's poor black neighbors. It's about undoing the racial hatred and bigotry that created project-based Section 8 on the heals of the civil rights movement, at the height of white flight, in the first place.

It's about reversing the project-8 that was created in the 70s -- in favor of mixed use apartments - -a move that even HUD, in their own policies, says is a better option. Virtually every expert in the field of urban housing agrees that mixed-use apartments is preferred to project-based vertical segregation.

The people who live in the apartments are feeling the brunt of the centralized crime. The residents deserve a place to live where they don't feel threatened daily. It has become easy for people to paint the Hyde Parkers as the ones who want to drive out the poor to lower the crime, it is hard to believe that the vast majority of the people who live in these Section 8 Apartments would choose to live in an apartment where they are surrounded by crime, where innocent women are shot to death while sitting in a car on the curb, if they had other options. Unfortunately, they don't. This is the destiny determined for them by the people who are in charge of low-income housing policy in the city.

Kansas city deserves better than this. The people in low-income housing deserve better than this. The people who live in the neighborhood deserve better than this. We all deserve better than to continue down the same path that drove the population of this city to decline for 3 decades.

It's way too easy and lazy to paint this white vs black, rich vs poor. It's not. It's about listening to the experts in the field of urban housing, learning from the mistakes of our past, and when possible, fixing those mistakes. It is foolish to let the city of Kansas City off the hook for not having a long-term housing plan that takes advantage of the best knowledge available on what creates better, safer cities -- for everyone.

It's a new form of urban struggle -- undoing what we've done.  We need to quit with the ridiculous stereotyping of people as racist and classist, learn from 40 years of history, and do what is right.

Comments

[smh]

Brent, I hope you have sent a link to your post not only to the Pitch, but to the Star, City Hall, and the TV and Radio stations. I was very disappointed that the Pitch dropped the ball so completely for this article. They have a platform where they could have done so much, alas.

[i.e.]

There is one thing that I don't understand...it is not the location or the building that is bad..but the people that commit the crime. Would those same people be less likely to commit the crime if they were in a different location or would the crime just be spread to different areas? I don't believe that is good either. I don't think it is an area that people should just throw up their hands and say, "Bad area, let them all kill themselves" or anything like that. I am sure that there are good people that live there. But does breaking up the people reduce overall crime or just localized crime?

[Brent]

ie -- good questions.

For starters, obviously centralizing crime is very bad for the people where it is centralized around. I think everyone deserves the opportunity to live in at least a relatively crime-free neighborhood.

Secondly, it is reasonable to assume that many of the people committing the crimes would do so in other locations -- however, when there is mixed use housing, it is much easier get rid of the trouble-makers quickly. Last summer, we had a drug house at the end of our street. Within a couple of months, they were arrested and gone. The problem was easy to isolate, and prosecute. SO the problem was solved. When the problem is so consolidated, it takes longer to isolate and get rid of. Because of the longer time it takes, people are less willing to step forward for fear of retaliation.

Meanwhile, the 3rd part, and I think this is most important, is the sense of helplessness it creates for good people who live in low-income housing. It is heartbreaking to see moms with kids living in these buildings and for the children to see the drug dealing and gun-fire as a part of "normal" life. When such activity becomes "normal", it then perpetuates itself as the kids become teenagers -- vs if the kids were growing up in a mixed-use area and had a different view of what "normal" was.

This is the biggest reason why the experts in low-income housing are so against project-based housing -- because instead of helping solve the problem of poor, low-income people - it perpetuates it.

[Thomas]

It's disgusting that city hall turns its back on this. Jan Marcason and Beth Gottstein ought to be ashamed of themselves for not being outspoken. How difficult is it to push for a detailed housing plan? They'll be out next election cycle.

[d]

Brent -

Very well done write up -- obviously a labor of love for you. I hope the pitch takes notice.

You probably know this - and left it out for the sake of brevity, but white flight took roots just before the timeframe you highlighted -- although there's no doubt it was accelerated in the timeframe, and by the drivers you cite. White flight effectively began when there was a gradual realization that public school desegregation was here to stay; and the ramifications of it.

Incidentally, my wife and I looked at several homes in hyde park a few months ago; even going so far as to put an offer in on one. It really is a beautiful neighborhood, both aesthetically, and in that it functions as an *actual* neighborhood, a notable contrast with outer-belt suburbia.

[Joe Medley]

I've read that dispersing low-income housing doesn't just disperse the crime. It actually gives you a lower over all crime rate. If I could get my hands on the data I would post it.

Now I'm going to speculate. Part of the reason for that, I suspect, is exactly what Brent said. Crime is easier to isolate in mixed neighborhoods.

(Please read ALL of what I'm about to say before reacting.)

I've also wondered for a long time if property owners put up more of a fight against crime. I'm NOT saying property owners are in any sense more moral than renters. As a practical matter, property owners are harder to dislodge. A renter can leave nearly on a moment's notice (even if it is just to another section 8 location). For a property owner leaving is considerably more complicated.

This would tend to drive criminal activity toward areas with high numbers of renters. Since there seems to also be a correlation between poverty and crime, this would also mean that project-based section 8 housing would be worse than a run of the mill apartment building.