Is Public Housing Another Covert Tool of Oppression in America?

In his essay, “Moving out of Public Housing” Howard Husock presented an effective argument supporting government owned housing presented in the 1930s by Catherine Bauer, a social reformer. Bauer explained that it was “Only governments [that] can set up the new method of house production . . . to replace the wasteful and obsolete chaos still prevailing” (Husock, 89).

According to Husock, Bauer’s 1935 theory, that America’s privatized housing market had dominated the era allowing “small builders . . . front-foot lots and,” what she called, “the miserable straggling suburbs” to reign over other options. “The ideology of individual home ownership must go” she exclaimed. The idea of constructing city housing projects across the nation signified change and hope theories such Bauer’s brought about two significant events: the 1937 congressional debate during which Senator Robert Wagner argued allowing the construction of public housing would help Americans, “who live in unsafe and unhealthy conditions . . . detrimental to morals, to health and safety” (Husock, 100) and Franklin Roosevelt signed legislation producing the affordable housing projects of today.

Husock argued that those who advocated so strongly for the construction of Public housing never imagined, “the realities . . . as they exist today” (91) after all, the original intention for public housing was to provide affordable housing for working class people (91). Husock noted also that the former mission to provide housing for low-income, working-class families was altered by a host of social variables that I concur with to some degree. Multiple causations contributed to the decline of the projects. 1. During the Second World War, millions of private homes and apartments were produced by American construction companies. 2. The beauty and affordability of these structures combined with assistance from organizations such as the National Association of Realtors who devised the Housing Affordability Index that compared housing prices and mortgage rates to a family’s income, sparked an exodus within pubic housing. 3. “Working families quickly abandoned public housing” (Husock 91).

Sociological Points of View: Researched Arguments on Public Aide

In “Moving out of Public Housing” Howard Husock offers an effective argument supporting government owned housing.  Presented by Catherine Bauer, a social reformer whose argument contended that it was “Only governments [that] can set up the new method of house production . . . to replace the wasteful and obsolete chaos still prevailing” (Husock, 89).  According to Husock, Bauer’s 1935 theory, that America’s privatized housing market had dominated the era allowing “small builders . . . front-foot lots and,” what she called, “the miserable straggling suburbs” to reign over other options. “The ideology of individual home ownership must go” she exclaimed. The idea of constructing city housing projects across the nation signified change and hope theories such Bauer’s brought about two significant events: the 1937 congressional debate during which Senator Robert Wagner argued allowing the construction of public housing would help Americans, “who live in unsafe and unhealthy conditions . . . detrimental to morals, to health and safety” (Husock, 100) and Franklin Roosevelt signed legislation producing the affordable housing projects of today.

Husock argued that those who advocated so strongly for the construction of Public housing never imagined, “the realities . . . as they exist today” (91) after all, the original intention for public housing was to provide affordable housing for working class people (91). Husock noted also that the former mission to provide housing for low-income, working-class families was altered by a host of social variables that I concur with to some degree. Multiple causations contributed to the decline of the projects.