Obama’s Housing Failure
June 28th, 2008 at 02:47pm Mark Noonan
You’d think that with Obama’s success at obtaining a low-cost mansion for himself that he’d have been more effective on housing for the poor:
The squat brick buildings of Grove Parc Plaza, in a dense neighborhood that Barack Obama represented for eight years as a state senator, hold 504 apartments subsidized by the federal government for people who can’t afford to live anywhere else.
But it’s not safe to live here.
About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale - a score so bad the buildings now face demolition.
Grove Parc has become a symbol for some in Chicago of the broader failures of giving public subsidies to private companies to build and manage affordable housing - an approach strongly backed by Obama as the best replacement for public housing.
As a state senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal subsidies. And as a presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could give developers an estimated $500 million a year.
But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies - including several hundred in Obama’s former district - deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.
Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama’s close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama’s constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.
When we first started building public housing it became a complete disaster - the government ponied up the money to have them built and then managed the housing with a maze of bureaucratic rules which made it impossible to get rid of bad elements and dead certain that the housing would become blighted in short order. The phrase “public housing” by the early 1980’s immediately brought to mind images of crime and filth. And so reforms were proposed - the crowning effort to actually fix the problem was initiated by “bleeding heart” conservative Jack Kemp who initiated the Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere (HOPE) program while he was Secretary of Housing and Urban Development during the Elder Bush Administration…unfortunately, budget battles in cabinet and unwillingness of the Democratic Congress to spend money on a GOP-inspired anti-poverty scheme which would disempower Democratic-donating bureaucrats essentially killed the very promising program - it does linger on to this day, but it never was able to accomplish its primary purpose of making poor people into home owners so that they would be empowered and have the incentive to keep their neighborhoods up to snuff.
What has happened since then has mostly been a boondoggle, as we can see from the quoted article - favored contractors getting government swag to build low-cost housing and as these contractors are protected by their bought-and-paid-for political patrons, there isn’t much incentive for the contractors to actually build something useful. The problem isn’t just in Chicago, to be completely fair to Obama here - we have a low cost housing development here in Las Vegas which was built on toxic soil and was useless from the get-go. But the problem for Obama is that with a rather thin resume’, he can’t afford to have any of this corrupt business-as-usual political backscratching going on - and it appears that he was very happy to be hip deep in it. Now the connections to the corrupt Rezko and his shady mansion deal become more stark…coupled with the revelations that Obama’s supporters profited off Obama-backed slum construction, it shows that Obama is deeply involved - indeed, owes his rise to - the hopelessly corrupt Chicago-area Democratic politics.
So, good people, if you want a President who will ensure that well-connected contractors make money by building unlivable slums for the poor, Obama is your man…if you want something different that warmed-over liberal politics of the past, then McCain would have to by your choice.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Corruption, Democrats, Republicans
32 Comments
1. Tractatus | June 28th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
So using tax breaks as an incentive to get the free market to do something somehow didn’t work? But you wingers say it always works! Better update those talking points–you just trumpeted a failure of your own preferred method.
favored contractors getting government swag … as these contractors are protected by their bought-and-paid-for political patrons, there isn’t much incentive for the contractors to actually build something useful.
You do realize you just gave an excellent description of Halliburton, don’t you? I know you don’t really care about this contractor issue beyond its perceived usefulness as an attack on Obama…I’m just saying, if you actually do think this contractor system is bad, then party alignment shouldn’t matter. But like everything else with you, this is only bad based on party lines.
2. Mark Noonan | June 28th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Tract,
Thing about Haliburton is that it is the only entity in the United States which could do the required jobs in Iraq - and as Iraqi oil production is rapidly growing, I’d have to say we’re getting what we paid for out of it…Obama’s little programs here weren’t intended to build ulivable slums, but that is what we got.
And, once again, rather than addressing the issue at hand, you once again do the cowardly liberal thing and try to deflect attention from stark liberal failures.
3. neocon | June 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
“….once again do the cowardly liberal thing and try to deflect attention from stark liberal failures.” - Mark
It’s the only thing Trac knows how to do. In fact the once liberal catch phrase for GOPers, “look, a puppy”, has become their own in their efforts to deflect the scrutiny they desperately do not want applied to their candidate.
Say hello to President McCain.
peace, neocon
4. cam | June 28th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Mark,
As a follow up to what Tractus has said, it does appear that you are making exceptions to one of the most often repeated conservative talking points. Perhaps it is time to reconsider your stance regarding free markets. While free markets work in many situations, they are not the anser to all things. Public housing is one of them. Because developers and contractors who build public housing are motivated by one motivation only, that is the profit motive, one should not be supprised when the intended goal of a program such a public housing is not realized. In order for public housing, or at least subsidized public housing to work many factors must be taken into account.
