Page 22
· Rejoinder: Select residential areas in cities have
declined because of shifts in demand and population.
Cities as a whole--defined realistically as metropoli-
tan areas rather than those neighborhoods that happen
to fall within historically defined "city limits"--are
healthy.
· HUD Premise: Run-down, lower-income areas of cities
can be "saved" through public investment in housing
construction and renovation, combined with social
service programs.
· Rejoinder: Such efforts, whether known as "model cit-
ies," "community development," or "empowerment zones,"
fight against a powerful tide that has lifted both
whites and blacks into higher-income urban and suburban
neighborhoods. Government must do what it can to make
all residential neighborhoods safe for residents, but
neighborhoods cannot be propped up by public investment
over the long term. It is far better to allow local
government to manage their transition, helping to steer
them toward new uses in which the market wants to
invest.
· HUD Premise: Metropolitan government and regional
land-use planning are goals toward which the United
States should strive.
· Rejoinder: Although regional cooperation does occur
in the provision of some services, that ideal has been
effectively rejected by the body politic. That is
particularly true in the older northeastern and north-
western cities that HUD had a mandate to renew.48 As
Alan Altshuler has pointed out, Americans clearly want
planning to remain a local function.49
· HUD Premise: The agency has a core mission to provide
"affordable housing"--whether in the form of public
housing or rent-subsidized units.
· Rejoinder: Historically, both HUD and its predeces-
sors in the housing reform movement have failed to
understand the important distinction between low-income
housing and low-cost housing. Low-income or "afford-
able" housing--defined as housing that low-income resi-
dents could not afford absent government construction
or rental subsidies--is difficult to maintain over the