RECENT COMMENTS
Joel Cabot on Power Outage on the Hill
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
Yvette Cannon on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
crd on Power Outage on the Hill
A call for housing projects to be ‘torn down’
10/10/2004 11:20 AM by John M
Mark Holmberg, long-time columnist for the Times-Dispatch, writes, “Fifty years ago we started the subsidized housing boom in Richmond, and few cities went about it with as much gusto as we did. The proliferation of housing “projects” here was a key reason Richmond wilted while cities like Charlotte blossomed. Right now we’ve got roughly 10 percent of the city’s population living in Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority properties. Many of these folks live in seven sprawling housing projects that represent the absolute worst examples of racist, death-dealing paternalism since slavery.”
[ Read the rest of the article. ]
I was glad to see Holmberg’s characterization of Richmond housing projects as “the absolute worst examples of racist, death-dealing paternalism since slavery.” A trip through North and East Richmond’s Courts like Gilpin, Creighton, Whitcolm, Moseby, and Fairfield would leave any compassionate person with the impression that our city has neglected and forsaken its residents who are historically most disadvantaged.
This City is 60-65 black, concentrated moslty around these blighted areas on the map. Holmberg may be calling for a paradigm shift at City Hall to ensure responsibility toward to underserved and maligned black Richmond. But I fear that most who read his collumn will take away a different message. They will be glad that someone is making a move to rid this city of “those people” and “those neighborhoods.” The popular way to deal with poverty is to remove poor people from sight. I think Holmberg needs to be careful not to play to the genteel racism of Richmond that sees poor blacks as the barrier to the City’s success. When in actuality, a slow but persistent process of segregation and gentrification has come about under the watchful eye of the City’s powerful mostly white elite.
Pre-empting liberal sympathies, Holmberg asks, “Where will the people go?” But his answer is dismissive, convenient, and seems to recommend moving poor people from site. In other words, who cares where they go.
“You’d be surprised how many project dwellers are from places like Philly and New York, and Henrico and Chesterfield counties. Some of them will go home. This city shouldn’t carry the load for the’burbs or other states.”
The City of Richmond needs to take responsibility for its high rate of poverty, nearly 25%. Over 550 of our City employees are earning as little as $5.15/hr, far short of the Living Wage of $8.85/hr with benefits (or $10.55/hr without) that is required to live in Richmond above the poverty line. We can and should fight poverty in Richmond, but not by forced removal of disadvantaged people. We should start with our own, those who work for our tax dollars and wear our City Seal. We should set a good example for Richmond business leaders by taking care of our own people. Prosperty should not be imported and poverty cannot be exported. Let’s make downtown development mean something by developing the people who live and work there.
Agreed.
Holmberg goes after convenient targets.
I wish he would go after the CORPORATE welfare that plagues this city, but then he might not have a column if he did.
There is an interesting profile of Gilpin Court in the RTD’s Michael Paul Williams’ column ‘Any cause for hope in Gilpin?’.