Poverty in the Suburbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
Poverty in the Suburbs
8
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 12:00am
by PETER DREIER



Hidden in a Census Bureau report on poverty released in late August is a factoid with significant political and social consequences. Poverty has moved to the suburbs. Or, more accurately, poverty has expanded to the suburbs. Today, 13.8 million poor Americans live in the suburbs--almost as many as the 14.6 million who live in central cities. The suburban poor represent 38.5 percent of the nation's poor, compared with 40.6 percent of the total who live in central cities.

The headlines about the Census report focused on the increase in overall poverty--from 11.3 percent of all Americans in 2000, a twenty-six-year low, to 12.5 percent in 2003. In the last year alone, 1.3 million people fell below the poverty line, bringing the total to to 35.9 million.

This increase in poverty--along with a significant uptick in the number of Americans without health insurance (15.6 percent of the population)--is surely bad news for George W. Bush, who has been claiming that the economy is improving. The suburbanization of poverty also changes the demographics of elections in ways that are not yet determined but that could result in long-term Democratic growth.

Both the number and proportion of the poor living in suburbs has increased steadily. In 1970 only 20.5 percent of the nation's poor lived in suburbs. By 2000, that had grown to 35.9 percent. And those trends have continued.

After World War II, moving to the suburbs was a key component of the American Dream of upward mobility. Indeed, the proportion of Americans who live in suburbs has grown steadily, from 23 percent in 1950 to 50 percent in 2000. The 2000 presidential election was the first with a majority of suburban voters. The 1950s TV image of suburbia--shows like Leave It to Beaver, My Three Sons and The Donna Reed Show--reflected reality: Suburbs were lily white and middle class. Men commuted to the city to work. Mothers stayed at home with the kids or worked part time.

The suburban landscape today has changed. More suburbanites now commute to other suburbs than to cities. A growing number of blacks, Latinos and Asians now live in suburbia, although suburbs are still racially segregated. Similarly, the poor are not randomly scattered across the suburban landscape; they are concentrated in inner-ring suburbs close to cities, as well as in the suburban fringe--former rural towns swept up by suburban sprawl.

Like the rest of America, the suburbs are becoming more and more polarized by income. During the past two decades, the number of "poor" suburbs--those whose per capita income is less than three-quarters of the metropolitan area's--has spiraled upward. Most of their residents are not poor, but neither are they well-off. At the same time, the number of "rich" suburbs--those with per capita incomes above 125 percent of the region's--has also increased. Rich suburbs use "snob zoning" to exclude poor households (and, increasingly, middle-class families) by zoning out apartments and requiring minimum-lot sizes for large, single-family houses. Meanwhile, the number of middle-class suburbs has declined.

For the poor, in particular, living in suburbia is a mixed bag at best. Research on a federal program that provides the inner-city poor with housing vouchers to move to middle-class suburbs shows that adults get better jobs and kids do better in school. But few of the suburban poor live in such affluent suburbs or attend good schools. Most live in troubled communities beset with problems once associated with big cities: crime, hunger, homelessness, inadequate schools and public services, and chronic fiscal crises.

Especially in the suburbs, where the explosion of low-paying jobs in the service economy is most evident, the poor are the "working poor." Because most suburbs lack decent public transportation, they have a harder time getting to work. Few of the suburban poor have health insurance. There are fewer doctors and health clinics in suburbia that accept Medicaid patients and fewer social services. Few suburbs have any subsidized housing, so poor residents often wind up paying half or more of their incomes just to keep a roof over their heads. Many federal antipoverty programs are targeted to cities, leaving the suburban poor in the lurch (the earned-income tax credit is an important exception). And fiscally troubled suburbs have even fewer taxable resources than big cities to provide money to address the needs of the poor.

The problems facing the troubled suburbs are due in part to the growing fragmentation of our metropolitan areas. Suburbs engage in bidding wars--with each other and with big cities--to attract stores, malls and jobs, undermining the fiscal health of them all. They are also the result of "leapfrog" development: As the affluent move to upscale enclaves, they bring expensive shopping malls with them, leaving behind older retail districts and abandoned industrial parks. The older housing stock in the troubled suburbs--built in the 1950s and '60s--now requires substantial repairs but many residents can't afford them, and many banks won't make loans anyway--a new kind of "redlining."

