Reevaluating HUD: A Call to Raze for Change

Reevaluating HUD: A Call to Raze for Change

The Trump administration has recently announced intentions to sell the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s headquarters, often labeled as a brutalist architectural eyesore. Secretary Scott Turner has described the building as the “ugliest structure in D.C.,” arousing justified criticism and calls for reform.

In tandem with the building’s sale, the administration also proposes significant cuts to HUD’s workforce, aiming to eliminate half of its staff while defunding programs that have burdened the country long since the era of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.

Andrew Cuomo, the former governor of New York and Bill Clinton’s last HUD secretary, openly criticized the agency in 1998, calling HUD the “poster child for failed government.” More than 45 years ago, Detroit City Council President Carl Levin famously admonished the agency, dubbing it “Hurricane HUD” for its destructive impact on the city through ill-advised mortgage practices.

Systematic Failures of Housing Policies

Throughout the years, HUD’s actions have drawn ire from diverse political perspectives. In 1996, Vice President Al Gore condemned HUD-funded public housing projects as “crime-infested monuments to a failed policy,” illustrating the widespread consensus on the agency’s shortcomings. By 2006, the Village Voice even termed HUD as America’s worst landlord, a label that reflects its longstanding inability to manage public resources effectively.

In 2011, the Washington Post produced extensive evidence of HUD’s mismanagement. They compiled numerous satellite images demonstrating that HUD’s primary homebuilding program functioned as a “dysfunctional system that delivers billions of dollars to local housing agencies with scant oversight or reliable tracking mechanisms.”

HUD’s negligence in handling taxpayer dollars has allowed rampant misuse, with reports of misappropriated grants surfacing regularly. Despite widespread complaints from communities experiencing neglect, HUD left a trail of unfulfilled promises – empty fields where developments were once planned.

Personal Insights from the Inside

Having spent considerable time at HUD headquarters during the 1990s investigating various funding misadventures, I witnessed a workforce bogged down by low morale and despair. The agency was filled with demoralized employees, a fact that appeared evident during investigations into several funding misallocations. My critique of HUD during this time, known as “Clinton’s Wrecking Ball for Suburbs,” incited harsh responses from HUD’s leadership.

Yet, the consequences of HUD’s policies have extended far beyond demoralized employees; the impacts have reverberated throughout society. For instance, in just the first half of 2016, a shocking 30 homicides occurred within Section 8 residences in Chicago, alongside 7,000 additional reported crimes.

Crime Rates Linked to Public Housing

Research conducted by Texas A&M University reveals alarming statistics surrounding Section 8 housing. The study indicated that male recipients are statistically twice as likely to engage in violent crime compared to their peers who do not receive housing vouchers. A separate HUD-funded investigation corroborates this finding, showing that relocations facilitated by Section 8 programs have led to a threefold increase in property crime arrests among boys in new neighborhoods.

Russell Vought, then head of Trump’s Office of Management and Budget, criticized Section 8, attributing it to increased crime rates, diminished property values, and fostering dependency. The Trump administration’s upcoming budget proposes drastic cuts in rental subsidies, targeting the same programs that have continually faced criticism.

A Historical Perspective and Policy Implications

Initially created in 1965 to address inequities in American cities, HUD has consistently fallen short of its lofty ideals. Today, the racial homeownership gap remains stubbornly high, as testified by Sandra Thompson, who heads Biden’s Federal Housing Finance Agency. This gap is reportedly wider now than when the Fair Housing Act was enacted in 1968.

The current administration’s strategy aims to mitigate this ongoing issue by imposing measures that penalize high-credit borrowers in favor of those with poor credit. Dubbed “No Deadbeats Left Behind,” this approach raises more questions about its efficacy than it answers.

Moving Forward: A Vision for HUD

Secretary Turner has signaled a shift in HUD’s priorities, emphasizing the need for efficiency and accountability. The existing headquarters requires approximately half a billion dollars in deferred maintenance and modernization expenses, costing taxpayers over $50 million annually, despite its persistent vacancy.

In lieu of merely selling the property, razing the outdated headquarters could deliver a more powerful message about accountability and responsibility in government. Drawing parallels with historical lessons, such as the demolition of the infamous Pruitt-Igoe housing project in St. Louis, the potential symbolic value of such an act cannot be overstated. The film footage of Pruitt-Igoe’s destruction serves as a haunting reminder of the consequences of failed policy.

Ultimately, the demolition of HUD headquarters would signify a critical turning point. HUD has long benefitted from extensive federal financial support without delivering on its promises. By dismantling both the physical and ideological remnants of its problematic past, HUD can pave the way for meaningful progress in housing policy.

In conclusion, the demolition of HUD’s headquarters could represent not only a shift in physical space but also a reaffirmation of accountability. A clear message would resonate throughout government that failure has consequences, ultimately benefiting communities that have suffered due to ineffective policies.