A well thought out, well planned public housing development can succeed. But to allow private developers to build public housing and then jsut use the housing as a dumping ground without the proper support systems around it is a recipe for disaster.
And before you continue with your criticism of an attempt at social engineering at home in Chicago you should look at the nearly trillion dollar experiment in social engineering you have supported over the past 5 years in Iraq. If such a monumental boondogle had been undertaken in the United States for the benefit of our citizenry with such dismal results, you on the right would have been screaming long before even 1 billion was spent. But spend the same amount to the benefit of arms dealers, contractors like Halliburton and other well connected special interests and you will fight so that this kind on boondogle can continue endlessly.
5. neocon | June 28th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
cam,
So you are simply blaming the developers for the lack of success of public housing? Shouldn’t public ventures be overseen by elected public representatives to ensure that the taxpayers money is being invested widely? Shouldn’t Obama be held liable for the lack of oversight for the developments he championed in his own district?
And in regards to social engineering, I’d say our miniscule investment in Iraq, when compared to overall social engineering expenditures in America, has paid, and will continue to pay huge dividends:
“I, of, course am encouraged. We both agree that the progress has been significant but the progress is also fragile. And there’s a lot of work that needs to be done,” McCain said at the end of a private meeting with Talabani.
Sitting next to the Arizona senator at a Washington hotel, Talabani nodded in agreement and said it was a pleasure and an honor to update an “old friend” about “this stage of success” in Iraq.”
And at least the welfare program in Iraq will eventually end. Americas domestic welfare program grows larger every year with less actual results.
have a nice day
peace, neocon
6. Baton Rouge | June 28th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
2. Mark Noonan | June 28th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
“Thing about Haliburton is that it is the only entity in the United States which could do the required jobs in Iraq . . .”
Really?
Kerr McGee
Schlumberger
Fluor
To name just three . . . and I hate to point this out but Halliburton is no longer a US company having moved it corporate HQ to the United Arab Emirates
7. FmrMarine | June 28th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
tatCUS;
>>”You do realize you just gave an excellent description of Halliburton,”>>
Do you realize haliburton is also BROWN and ROOT?
Lady bird johnson sat on it’s board of directors.while her husband was POTUS?
They built ALL the bases, ports, structures in Viet Nam, during DEMOCRAT - LBJ’s war!
It was also the biggist NON union contractor in the country out of Texas, and was used as a union busting entity.
But you lib rats wouldnt know that it only the EEEEVVVIIILLLLLLLL Pubbies that do that sort of things.
8. Mark Noonan | June 28th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
cam,
The concept that the campaign in Iraq has not been beneficial to the citizens of the United States - and the larger world - is a highly debatable concept, and one which I believe gets proved more wrong every day.
Be that as it may…
The thing is, this isn’t free market at work - this is the government favoring the well connected and the well connected aren’t forced by a competitive marketplace to provide a good product. My house was built by the free market and everything in it works fine - and for the first two years after it was built, even the smallest defect was fixed immediately. The problem with what happened in Chicago (and elsewhere, as I noted) is that there is no accountability except to the elected officials who gave the favorable treatment to the contractors in question and who donate to the politicians supposedly riding herd on them. The failure of these housing projects wasn’t just an odd happenstance but was certain given human nature.
And the really sad thing here is that in response to this failure you want to return to the earlier failure where government ran the whole show - once again, human nature is against you here. Do look into what happened the last time - and do realise that there were reforms upon reforms as things started to go from bad to worse and none of them worked…all the money and all the sincerity on those who proposed the programs failed to overcome human nature, and they will continue to do so. And what is this failure of human nature?
1. When you are spending other people’s money, you will not be as careful with it as if you were spending your own…so, while you will care greatly that your own house is entirely up to code, the public housing project you are overseeing just doesn’t rate the sort of care you lavish on yourself (assuming, as is more than likely, that you are not a saint - if we could find saints to run everything, then we could, indeed, turn everything over to them).
2. When people are not financially responsible for the housing they occupy, they will not treat it with great respect. When I put a hole in my wall by accident, I fix it as soon as possible because I care about how my house looks…the denizen of public housing will demand that the housing authorities come out and fix it…and the housing authorities get paid the same if they fix the hole or not.
