The law of unintended consequences in Memphis
Here’s an interesting story about crime in Memphis, Tennessee, and how it’s been changing over the past few years. Richard Janikowski is a criminologist with the University of Memphis, and he’s been working closely with the Memphis Police to figure out what was happening.
The inner city, where crime used to be concentrated, was now clean. But everywhere else looked much worse: arrests had skyrocketed along two corridors north and west of the central city [...] and along one in the southeast. Hot spots had proliferated since the mid-1990s, and little islands of crime had sprung up where none had existed before, dotting the map all around the city.
Why was crime happening in random spots around town, in the areas farther out, not in the inner city area?
Janikowski might not have managed to pinpoint the cause of this pattern if he hadn’t been married to Phyllis Betts, a housing expert at the University of Memphis [...] Betts had been evaluating the impact of one of the city government’s most ambitious initiatives: the demolition of the city’s public-housing projects, as part of a nationwide experiment to free the poor from the destructive effects of concentrated poverty. Memphis demolished its first project in 1997. The city gave former residents federal “Section8″ rent-subsidy vouchers and encouraged them to move out to new neighborhoods. Two more waves of demolition followed over the next nine years, dispersing tens of thousands of poor people into the wider metro community [...] Over time, she and Janikowski realized that they were doing their fieldwork in the same neighborhoods.
Which is to say, crime was happening where all the Section8 residents were living. It was not the kind of thing anyone wanted to talk about.
Betts remembers her discomfort as she looked at the map. The couple had been musing about the connection for months, but they were amazed-and deflated-to see how perfectly the two data sets fit together. She knew right away that this would be a “hard thing to say or write.” Nobody in the antipoverty community and nobody in city leadership was going to welcome the news that the noble experiment that they’d been engaged in for the past decade had been bringing the city down, in ways they’d never expected.
It’s a typical story of how the good intentions of government programs lead to whole worlds of consequence.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top48 Comments to “The law of unintended consequences in Memphis”
Sad, very sad. Once again, a purely materialistic philosophy proves inadequate.
Report comment to moderator
Dare I suggest that governments get out of the business of “helping” the poor? I would rather have more reparative justice than Section 8 housing.
Report comment to moderator
To paraphrase: You can lead the poor criminal out of the projects, but you cannot lead the project mentality out of the poor criminal.
When will the community “leaders” get the message that criminals are so by what is in the heart, not because of where they live?
Report comment to moderator
Wow, a very good and long article. Thanks for posting it HSK.
Programs like this are largely not helping anything. In Memphis we are just redistributing the population. We tear down housing and force the blacks to move out. Then we build new, “Uptown” housing to encourage the wealthy whites to move in. Wait 20 or 30 years and the whites will have left for something better, and the blacks will move back into the city. It’s a continuous cycle.
Likewise, forcing the blacks into the suburbs to integrate with the whites doesn’t work. Right now, whites are leaving a lot of the Memphis suburbs because crime has skyrocketed and home prices have plummeted.
I do enjoy the few happy stories where someone raised in poverty takes full advantage of Section 8 and creates a better life for their family. But these are the exception.
Report comment to moderator
The article and Harrison’s comments were very careful not to mention the people were black.
Black people always seem to get other people involved in their problems.
A lot of the net worth for many people is the value of their homes. To give rent vouchers to poor people to move to better neighborhoods is grossly unfair. They are being rewarded for their aberrant behavior.
Report comment to moderator
Nick,
While I don’t agree with your overall perception of black people, I can attest to this clearly being a black and white issue in Memphis.
And I agree that is unfair to people who have so much invested in their homes to have the local government create a program that assures to kill their property value.
Report comment to moderator
(DISCLAIMER: My intention here is NOT to hijack this thread, but only to voice a request to Harrison and/or the rest of the WMB staff. Thank you!)
Harrison,
You said, “It’s a typical story of how the good intentions of government programs lead to whole worlds of consequence.”
I would sincerely like to see a discussion sometime of the Law of Unintended Consequences and “how the good intentions of American foreign policy lead to whole worlds of consequence.”
I.e., why do we acknowledge the LUC in domestic affairs, but not foreign affairs?
Not here, but sometime.
(We now return you to your regularly-scheduled blog thread …)
Report comment to moderator
I sure wish the well intentioned folks in Memphis had called me before beginning this “feel good” project back in the 90’s. I would have been happy to tell them how it would turn out. (This is not due to my great intellect, lots of people predicted this when governments across the country set out with similar projects.) But, it wouldn’t have helped. Liberals know everything, and aren’t interested in alternative viewpoints.
