By: Patricia Boone
The housing authority (HA) is one form of institutional surveillance.* A recent conversation with my cousin, who resides in a L.A housing project, was concerning U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) control over her home. Our conversation led me to two questions: (1) how does HA operate as a surveillance agency in public housing and (2) how does housing subsidization take on a binary opposition of benefit and detriment in the lives of low-income populations. For the purpose of this blog, I will focus on Housing Authority (HA)—a subset of HUD.
Government subsidies for housing sound like a good deal for low-income families; since rent is only 30% of the household income, but who really comes out on top? The HA enforce rules and regulations set by the federal government. In order to be eligible, applicants must meet certain criteria: income and identification verification; a current home inspection by an HA representative; provide documentation of those who will reside in the home and anything else that HA requires. Once satisfied, applicants are placed on a waiting list that can take months even years to get housing. This means that many people are entered into the system before they use the benefits. The detriment is similar to the welfare paradox in Overseers of the Poor, because an increase in income, unreported income, or non-compliance with any other HA regulations will result in eviction. Everyday resistance exists when residents find ways to either limit income or illegally subsidize it—to maintain affordable housing.
How far is too far? If HA control residents of public housing can they regulate its visitors? According to HUD.Gov, “each HA has the discretion to establish preferences to reflect needs in its own community.” One example is in an article from the San Francisco Examiner, Rules Blocking Criminals from Public Housing Deemed Illegal. The San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) began using criminal records to ban visitors from public housing in an effort to reduce crime. However, the Supreme Court ruled that such civil injunctions were unconstitutional, even in the name of safety, because they violated the personal rights of Marcus Johnson; who was arrested multiple times although he was on the property to visit his children. Nonetheless, HUD found a way around such rulings by awarding 20 public housing agencies with $3.8 Million dollars to install/update surveillance systems for the purposes of fighting crime, monitoring drug activity, so that residents feel safe. Consequently, the benefit of safety appears to be at the cost of others.
In the end, HA may appear to be a satisfying answer to a deeply-rooted problem of poverty, and its subsidizing benefits make it hard for a poor person to say no. Yet, its centralized system of surveillance has detrimental effects that impede the social mobility of the poor. HA rules and regulations affirm poverty norms in public housing; its surveillance systems monitor behavior and civil injunctions guarantee residents compliance—almost.
*John Gilliom and Monahan, Supervision. 4. Uses credit rating systems to describe the evolution of surveillance. Here they discuss how institutional surveillance and data can be a hindrance for some and liberating for others.
Nice tie to Gilliom's work. Musheno
ReplyDeleteThis was very interesting to read; I had no prior knowledge of the Housing Authority or the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is amazing that as you stated "...many people are entered into the system before they use the benefits." I also like how you noted the different reasons that would lead to one's eviction. You also noted how the Housing Authority can extend its power to the visitors of its residents. After reading the article you referenced it is easy to see why Johnson's constitutional rights were being violated. I think Judge Almer correctly states that it "...impeded on Johnson's right to see his children and even "exist" in San Francisco." The amount of power the Housing Authority has is clearly vast.
ReplyDelete-Jacqueline Galeno-Escobedo
The interesting correlation between this post on HA and the welfare system we read about is that civilians who use these services sacrifice their rights out of necessity rather than choice. Surveillance over the poor can be good in the sense that it provides safety, at the same time though it takes away control and autonomy over those that are being monitored. I appreciate this article for further shedding light on the disparities faced on a daily basis by the poor.
ReplyDeleteJames Woodard
Thank you both for responding to my blog. After reading your insightful comments I decided to play devil's advocate to my piece. Here are a few questions that came to mind:
ReplyDelete(1) Should the safety of residents be sacrificed for the protection of personal rights in regards to non-residents? (2) If the Housing Authority is acting within its mission "to provide decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities" then would not their power be warranted? And (3) In terms of rental agreements today, are the rules and regulations any different; If you violate the rules of your landlord does he/she not also have the right to give you a 30-day notice?
I simply ask these questions to test the strength of my argument and I am curious to see how people answer. The fact is, the lower you are on the socio-economic ladder the fewer options you have for social mobility. After researching the matter further I have come to the conclusion that increased dependence on the government leads to an increase in government subjugation.