3. When you have public housing, you are in a very hard position as regards keeping bad elements out. Here where I live, we have a homeowner’s association and if someone really goes off the wall in wrecking their own house, we can eventually take their house away from them. Its all part of the deal - live here, and you must maintain your property, or get out. In public housing, it usually took a long, tortuous legal process to get drug dealers, pimps and prostitutes out…and, of course, there was never a shortage of leftwing attorneys willing to defend such people for free on the theory that its the government’s fault that a person is a drug dealer to begin with.
4. Building public housing invariably falls victim to NIMBYism and thus the places are usually located in already blighted districts (liberals never seemed, way back when, to want the public housing built in Malibu, Santa Monica, Martha’s Vineyard, off Central Park etc, etc, etc…Compton and Harlem were ok, though). You end up warehousing the poor and shoving them out of sight and out of mind…and toss in a bit of gun control, and the respectable poor people couldn’t even defend themselves, and the cops just wouldn’t bother because when it came to providing first rate police protection, the poor in the projects just didnt rate (at least, however, if you did get your wish in 2008, the poor would be able to arm themselves in self defense).
A free market solution is that proposed by Kemp - allow generous tax breaks for companies who would build low cost housing and then work out government-backed loans for hard working poor people to purchase the houses…and it doesn’t matter, really, if the houses were actually sold at a loss to the government, because they would still be the entry point into the American dream for the poor and would give them the incetive to self-rise out of poverty. No projects, no government plans to figure out where to build and what to build…construction firms would gauge the market and figure out where to build and what to build…and the poor would, also, no longer be locked into the liberal-run decaying inner cities, because these houses for poor people would be scattered far and wide around the particular municipality they are built in…
The main lesson both in the old way and in the new way of government housing is that it can’t work - not even a little bit. Only people doing for people does the job.
9. neocon | June 28th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
OT
But it appears that may be a little trouble brewing in paradise:
“….reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists…”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/28/obama-undercuts-his-brand_n_109758.html
10. Tractatus | June 28th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
The thing is, this isn’t free market at work - this is the government favoring the well connected and the well connected aren’t forced by a competitive marketplace to provide a good product.
Which is exactly how Halliburton’s no-bid contracts worked–and why they ended up getting paid a boatload of money (and overcharging, on top of that) to provide laughably bad facilities. Accountability? None to be found.
Again, you don’t really believe in your little rants here; that’s blatantly obvious. You only “believe” them insofar as you think they’re good lines of partisan attack. You’d be much more honorable and much less of a coward if you’d simply admit it instead of trying to claim you’re arguing some lofty principle.
But you won’t. Too cowardly, really.
11. Mark Noonan | June 29th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Tract,
What you are not getting because you won’t think about it is the fact that we on the right understand that a government program - even if carried out by a private entity - will cost too much and not be as good as it could be. This makes us want to genuinely privatise as much as possible. You, on the other hand, take this same data and proceed to advocate even more control on the part of those who are messing up already.
12. chuckasaurus | June 29th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Look guys…….the real problem here is that you pointed out facts that show how truly ineffective the messiah (Hussein Obama) really is.
The liberals will not stand by and let this happen. They will not be swayed by trivial things like facts and rational discussion.
The only thing you can do is admit that you were lying, and start singing praise to the messiah. Anything short of that will result in arguments with the liberals.
13. cam | June 29th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Neocon,
I am certainly not blaming the developers. I am just saying that their motivation is profit and nothing else. There is nothing wrong with that. I assume that the developers and the contractors probably did what the contract required, at least as long as there was government oversight. However, if the ultimate goal of public housing is to provide housing for those that don’t have the means, using profit driven companies to do it simply won’t work because once the profitability is gone so are those motivated by profit.
A better approach is to increase the availablility of education beyond high school. Once people are better educated they will be able to do more for themselves. The current trend has taken more of our public investment out of education thereby making it affordable to fewer and fewer people.
A secondary, and prehaps more important from the viewpoint of the country as a whole, is that by increasing the number of our citizenry who are well educated, we as a whole will be more competitive with the rest of the world.
It is investment in education that will do more to assure our standard of living than anything else we spend our limited resources on.
Now regarding Iraq, I am wondering what the huge dividends are. I’ll keep checking the mail. Perhaps something’s there I missed. I know what the costs are, over 4100 dead American soldiers, 10’s of thousands of American severely injured, nearly 1 Trillion dollars, US and the admiration of most of the rest of the world. That is not to count the 100’s of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed.
I like the characterization of 1 trillion dollars as miniscule. I’ll keep that one for later.
