The Drawbacks of Demolition in New Orleans
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
The headline on a Dec. 20 editorial, "A Better Life in New Orleans; Failed public housing must be demolished," was misguided. You wouldn't bulldoze your house to build a nicer one if you would be homeless during construction. Nor would you bulldoze your home if someone else might be moving into the new one. The editorial relied on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's claim that it would cost more to make public housing habitable than to replace these units.
But William Quigley, the Loyola University law professor who is litigating the New Orleans housing issue, states that HUD figures show that it would cost only $20 million to repair the Lafitte complex while it would cost more than five times that amount for the demolition and rebuilding. Quigley also points out that under HUD's plan, about 80 percent of low-income units are slated to be permanently removed.
We should continue to protest the demolition of housing for the poor (which the New Orleans City Council approved after The Post's editorial was published) until all evicted families are guaranteed homes and until the government agrees to provide viable temporary housing while homes are rebuilt. Otherwise, demolition will not lead to better lives.
-- Josephine Ross
Washington
¿
As a former resident of a New Orleans housing complex scheduled for demolition, I agree that public housing policy there has failed the complexes' residents. I disagree, however, with the editorial's insistence that demolition of buildings will solve the problem.
