Comparison of Clinton, Edwards, Obama on Urban Poverty and Urban Renewal

(h/t Paul Hogarth of Mydd)

A San Francisco housing attorney, Gen Fujioka, wrote an article today for Beyond Chron where he compared Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama’s proposals to address urban poverty and urban renewal. It’s a really good piece.

Fujioka writes:

Hillary Clinton’s website offered the least comfort for someone hoping to see housing and urban issues put back on the national agenda.

…

Clinton’s message is obviously neatly tailored to speak to the concerns of the suburban middle class. Her website offers no vision or grand initiative to address the systemic barriers that have increased poverty and deepened the rental housing crisis. This middle class orientation may be only smart political marketing, but it also seems suspiciously familiar. While there were some initial efforts at addressing urban needs, Bill Clinton’s Administration adopted the same approach to federal housing policies as it did to welfare reform, it co-opted the right’s agenda. That Clinton Administration brought us ‘devolution’ (or ‘de-regulation’) of federal housing policies and a continued transfer of support away from impoverished urban centers to the suburbs and expanding ‘exurbs.’ Hillary’s starting proposals on housing (and the absence of an agenda to address urban poverty) already look like an encore of the first Clinton Administration.

Ummm, yes! That does ring a bell and sound very familiar to my memories of how the Clinton Administration addressed these issues. I bet you’ll find some entertainers and videos attending black churches on their site, but will you find a serious detailed urban poverty agenda?

Fujioka moves on to John Edwards’ plan and says:

John Edwards’ website is organized differently. Launched from his home page, Edwards’ issues page begins with reference to his “Plan to Build One America” and prominently places “eliminating poverty” as a central goal. He offers a sharp critique of America’s economic divide with a message that is clearly intended to speak to and mobilize blue collar workers. And within his agenda to fight poverty, Edwards explicitly addresses housing issues. In particular, his 80-page document entitled “Plan to Build One America” specifically proposes creating a million housing vouchers “to help low-income families move to better neighborhood,” challenge predatory lending through new federal regulations, and “reform and expand” the HOPE VI program.

But his overall platform is incomplete. The plan offers no specific program for deteriorating urban centers. In contrast, within his “Plan” there is a lengthy proposal to “restore hope to rural America.” While Edwards’ website makes a general call for “revitalizing” cities, the lack of a specific plan raises a question about his approach particularly because his limited policy proposals seem to point in one direction.

I think there are two things to note here. First, since Edwards has pitched himself as the ‘poverty’ candidate, you’d think he’d have his ducks in a row here. More importantly though Edwards’ policy suggestion for deteriorating urban neighborhoods is to give people vouchers so they can move to another neighborhood. Sounds pleasing to the itching ears, but clearly not completely fleshed out. The questions become: Is it feasible to move everyone? Won’t the people in the “new” neighborhood leave if the neighborhood changes? What happens to the places where people were originally living?

The author moves to Obama’s policy proposal:

Of the three Democratic frontrunners, Obama’s is the only site providing specific attention to urban poverty. A seven page document posted on the website entitled “Changing the Odds for Urban America,” states that Obama would take “addressing urban America seriously” and would create a White House Office on Urban Policy. While not a blueprint, the document does address key urban issues including addressing the need for programs to “make jobs pay ” and to expand efforts to provide childcare, public transit, housing and urban reinvestment.

Obama’s “Changing the Odds” policy document also pointedly notes that between 1993 and 2003 the country lost more than 1.2 million units of affordable housing—a loss of units that occurred in large part during Bill Clinton’s term. The document expressly ties affordable housing programs to fighting poverty but also emphases the need for ‘in place solutions,’ i.e., improving opportunities within urban centers, not merely moving people out. This is an important alternative message to the traditional narrative that the solution is to move poor people out of poor cities. In contrast with the Edwards message, “Changing the Odds” states: “Barack Obama will lead a new federal approach to America’s high-poverty areas, an approach that facilitates the economic integration of families and communities with efforts to support the current low-income residents of those areas.”

This is an important distinction here for people concerned about urban poverty. Edwards leans more toward giving people vouchers so that people can move out while Obama leans more toward putting the money and resources into the urban areas to rebuild them. Clinton doesn’t even get specific enough to offer a clear understanding of what her plan is.

I’d be interested in hearing Edwards and Obama distinguish themselves more on why their approaches differ.