On the right of the poor to live in expensive neighborhood...

I read alot of news everyday, and I usually save the links to jog down thoughts in my journal here when I get the chance to do so. Being quite busy as I am this month, I only get to do some writing on the Thanksgiving Day, when things are quiet. (And no, I'm not so keen in meeting my mother-in-law, who rebuffs me 14 years earlier without even knowing my name, and who disowns my husband for marrying. But that's a story for another day.)

A few weeks ago, I was reading BBC News, on the row over housing benefits that subsidize the poor to live in expensive neighborhood.

I'm always quite ambivalent about the subject. The housing benefits resemble the rent control in New York, which allows those with lesser means to live in NYC where rents can get astronomical. I can most certainly understand the noble cause behind it, although I can't say if the execution of it is as fair and just.

I grew up in Hong Kong. In a place as small and expensive (particularly in rents) as Hong Kong, when the juxtaposition of the very rich and the poor can be stark, there has never been much about that. Why? Because the colonial government (prior to the handover of sovereignty from British to China in 1997) has done a very good job in providing and maintaining very decent public housing for average joes and the poor. Unlike those in US, public housing estates in Hong Kong were and still are very decent, with reasonably low rents and good maintenance. There's no stigma for living in public housing. As a matter of fact, you would be considered lucky to get a public housing unit from application (with long waiting list) or lottery. The colonial government has also made a point of softly peddling segregation of the areas, so that the highly prized areas (that are considered rich neighborhoods), like the Peak and Mid-levels, or in the south side of the island, would not suddenly have a public housing project erected next to it. One could say that, the exclusivity of those areas is almost obscene; but the colonial government has done a good job in walking that fine line. While the public housing provides a stable, safe, and cheap environment for the lower middle class to thrive (and to strive for their upward mobility), it allows the price of the nice neighborhoods to maintain their prices and values. That works out quite well, and nobody ever complains.

But what came next, after the pre-1997 colonial government became the post-1997 puppet government for Beijing, things change. Granted that there were situations beyond anyone's control, namely, the 1997 financial meltdown that started from Asia, the subsequent handling of the acute housing needs by the first chief executive of the government, Tung Chee-Hwa, has generated so much angst and despise by general public, that he was nicknamed 85000, short for the huge number of public housing that he aimed to add to the market to placard public needs.

Why the despise and angst, you would ask? Afterall, it's a noble goal to provide for the average citizenry. Nobody would dispute the nobility of the goal, but the execution was horrible. The government, under Tung, picked the prized areas (eg. some of which have water views that everyone would die for) to build public housing projects. Surely, whoever gets the lottery to win one of the public housing units in these new projects are going to grin ear-to-ear. At the same time, it generates so much dismay to those who see the value of the once expensive neighborhood came down so much, not only from the financial meltdown, but also from the influx of cheap public housing that private citizens would pay millions of dollars to buy. General public was appalled as well, since they see the general property prices going down the tube. In the surreal Hong Kong where its economic well-being ties so much with property development, nothing good can become of it. The end result? Nobody was happy, except those few who got lucky to win a public housing unit.

Perhaps due to the observations over the years, and that noble goals don't always translate well into practice, I can't say I'm that hot on the idea of force-integration of mixing the very rich with the poor. Yes yes, I know it's politically incorrect to say, but I have to get that out of my chest, because it's true.

The way I see it, if the government has done a decent job in providing decent public housing and transportation for the public, there should not have been any stigma or trepidation in occupying a public housing unit. Afterall, my family lived in one when I was growing up, and we love it. The togetherness of the middle class families along the corridor, and the kids next door, was great. This is unlike the scare in even driving by public housing projects in US, when one would fear for one's own life, ranging from robbery, rape, and even drive-by shooting. To me, it's a disgrace for government to just erect public housing projects, without follow-up to ensure a safe neighborhood, that puts such a stigma on the idea of public housing. The essence of public housing is still as sound as ever.

So, you would ask, do I support housing subsidy in UK, or rent control in NYC, or forced mix income neighborhood in Boston? I can't say I do, albeit the noble goal. Such measures are not unlike the school vouchers in US. These are just the quick-fix that government opts out of fixing something that needs to be fixed. Instead of trying to fix public schools, they would give school vouchers and allow citizenry to opt of the poor public facilities (education or housing), and go for the private ones, at a substantial cost. To me, that's just wrong.