NEW YORK, NY Sept. 13 (DPI) – The Op-Ed Board of The New York Times took a jab at America’s chronic inability to address its poverty-mired underclass, but suggested a government initiative so radical that its readers – even its self-professed liberal readers – took some exception to it.

The editorial, published in today’s edition, called for selecting some families to re-locate from their inner-city enclaves to wealthier communities using housing vouchers. Of course government housing programs have long existed – the 80-year-old Section 8 program, which assists 2.2 million households, provides rent subsidies – but the NYT suggests expanding the program so that poor children and their parents could move, attend better schools and live in safer neighborhoods by forcing better-off communities to accept the voucher payments.  It pointed out, citing a Harvard study, that kids who grew up in better neighborhoods did better in life.

But more than a few readers questioned the wisdom of this latest proposal of “social engineering,” as they called it. Mostly they said the NYT showed little regard for the impact on the wealthy communities, and the most popular comments reflected that concern.

Some readers too expressed amazement that a government program would select “winners and losers” in life, as bureaucrats chose who should stay in an inner-city location and who would receive the “magic ticket” to re-locate. Wrote one:  “I would ask – what happens to the towns that these kids get out of? What happens to the kids that don’t get out? … Not everyone is going to get one. Who doesn’t?” pointedly asked this reader.

“Meanwhile the families left behind are in an even bigger hole. Some sort of wretched ghost town? Why not ask these communities what they need to make their neighborhoods better?” This writer added: “I am way left, but I, like many, get tired of the ‘elites of the left’ always deciding they know what is best for others.”

Among the most recommended of nearly 300 reader comments:

While this sounds good in theory, why is the Editorial Board not considering the views of people who live in those “healthy” neighborhoods? Did the Editorial Board ask those residents whether they want poor people moving into their neighborhoods before making such recommendations?

I live in one of those healthy neighborhoods with safe streets, good schools, and great services. I paid a premium to buy a home in this area, and one of my criteria was that I wanted to live with people in the same socio-economic status as me. If I wanted to have poor people living around me, I could have bought a house at 1/4 the price I paid. I do not want poor people living near me for a multitude of reasons – will they maintain their property like I do? Will they have the same social etiquette my current neighbors do? Will we have random people coming into the neighborhood? These are all valid questions, and should be addressed before any such policies are implemented.

I recall a similar program where high performing students were paired with lower performing students with the goal of lifting-up of the lower performing students. Why does no one ever ask what is in the interest of the higher performing students?

Interesting how the the NYT endorses moving the poor into stable, healthy neighborhoods but criticizes gentrification of poorer neighborhoods. With gentrification, we see neighborhoods uplifted. Amenities increase. Suddenly there is a decent coffee shop, etc.
I understand there is a chorus shouting that this comes at the price of poorer people being forced out. I don’t buy it. Having lived in a relatively poor neighborhood for the past 13 years, Sugar Hill, Harlem, now seeing some trickle of gentrification, I have heard of no one being forced out. Meanwhile, our local community board 9 approves building projects for subsidized housing that only increase the poverty rate for our area.

Why would the NYT push for the poor to be moved into wealthier neighborhoods while condemning wealthier people moving into poor neighborhoods?

This seems to be the housing version of school busing. The intention is noble and the pilot is promising but the outcome in the larger trial may not be as hoped.

Congress and the federal government are so efficient, wise and caring that a program like this would be a snap. What could go wrong?

Moving poor families to “healthy” neighborhoods will simply render the latter unhealthy, by whatever metric you use for health. Have we learned nothing, nothing at all, from the last sixty years?

A few years ago I might have agreed with this. Now I am doubtful. I suggest the NYT Editorial Board listen to Malcolm Gladwell’s “Revisionist History” the particular episode – “Miss Buchanan’s Period of Adjustment”. It revisits the Brown vs Board of Education decision and it’s unforeseen and generally undocumented and unexplored consequences.
I am way left, but I, like many, get tired of the ‘elites of the left’ always deciding they know what is best for others.
I would ask – what happens to the towns that these kids get out of? What happens to the kids that don’t get out? Republicans LOVE their vouchers. Not everyone is going to get one. Who doesn’t? Meanwhile the families left behind are in an even bigger hole. Some sort of wretched ghost town? Why not ask these communities what they need to make their neighborhoods better?
It seems to me like this is the USA throw away culture on a grand scale. The end of that story is that there is no “away”. So fix and use what you’ve got. Stop wasting time, money, and people’s lives.

I’m sorry, but my economist’s head is spinning. Where does the extra housing in better neighborhoods come from, and what happens to the people already in it? This can only cause an inflationary spiral, and make housing in lower middle class neighborhoods more expensive. The harder but better solution is to improve poor neighborhoods. The problem is that governments spend more on the rich. The richer you are, the more likely you are to have access to better services, or to have that pothole fixed.