In the documentary, Frontline and NPR investigate poverty, politics, and profits in low-income housing. The team conducted a nine-month investigation into the billions of dollars spent on affordable housing construction. They needed to figure out why only one out of every four people in need of housing received it. Moreover, the program was becoming more expensive while producing less. The investigation began in Dallas, moved to Miami, and ended at an upscale Costa Rica resort (Los Suenos resort).
People’s rents in Dallas were constantly rising, and they could not afford a roof over their heads, no matter how hard they worked. The team examined whether these people were working properly and why so many were having difficulty. Even though just a small proportion of individuals in need obtain vouchers, Dallas’s Section 8 application response was overwhelming (Young et al., 2017). Approximately 2 million people use the coupons, and the waiting list can be years long (Young et al., 2017). Farryn Giles, one of the three voucher recipients, had to wait six years to get her voucher. Giles planned to use the coupon to get out of the neighborhood and find a better job. The other two recipients, Linda Haggins and C’Artis Harris hoped to move to a better-off community.
The team looked into the relationship between race and housing, linked to long-standing segregation and discrimination. The Low-Income Tax Credit, a public-private partnership aimed at increasing affordable housing, introduced a whole new set of players and politics. In their efforts to build affordable housing, developers such as Terry Anderson and Potashnks faced numerous challenges. The angry residents were opposed to the presence of low-income housing in their community. A public hearing was called on the property, and the opponents won. However, Terry was able to construct affordable housing between McKinney and Frisco. She had to seek loans and grants to finish the project. The Potashnks, on the other hand, were forced into a pay-to-play arrangement, which resulted in a high-level political game. Generally, in a corruption and bribery incident, the Potashnks confessed to conspiring to bribe local authorities.
Later, the team traveled to Miami and met other developers, including Michael Cox and Lloyd Boggio’s Carlisle Development Group. Cox suspected Carlisle of falsifying the books, and Sherwin, an assistant United States Attorney, discovered a kickback scheme in which the two companies stole a total of $34 million from 14 projects (Young et al., 2017). Boggio and Cox later pleaded guilty to kickback scheme-related charges. Another developer, Pinnacle Housing Group, was discovered hiding project profits in a company called DAXC, which its officials owned. However, after investigating DAXC further, the FRONTLINE team found it was a person based in Costa Rica. They discovered Pinnacle owned a Costa Rican company called Casa Oasis, which operates a private villa where they spend their vacations.
The documentary addresses the domestic housing policy issue, which focuses on building more affordable housing for low-income people. Average household incomes have fallen while rents have risen, forcing people to relocate to slums. As a result, there is a rental affordability crisis. Another aspect of domestic policy discussed in the documentary is politics. Essentially, this indicates the extent to which the federal government should intervene in people’s social affairs. Some developers were forced to negotiate political deals without the ability to ask questions. Since Texas began requiring letters of support from local and state officials, politicians have gained more power and influence in determining the fate of developments. McKinney law enforcement officers and black youths engaged in policing and race-based relations. These federal policies further divided cities, and tensions over housing continued to increase.
The federal government spends billions of dollars to assist the poor in paying their rent and moving on to better lives. Within a few years, the state of public housing had worsened, necessitating the implementation of new solutions (Young et al., 2017). As a result, the government created section 8 vouchers to allow applicants to receive public housing assistance. The voucher covers the difference between the monthly rent and the renters’ ability to pay.
As new affordability options became available, the government introduced a new construction program, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). The LIHTC was a public-private partnership designed to encourage the construction of more affordable housing. The tax credit program was established in areas with a high demand for affordable housing. The internal revenue service (IRS) grants billions of dollars in tax credits to the state, which then awards the credits to developers (Young et al., 2017). The developers then sell them to the inventors for cash. They then use the money to construct the apartments. Overall, since the taxpayers paid for the majority of it, they charged the bare minimum rent.
Frontline’s documentary made an excellent case for discussing and demonstrating poverty in some areas of America. They successfully exposed inequity and a lack of empathy for low-income people. Affordable housing in a better neighborhood can lift one out of poverty when there is no discrimination because there are more and better opportunities. However, more research is needed to put an end to corrupt practices and politics in low-income housing and development.
Concerning Section 8 vouchers, they should consider making them more accessible, and one should not have to wait for so long to get one, as Giles did for six years. Families who received vouchers were still having difficulty using them, and some had given up on moving out of their neighborhood because of discrimination against families who wanted to use the coupons. I also believe that a period of 90 days to find a place that will accept your voucher is a little too short, as many people will lose them. I believe that something should be done to make it easier for section 8 voucher recipients to relocate to higher-income and better-off neighborhoods. Ultimately, this will allow younger children to complete high school, attend college, and obtain better-paying jobs.
Tax credit programs should be improved and expanded in the future. Communities are opposed to low-income housing in their area, perpetuating racial segregation. The solution should be a housing policy that prioritizes the construction of more affordable housing. According to the film, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit was not serving all people in need because some people in the middle were receiving more than they should. Furthermore, the firm was not doing enough audits; according to a Republican senator, just seven audits have been conducted in the past 29 years (Young et al., 2017). The IRS was not policing to determine whether the money was being used for its intended purpose. Overall, it was astonishing to imagine that this could happen since it was a multi-billion dollar project, and it is not easy to let something like this go unnoticed.
Reference
Young, R., Sullivan, L., Schwartz, E., & Kramer, F. (2017). Poverty, politics and profit [Video]. Frontline.