Using Uchechi's post as a valuable springboard to bring up another reality that may be worth inserting into this conversation, I think it would be constructive to consider the role that race plays in all of this--even if this means deconstructing the optimism that lies behind visions of an unburdened system of public housing. I think it may be safe to say that a few of us find these visions difficult to train--whether because we doubt the promised benefits or because we doubt how such a system could be implemented. In addition to the complications that Professor Moglen envisions, the race-poverty complex, I think, is the wrench that should probably make us really reexamine the assumptions that we create to justify "well founded" ambitions about public housing.

I think it has now been well recognized that one of the biggest dilemmas with which public-housing proponents must come to terms is the conscience behind rescuing the communities of homeless people on campuses, streets, and under bridges by assigning them to segregated areas designated for public housing--or at least areas designated for public housing that inevitably become segregated as a function of the demographics of homeless people. In a way, cities that follow such procedures are simply organizing poor minorities into more visible sections of society. An extreme view might even be that this scheme makes communities' poor minorities more documentable, manageable, and leverageable. It would be irresponsible to ignore the benefits of giving homes to the most disadvantaged portions of society, but it would also be reckless to implement a public-housing system without first carefully anticipating problems and solutions concerning racial segregation.

And I think there are subtle complexities that would take even the most skilled administrators years to negotiate through experimentation, failure, and unending creativity. For example, even if the state manages to assimilate public housing into a medium-income residential neighborhood, history has shown us that demographics shift as a display that these newcomers are not welcome. "Mixed income" becomes "poor," "predominantly black," "predominantly Latino." Property values go down, and more of these others move in. Now these neighborhoods are "run-down," "just black," "just Latino."

What can states do to prevent this? Maybe some kind of creative investment? Maybe tax breaks for incoming businesses? But these "solutions" create a wholly different category of problems. What does our enthusiasm for such solutions reveal about our assumptions about race? Wouldn't such measures be paternalistic? Or are they in keeping with "reality"?

And for the sake of ending this post on a period, rather than a torturous question mark--http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/arts/design/13tulo.html.

-- JosephLu - 23 Feb 2009