14. My new WordPress MU Site &hellip | June 29th, 2008 at 2:23 am
[...] admin wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptBut the problem for Obama is that with a rather thin resume’, he can’t afford to have any of this corrupt business-as-usual political backscratching going on - and it appears that he was very happy to be hip deep in it. … [...]
15. cam | June 29th, 2008 at 2:27 am
Mark,
I concur that public housing has many failures and it is a difficult endeavor in which to succeed. While the proposal from Kemp you have cited sounds intriguing are you aware of any successes this proposal has had?
Again, I know the topic here is public housing but in regards to Iraq, can you give a synopsis on what the benefits are to our country? And I object to the confusing of coincidence with correlation.
16. cam | June 29th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Fmr Marine,
I thought once a Marine always a Marine. Anyways, I am quite aware of Brown and Root. Just because Ladybird Johnson covorted with B&R, a anti-union, anti labor organization doesn’t justify all of the stealing Halliburton and Cheney, yes Cheney still has holdings in Haliburton, have done in Iraq.
And, what’s a pubbie?
17. neocon | June 29th, 2008 at 8:48 am
“I am certainly not blaming the developers. I am just saying that their motivation is profit and nothing else.” - cam
You have obviously never ran a smll business. Profit is only a part of the results that are expected.
“A better approach is to increase the availablility of education beyond high school….” - cam
Affirmative actrion, community colleges, trade schools, school loans, pell grants. How much more would like?
America has spent on average, 300 billion a year, for the last ten years, on welfare and entitlement programs and yet Cam does not deem that sufficient. However, the money spent on helping our global neeighbors secure their liberty is excessive in the minds of people who want to repair our global image.
I know you are very young, naive and impressionable cam, but surely you see the hypocrisy in that, right?
18. FmrMarine | June 29th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
cam
>>>justify all of the stealing Halliburton and Cheney, yes Cheney still has holdings in Haliburton,>>>
Prove this = stealing!
Second most people with pension funds, 401K’s
any stock portfolios may own STOCK in Haliburton….just like D. Cheney.
and we DO want them to turn a PROFIT for US the stockholders = owners.
19. cam | June 29th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Neocon,
I have run a small business. But you are correct profit is only part of the business equation. But it is the only part that is mandatory for business to function. Without a positive cash flow, no business can stay open indefinitely
Now, regarding the noted programs related to education, it is not the number of programs but the numbers in the programs. My concern is that the cost of college education is growing faster than the ability to pay for it by potential students who need such an education. Further, we should not see education as a burden but rather as an investment that allows us to remain competitive in a global economy.
Ultimately when our citizenry remains competitive, ie productive, in a world market they are then able to afford housing and this in turn limits the need for public housing.
Now regarding the entitlement programs, I don’t believe that I ever mentioned entitlement programs. Again, if you see education as entitlement, I would have to disagree. Once again, education is an investment in the country’s overall ability to compete.
In regard to spending money “helping our global neighbors secure their liberty”, surely you are not espousing that we repeat what we did in Iraq in any other country where people are less than free? If so, you’ve got your work cut out for you.
Had the money been involved in Iraq been spent to expand the opportunities in education, we could have seen real returns in a better educated citizenry. Further, it is a well educated citizenry that makes for a strong middle class, the building block a strong democracy. So ultimately, chosing an investment in education rather than war is an investment in our democracy not hypocrisy.
20. cam | June 29th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
FmrMarine,
As I understand it corruption is defined as exploitation of power for personal gain. Because Cheney owned interest in Halliburton and was making decisions that he knew would affect the price of Halliburton stock, he is guilty of corruption. The proper action for him to take would recuse himself from such decisions. As such, considering the actions he was contemplating, this would have been akin to resigning the Vice Presidency. Ultimately, public officials must choose between personal gain and public good. In this case it appears that Cheney chose personal gain over public good.
The difference between Cheney and other stockholders in general is that only Cheney had the position and therefore the power to make decisions for personal gain.
Now, regarding stealing, it is established fact that much of what Halliburton was paid for in Iraq was not delivered. In my mind that is stealing. Once agin, had Cheny cared more about the public good rather than his own fortune, he had the power, unlike a typical stock holder, to make the necessary changes and give back the ill gotten gain to clear his name. But clearly, once again, he chose personal gain.
21. neocon | June 29th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
cam,
I agree completely with you vis a vis education. The programs I mentioned are not entitlement programs in my view, but they are certainly vehicles which aid many less fortunate people get an education.
And it would also be nice if we could just retreat from helping our global neighbors and confine ourselves within our own borders and worry about education and fair housing. Unfortunately that is a very unrealistic, naive and selfish world view.
