The authors first review the origins and birth of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Second, they analyze four recurrent types of problems: (1) lack of consistent presidential and congressional support for low-income housing and urban aid, (2) primary reliance upon the private sector to meet housing needs, (3) HUD's structure, internal conflicts, and shortcomings, and (4) the complexity of housing and urban problems. Third, they recommend three major changes: (1) splitting HUD into two agencies to deal separately with housing and urban development, (2) merging all federal housing programs into the new housing agency, and (3) creating a national housing bank. Finally, they advocate the adoption of progressive housing policies to better benefit poorer housing consumers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Achtenberg, E. P.1989. Subsidized housing at risk: The social costs of private ownership. In Housing issues of the 1990s, edited by S. Rosenberry and C. Hartman. New York: Praeger.
2.
Addison, E.1989. HUD: The real scandal. Journal of Housing46 (6): 287-295.
3.
Bell, R.1985. The culture of policy deliberations. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press.
4.
Bratt, R. G.1989. Rebuilding a low-income housing policy. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.
5.
Caves, R. W.1989. An historical analysis of federal housing policy from the presidential perspective: An intergovernmental focus. Urban Studies26:59-76.
6.
Coan, C. A., Jr.1969. The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968: Landmark legislation for the urban crisis. Urban Lawyer1:1-33.
7.
DeParle, J.1991. Kemp's proposals on poverty given sympathy, not action. New York Times, 30 June, A1.
8.
Downs, A.1990. A strategy for designing a fully comprehensive national housing policy for the federal government of the United States. In Building foundations: Housing and federal policy, edited by D. DiPasquale and L. C. Keyes, 61-112. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
9.
Dreier, P.1989. Lessons of the HUD scandal: Communities, not carpetbaggers. Nation, 21/28 August, 198-202.
10.
Dreier, P. , and W. D. Keating. 1990. The limits of localism: Progressive housing policies in Boston (1984-1989). Urban Affairs Quarterly26(2):191-216.
11.
Frieden, B. J.1980. Housing allowances: An experiment that worked. Public Interest59:15-35.
12.
Frieden, B. J. , and M. Kaplan. 1975. The politics of neglect: Urban aid from Model Cities to revenue sharing. Cambridge: MIT Press.
13.
Funigiello, P.1978. The challenge to urban liberalism: Federal-city relations during World War II. Knoxville: Univ. of Tennessee Press.
14.
Gelfand, M.1975. A nation of cities: The federal government and urban America 1933-1965. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
15.
General Accounting Office (GAO) . 1991. HUD reforms: Limited progress made since the HUD scandals. Washington, DC: Author.
16.
Goldsmith, W. , and H. Jacobs. 1982. The improbability of urban policy: The case of the United States. Journal of the American Planning Association48:53-66.
17.
Guskind, R.1989. Mr. Clean takes on HUD. Planning55 (10):4-7.
18.
Haar, C. M.1975. Between the idea and the reality: A study in the origin, fate, and legacy of the Model Cities program. Boston: Little, Brown.
19.
Hartman, C.1983. Housing allowances: A critical look. Journal of Urban Affairs5:41-55.
20.
Hartman, C.1986. Housing policies under the Reagan administration. In Critical perspectives on housing, edited by R. G. Bratt, C. Hartman, and A. Meyerson. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.
21.
Hartman, C. , and B. Zigas. 1991. The National Affordable Housing Act: Two views. Shelterforce13 (4): 6-9.
22.
Hays, R. A.1985. The federal government and urban housing: Ideology and change in public policy. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.
23.
Ink, D. A.1967. The Department of Housing and Urban Development: Building a new federal department. Law and Contemporary Affairs32:375-383.
24.
Institute for Policy Studies. Working Group on Housing . 1989. The right to housing: A blueprint for the nation. Washington, DC: Author.
25.
Joint Center for Housing Studies . 1991. The state of the nation's housing, 1991. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
26.
Kaplan, M. , and F. James. 1988. Federal agencies and national housing policies: Institutional roles, relevance, and responsibilities. Cambridge: MIT Center for Real Estate Development.
27.
Keating, W. D. , and R. LeGates. 1978. Who should benefit from the Community Development Block Grant program?Urban Lawyer10 (4): 701-736.
28.
Keith, N. S.1973. Politics and the housing crisis since 1930. New York: Universe Books.
29.
Leonard, P. A. , C. N. Dolbeare, and E. B. Lazere. 1989. A place to call home: The crisis in housing for the poor. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Priority Policies and Low Income Housing Information Service.
30.
Light, P. C.1993. Monitoring government: Inspectors generals and the search for accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
31.
McFarland, M. C.1978. Federal government and urban problems: HUD: Successes, failures, and the fate of our cities. Boulder, CO: Westview.
32.
Moore, C. H. , and P. A. Hoban-Moore. 1990. Some lessons from Reagan's HUD: Housing policy and public service. Political Science and Politics23 (1): 13-18.
33.
Moynihan, D. P.1970. Maximum feasible misunderstanding: Community action in the War on Poverty. New York: Free Press.
34.
National Housing Task Force . 1988. A decent place to live. Washington, DC.
35.
Newman, S. , and A. Schnare. 1990. Integrating housing and welfare assistance. In Building foundations: Housing and federal policy, edited by D. DiPasquale and L. C. Keyes, 389-404. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
36.
President's Commission on Housing . 1982. Report. Washington, DC: Author.
37.
President's Committee on Urban Housing . 1968. A decent home. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
38.
Redford, E. S. , and M. Blissett. 1981. Organizing the executive branch: The Johnson presidency. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
39.
Stegman, M. A.1989. Ethical implications of the HUD scandals. Journal of American Planning Association59:481-483.
40.
Stegman, M. A.1990. A glimmer of hope: HUD priorities for the 1990s. Urban Land49(7): 16-19.
41.
Steinbach, C. F.1990. Under Kemp's roof. National Journal, 14 July, 1707-1711.
42.
Stemlieb, G.1985. HUD—A study in power and piety. Journal of American Planning Association55:481-482.
43.
Struyk, R. J. , and M. Bendick, eds. 1981. Housing vouchers for the poor: Lessons from a national experiment. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
44.
Weaver, R. C.1985. The first twenty years of HUD. Journal of the American Planning Association51:463-474.
45.
Wolf, M. A.1991. HUD and housing in the 1990s: Crises in affordability and accountability. Fordham Urban Law Journal18:545-571.
46.
Wolman, H.1971. The politics of federal housing. New York: Dodd, Mead.
47.
Wood, R. , and B. M. Klimkowsky. 1990. HUD in the nineties: Doubt-ability and do-ability. In The future of national urban policy, edited by M. Kaplan and F. James. Durham: Duke Univ. Press.
