This idea appeared on the OpEd page of the NY Times this morning. The argument goes something like this: Let the poor be given vouchers to apply for housing in good, better or best apartments wherever they are.  Not a bad idea after the fright that this was another idea for the destruction of the public schools. Parents who are either affluent or savvy today can shield their children from the terrible public schools by sending the children to private or parochial schools or to “good, better or best” public schools. The idea is, of course, not to let “our” children mix with “theirs”.

I lived in New Jersey across the state from the community that started the frightening idea that if you built good housing for the affluent then you must also provide so-so housing for the poor.  This was in Mt. Laurel where some residents persuaded a judge that it was a fair idea that if builders wanted to build town-houses and apartment houses that were for the luxurious few, then the builders were also obligated to build dwellings that were scaled down and affordable for the many more who were less affluent.  To my knowledge no builder today – particularly in Florida – is building affordable housing.  Every new housing project is labeled “luxury” even if it is one of the monstrous developments with low ceilings, small sized rooms’ in apartments crowded together with too few parking spaces.

Where do they keep the poor?  This is a question that automatically occurs to me when I travel through areas that do not seem to have slums and deteriorating abandoned sections that one can probably still see in New York City and Brooklyn which I know best. The poor, never known for living high, were unprepared for multi-apartment living.  Instead of low spread out slums that were created when the original settlers moved to the suburbs made available at the end of World War II, city planners decided to destroy decaying parts of the city where services were not up to modern standards and built the huge “Projects” instead.

When my father-in-law knew he was not going to recover from the operation that was scheduled to quell the pain from his advancing cancer he opted to move to one of these projects to shield his daughter and me from another terrible blow.  His poor wife suffered a stroke and then a pre-frontal lobotomy that made her helpless and landed her in a nursing home.  The projects were relatively new but were already partially destroyed by wanton juvenile and criminal adult behavior.

I do not know the ratio of builders to ordinary citizens.  I would assume that there are about .001 builder to every 10 thousand citizens.  Yet, each builder who makes enormous sums by buying up cheap marginal land and creates utopian vistas named “Rolling Hills” and “Cliff-side Vistas” in flat – just above sea level – Florida land has the power to avoid decisions such as Mt. Laurel.  Not only avoid but to ignore the obligation to provide adequate housing for those who cannot afford outrageous pricing of even “moderate” apartments.

There is today the still slim possibility to acquire “handyman” specials where the frame of a house is still strong but it needs gutting and rebuilding. We were lucky to buy an apartment that needed total renovation but at a price that is almost two years later ridiculously low. The requirements of present day codes make the reconstructions priced out of sight.  Where is Habitat for Humanity when it is needed? But the voucher idea might work if the rich would allow the poor to share their space.  Guess what those who live in exclusive, elitist, gated and guarded communities would have to say about that?