The challenge is the balance, and all factors need to be realistically defined. That’s where liberals get it wrong.
peace, neocon
22. neocon | June 29th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
cam,
First of all, Haliburton has lost employees to violence in Iraq and has invested a great deal in helping the Iraqis secure their future. It’s extremely juvenile for you to only assert the opposite.
Alos, Cheney divested himself from Haliburton before assuming power, in both salary and stock options (see below). Care to restate your lie?
peace, neocon
Stock Options
That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options if the company’s stock rises in value. However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity. And we’re not just taking the Cheney’s word for this — we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time.
The “Gift Trust Agreement” the Cheney’s signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney’s home state), 40% will go to George Washington University’s medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education, a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.
The agreement states that it is “irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended,” so the Cheney’s can’t take back their options later.
23. hermie | June 29th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Of course, the Dem trolls forget to mention that those developers who got these contracts were significant campaign contributors to Obama. This so-called ‘reformer’ and bringer of ‘hope and change’ was quite comfortable with continuing the typical Chicago practice of dealmaking.
24. cam | June 30th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Neocon,
Once agian, take away the profit and Haliburton would be on the first flights out of Iraq.
So Haliburton has a great deal invested in Iraq. I thought the reason to stay was to provide the Iraqis with freedom. Now its to maximize Haliburton’s return on investment.
Regarding those who died working for Haliburton in Iraq, it is hard to be sympathetic toward them. Unlike the military who were following orders, those that went to work for Haliburton went for the large payoff to do work alongside American soldiers who many times were doing the same jobs but at a lower wage.
Regarding Cheney,
Check out this link. It references Cheney’s disclosure statement and it appears that he has indeed not severed all ties as he asserted previously.
http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=254548&
If a public official accepts a bribe and then gives an equal amount to charity, the giving to charity does not erase the original crime. Perhaps, if mobsters give a donation to charity we can overlook their criminal past.
25. cam | June 30th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Hermie,
The problem with campaign contributors is when a candidate gets a large portion of their contributions from single contributors they are much more prone to corruption. As I understand it, Obama has received the vast majority of his campaign contributions from small donors, none of whom can call in favors as they have no leverage.
Under the system which relies on large donors for support and allows well connected lobyists special access to legislative and executive branch officeholders, the will of the people is trampled in favor of a few special intrest groups thereby destroying the principle of one man one vote.
26. neocon | June 30th, 2008 at 8:59 am
cam,
you’re nothing than a conspiracy minded, indoctrinated little twit.
When confronted with the facts that refute your assertions, you launch into more baseless presumptions and propaganda.
That is the definition of a useful idiot.
Congrats
have a nice day
peace, neocon
27. Fredrick Schwartz | June 30th, 2008 at 9:11 am
17. neocon | June 29th, 2008 at 8:48 am
What do you expect the 15 million white single moms to do neocon turn tricks? Or use their considerable high school education to get a job working for a Fortune 500 company. Can they turn to their church for help with their living children or should they take their boyfriend’s gun and rob a Mini Mart?
I don’ t know how the United States could ever pay native Americans Chinese black Jews or even many of the irish families of New Yor and Philadelphia back for their sacrifices to build the nation. Some of those programs you mention are a start but not the whole solution.
Isn’t that federal money being used for TANF these days anyway nothing more than a bloc grant like Pell or Meth addict rehab programs in rural areas and meals on wheels? All of those are WELFARE PROGRAMS and they serve poor conservatives and poor liberals alike.
28. Tractatus | June 30th, 2008 at 10:53 am
When confronted with the facts that refute your assertions, you launch into more baseless presumptions and propaganda.
That is the definition of a useful idiot.
It is also the definition of you, neocon.
Have a nice day!
29. cam | July 1st, 2008 at 1:12 am
Deleted - paranoid conspiracy theories.
30. Sadly, No! » From M&hellip | July 1st, 2008 at 1:19 am
[...] You see, ever since he changed the site’s name from Blogs For Bush to Blogs For Victory, it’s been a bit. . .wait, no. That’s not a Mark title. Indeed, it’s a cut-and-paste error.1 Drat, let’s try this again. Obama’s Housing Failure [...]
31. cam | July 3rd, 2008 at 12:45 am
Good to see that when you peel back all the talk of freedom from the conservative onion all you find in is the black heart of censorship. Apparently the readers of this site can’t decide for themselves.
32. Jack&hellip | August 27th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Jack
What a strange few weeks,do you think Obama can go all the way?