Although the suburban poor include transplanted city dwellers and newly arrived immigrants, many are home-grown. Among them are families who were once middle class--or the children of the middle class--who can now barely stay afloat in the new economy. They often feel trapped: They can't afford to move to more affluent areas because their incomes are stagnating or declining, their jobs are increasingly insecure and their public schools, libraries and parks are chronically underfunded. They are more likely to buy their clothes at Wal-Mart than at Nordstrom. Many cannot afford to pay for college, as tuitions rise and government scholarships are cut.

For most of the twentieth century, America's suburbs were overwhelmingly Republican, while the big cities were Democrat territory. Today, there is no monolithic suburban vote. Suburbanites are up for grabs politically, because they are now a mirror of the larger society. The largest block of "swing voters"--and most of the swing Congressional districts--are in the suburbs. In 2000, Al Gore and George Bush each won about half the suburban vote. Bush won the majority of suburban men, while Gore captured most of the women.

For the Democrats, these trends present opportunities to recruit new voters but also problems in reaching them. As urban problems have spread to suburbia--especially the lack of health insurance, the shortage of affordable housing, job insecurity and falling incomes--as well as traditional suburban woes like traffic congestion and sprawl, middle-class voters may be more receptive to Democratic approaches that require a more active government. Democrats need to offset Republican appeals to white fears and resentments about the increase of immigrants and blacks in suburban schools and nearby neighborhoods.

While Democrats have a track record of mobilizing the urban poor through unions, civil rights and community groups and inner-city churches, they have limited experience mobilizing the suburban poor and near-poor, who are less likely to be union members or members of community organizations. Unions and progressive community-organizing groups like ACORN, the Industrial Areas Foundation and the Gamaliel Network are just beginning to reach out to the suburban poor.

The latest Census data remind us that stereotypes about the "inner-city poor" and the "suburban middle class" no longer reflect how we live. As we revise our old images of suburbia, America must change its public policies to acknowledge suburban poverty, and the Democratic Party must change its strategies to reach those with good reasons to like what it has to offer.

dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 7:40pm

Since welfare reform was enacted, the

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 8:14pm
Being from Chicago you will notice the Robert Townsend homes off of the Dan Ryan are being emptied and brought down. Likewise this is also going on in Cabrini Green(i think they are all gone rite?) and in many other FHA approved complexes. I was away in Indianapolis for a while while this started to take effect, and I noticed right away when I came back. From what I gathered, there was some sort of deal made with specific suburbs to build approved housing for these people that were effected.

One of those suburbs is Country Club Hills on the south side. At one time it was a very affluent community, mostly wealthy African Americans. Mr. T. (remeber him) and Jermaine Stewart from the 80's group Shalamar and the hit song "You dont have to take your clothes off"(how I remember these days), lived there. Now it is a place that you do not go to at night, where the police act like the Chicago mob, and it is bringing down the property value of houses in nearby cities.

This is not an improvement, it hasn't changed people's outlook, it only has brought that inner-city crime to our neighborhoods and into our schools. They are not being led off of welfare, they are just relocating. So it is goin to be the same stuff happening but in another place. Honestly, the suburbs are not ready for this from the police to the schools. It would be different if there was change, but the only change is now the crime rate has risen...

There are no winners.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 5:22pm

That seems to be bucking the national trend. Do you have any crime statistics?

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2004
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 6:27pm
I live in the suburbs on Long Island, and am an immigrant to this country who first lived in the projects. It was wonderful to move to the world of american suburbia: no street harassment, clean streets, well kept vegetation, peace and quiet. I have no idea what people who vilify the suburbs are talking about.

In the past couple of years however, the government has built some low income housing near the center of the town and ever since, there are constantly a group of young people from this area hanging out at the train station and behaving in a very hostile way especially toward women. There are similar cases in the towns around and it is literally dangerous to pass through these areas - I dont' know why, but the typical sign of the low income areas are delapidated houses, backyards filled with junk and especially men hanging out in groups at street corners - Making these areas especially unsafe for women.

