Another Project for the Projects

When talking about what is commonly called the 'projects', I prefer to use the term 'public housing community.'  But for the sake of this topic, I'll revert back to the term 'projects'.

If a person was to visit Calvert Square (a project in Norfolk) and go into the administrative offices, after signing in as a visitor and sitting down to wait for their appointment they more than likely would notice a big laminated sign that lists some rules for Calvert Square residents.  This Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority-issued sign outlines certain bylaws that address how a resident keeps his or her yard, when they should collect their trash cans, how long clothes can be left on the clothes line, and other items.  My office is located in the Calhoun Family Investment Center, in a Richmond project called Gilpin Court.  The staff there have nicely placed a sign on the door that tells residents they are not allowed in the building while wearing sleepwear (pajamas, doo-rags, slippers, etc.).  Many of you may have heard that several of the nations' housing authorities (Portsmouth being one of them) have banned smoking within resident units.  And there is serious consideration being given to having welfare recipients drug tested to qualify for the food stipend.  Are the project czars really trying to clean up the 'hood?  Are government officials actually taking action against the [perceived] negativity that exists in the projects?  Is this really happening?


It may not be a surprise that the first projects (Techwood Homes, Atlanta, 1936) were designed to reward and enhance the working poor.  The main goal was to promote and create an avenue towards home ownership for the downtrodden, in accordance with the New Deal programs of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s.  However, I'm not sure if the theorists did enough research or even considered the types of social ills that could affect these neighborhoods.  And obviously, a program geared towards helping the lower-class move to middle-class eventually started a vicious cycle of generational poverty.  The classic thing to do is point to the U.S. government for not providing enough programs for these neighborhoods so its residents can be exposed to the fruits of success; which would instill a sense of diligence towards achievement.  Contrarily, during segregation in the U.S. South many black neighborhoods were equally (if not more) impoverished than the projects of today.  As a matter of fact, some of my senior readers can remember a time where if you had a car you did not qualify to live government public housing.  Yet I think it goes without saying that the internal structure of a Church Hill was certainly more unified and dignified than today's Fairfield Court.  So where is the difference?

The people.  At some point (circa 1976) something left the black community.  Over time, the absence of this 'thing' created a widespread ignorance that increased the use of government issued welfare and decreased the emphasis of, well, most things that have to do with actual value.  With that said, I think its great that some of these housing authorities are putting the project back into the projects--trying brainstormed methods with an overall goal of improvement.  Every human being needs some form of real restraint.  But when you're trying to move up, restraint from certain pleasures or habits can be your best friend.  Since the goal of living in the projects to completely advance has been somewhat forgotten, bring that back like a DJ.  In addition, this restraint can be extremely effective if done with genuine concern and love. 

Shout out to the brains that are actually trying to help people who are seen as projects turn to people.  Add the love with that and it's a project worth admiration.

Check my own counter argument to this later on in the week.

Peace