In the reading the single biggest pitfall in the housing programs was the admissions policy of the Harlem River houses. Only the working poor were able to move into public housing, leaving the very poor and needy homeless. In my opinion public housing should be a refuge for those who really need it. However, the neighbors and the tenants wanted the power to be able to choose the residents of the area. Although the rating system of "mathematical impartialit

was administered, as stated in the reading, the the procedure did include non economic criteria as well such as cleanliness and good character. A similar problem is seen today with welfare. The actual admittance to the housing was based on logical reasons. The PWA tenants could earn no more that five times the rent. One has to possess enough income, yet not too much. "The tenants should have incomes sufficient to cover rents but also that their earnings would be high enough to ensure that their shelter costs would consume only about 20% of their income." However, the fact that most African Americans earned below their skill level ultimately led to discrimination. 

In the reading it did not mention the affect of crime and poverty in the area as a result of the housing projects. I was curious to find out whether petty crimes and vandalism was decreased or not. The Broken Window Theory suggests that prevention of petty crime can be accomplished through the beautification of the area by maintaining buildings and parks. I wonder if this can apply to the Harlem Housing Projects?