Having been poor myself, I don't believe there is 'something wrong' with poor people, so I do not understand why these behavior/social problems occur. I feel that the government's attempt to help the poor is a good one, but I do not understand why it brings such problems. It's as if people who live in the suburbia are being punished for being well-off enough to have their own corner of the world and so the government is bringing some of the inner-city problems to spread them around.

I have absolutely no problem with having poor neighbors, but I do have a problem with crime and behaviors that make the world unsafe for myself, and the women I care for.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 9:26pm
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Country-Club-Hills,-Illinois

Encyclopedia: Country Club Hills, Illinois

Sponsored links:



Country Club Hills is a city located in Cook County, Illinois. As of the 2000 census, the city had a total population of 16,169.


Geography

Country Club Hills is located at 41°33'44" North, 87°43'15" West (41.562107, -87.720844)1.

According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 12.0 km² (4.6 mi²). 11.9 km² (4.6 mi²) of it is land and 0.1 km² (0.04 mi²) of it is water. The total area is 0.43% water.


Demographics

As of the census of 2000, there are 16,169 people, 5,297 households, and 4,248 families residing in the city. The population density is 1,354.2/km² (3,504.4/mi²). There are 5,491 housing units at an average density of 459.9/km² (1,190.1/mi²). The racial makeup of the city is 14.51% White, 81.90% African American, 0.15% Native American, 1.01% Asian, 0.00% Pacific Islander, 0.54% from other races, and 1.88% from two or more races. 1.73% of the population are Hispanic or Latino of any race.

There are 5,297 households out of which 40.9% have children under the age of 18 living with them, 52.4% are married couples living together, 23.0% have a female householder with no husband present, and 19.8% are non-families. 17.4% of all households are made up of individuals and 3.7% have someone living alone who is 65 years of age or older. The average household size is 3.05 and the average family size is 3.42.

In the city the population is spread out with 30.7% under the age of 18, 8.7% from 18 to 24, 29.0% from 25 to 44, 24.5% from 45 to 64, and 7.1% who are 65 years of age or older. The median age is 34 years. For every 100 females there are 85.0 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there are 79.9 males.

The median income for a household in the city is $57,701, and the median income for a family is $61,577. Males have a median income of $41,088 versus $33,759 for females. The per capita income for the city is $21,561. 5.5% of the population and 4.0% of families are below the poverty line. Out of the total people living in poverty, 7.0% are under the age of 18 and 5.1% are 65 or older.

Also there is this link..http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/crime/detail.asp?ncic=0162200&county_name=Cook

From this you can see that some things go up or down but basically only by about 1 or 2. This was from 2002-2003. They are slowly getting themselves together in trying to regain some sort of control. The total crime rate for 2003 was 4,788 compared to 2002 which was 5,319 (this is per 100k population). There are only a bit more than 13,000 people there. Arrests were 920 in 2003 and 1,137 in 2002. The biggest decreases was in auto theft and larceny. Drug arrests went up too.


So I dont know about you, but I dont see this as a good thing. There are no major businesses there and there is not even a high school here and only 13,000 people. I just also noticed that in 2000 there were over 16,000, so that means people are moving out...not a good sign either.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-23-2004
Fri, 09-10-2004 - 10:19pm
Well, f.y.i.:

the "BILLIONAIRES FOR BUSH" are a group of activists with 75 chapters nationwide (that's thousands of Billionaires for Bush) and they are getting a ton of press attention for their commentary on our country's ever-widening income gap.

Google them and check out their website, it's awesome.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 09-10-2004 - 11:38pm
This doesn't surprise me at all. It's the reason for increasing sprawl - the desire of the upper-middle class to get away from the crime and poverty that is encroaching upon the traditional suburbs.

Human nature is what it is. People want to feel safe and those that can afford to branch out will continue to do so and the developers will meet their needs as long as they can afford the price. Unfortunately, sprawl won't go away as long as communities benefit from the large $$ involved.

I was shocked when the local list of failing schools came out, a very large and highly regarded suburban school system was on the *needs to improve* list. It really bolsters what Mr. Dreier says.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Sat, 09-11-2004 - 1:32am
Thanks, we all get it, you're here plugging Billionaires for Bush, now do you have anything interesting to contribute to the debate?