Taking a lesson

Many urban planners regard the rebuilding of New Orleans as an opportunity, rather than a burden. The city had fundamental problems that were almost impossible to overcome because of political and economic pressures. But the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina presents what amounts to a blank slate upon which new ideas can be drawn.

In fact, the experimentation there also could offer important lessons for Southern cities that suffer from many of the same ailments that plagued New Orleans. The inequities of race, income and education will finally be addressed as Louisiana’s largest city is reconstituted, and we would be foolish not to play close attention. If some of the strategies work there, why wouldn’t we try to apply them elsewhere?

As in New Orleans, the poverty rate in many Southern cities is higher than the national average, and the poverty is disproportionately concentrated in the black population. This results in neighborhoods — and as a direct consequence, public schools — segregated by both class and race.

Now that New Orleans has a chance to start from scratch, what are city planners proposing?

A first priority is the construction of mixed-income housing, because it is a proven and practical way to alleviate the demographic division of a city. An article this week in USA Today about ideas for rebuilding New Orleans cited a Clinton-era initiative, called HOPE VI, as a model.

“Large public housing projects, from high-rises in Chicago to low-rise compounds in Louisville, were torn down,” the story noted. “In their place came communities for families of varying incomes, built with a combination of private capital and government subsidies. Families on welfare could live next door to middle-class families in neighborhoods close to schools and services.”

The article goes on to mention other ideas, like requiring developers to offer portions of their new projects at below-market rates, giving poor people housing vouchers so they can afford to live in better parts of the city, and giving tax credits to developers who build homes for lower- and middle-class families.

These are the kinds of ideas that could just as easily be implemented in other Southern cities, where the government already spends a considerable amount of money on subsidized housing. Why not ensure that public money is being directed toward advancing a public good (such as lifting citizens out of poverty), instead of compounding existing problems? Confining poor people to poor neighborhoods is a reliable way to make sure they stay poor. Taxpayer dollars should be used to reduce the burdens on society, not perpetuate them.

One city’s tragedy illuminated a shared disgrace, and it would be a waste not to act forthrightly by that light.