Report comment to moderator
Black folks have had the misfortune to be on the receiving end of several of these government programs designed to “fix” our society’s problems.
Remember welfare? They wouldn’t let women collect anything if they had a husband. So, the women got rid of husbands, and have been raising kids with no dads in the picture for 40 years. Looks like this led to the crime problem, as the kids grew up without enough discipline at home.
What will the government “fix” next? I hope it’s not anything to do with me! I can’t afford any more fixes.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, let’s start with Jimmy Carter giving Afghanistan over to USSR invasion. How bout Clinton’s blind eye policy to Sub-Saharan Africa and Bin Laden in Sudan. I’m all for it Harrison.
Report comment to moderator
We are struggling with an incredible lack of leadership in Memphis. I can’t begin to explain how ignorant and arrogant our officials are.
In case you didn’t read the whole article…the woman who gathered all of the data about crime following the housing effort met with a city leader to prove that the program was a failure. His response?
“You’ve already marginalized people and told them they have to move out,” he told me irritably, just as he’s told Betts. “Now you’re saying they moved somewhere else and created all these problems? That’s a really, really unfair assessment. You’re putting a big burden on people who have been too burdened already, and to me that’s, quote-unquote, criminal.” To Lipscomb, what matters is sending people who lived in public housing the message that “they can be successful, they can go to work and have kids who go to school. They can be self-sufficient and reach for the middle class.”
Report comment to moderator
It also brings up the fatal flaw in government “help” – it has to be divorced from lifestyle/discipline changes to the recipients, and thus doesn’t ever solve the underlying problem.
In fact, by making the underlying problem(s) tolerable and livable, it tends to fuel the growth and spread of the underlying problem(s).
Report comment to moderator
“You’re putting a big burden on people who have been too burdened already, and to me that’s, quote-unquote, criminal.”
It appears that the burden of patronization, the “soft bigotry of lowered expectations,” doesn’t figure in his myopic calculus. That is quote-unquote, criminal.
Report comment to moderator
mac (10): Okay, let’s start with Jimmy Carter giving Afghanistan over to USSR invasion. How bout Clinton’s blind eye policy to Sub-Saharan Africa and Bin Laden in Sudan.
Frank: This discussion — when it happens — will not be productive if all we do is revert to the “us GOOD/them BAD” paradigm.
This is the same dynamic that arises when a husband and wife, in the heat of argument, each accuse the other of being the one at fault (because we all know there’s no fault to be found in the accuser).
In a consideration of misguided foreign policy that fails to take Unintended Consequences into account, there’s plenty of blame to go around, mac.
(And Harrison, I really, really would like to see this discussed — on another thread.)
Report comment to moderator
I can think of no better example of unintended consequences than gay marriage. Modern Christians and conservatives applaud the courts of the 50s and 60s for ignoring the will of the people and tossing out laws against interracial marriage. Christians and conservatives at the time didn’t applaud the ruling; they were horrified. But today’s Christians and conservatives think the rulings were great. Now, though, when the courts use those rulings and the legal principles behind them to ignore the will of the people and throw out laws against gay marriage on the exact same grounds, they’re outraged.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Harrison for bringing this IMPORTANT news forward. Many don’t want to broach the subject, those in Memphis are taking a hard look, and I applaud your courage to put it here on the blog.
Too many journalists are AFRAID to touch this subject.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train, sorry, but black and whites are the same species, simply a different color of skin pigment and often a different cultural background. We all descend from Adam and Eve. Refusing to allow blacks and whites to marry was basically treating them as different species. Opening marriage to other than a male/female pairing is a whole different issue. (You really did know this already, right?) So no, it isn’t a slippery slope at all to say men and women can marry each other and thus, ta dah! men can marry men and women can marry women.
Report comment to moderator
Species has nothing to do with it. You’re just being silly.
Report comment to moderator
And if being the same species is the important criteria for marriage, then what’s the problem? Men and women are certainly the same species.
And if blacks and whites should be allowed to marry because we’re all descended from Adam, then two men should be allowed to marry by that reasoning, since by your beliefs we’re all descended from Adam.
But you’re ignoring the point of my post, Cheryl, which is that activist judges threw out centuries old laws against the will of about 95% of the country. If you applaud that, you can hardly condemn the recent gay marriage ruling.
Report comment to moderator
Didn’t Olasky write a book (The Tragedy of American Compassion) about private/church vs government welfare programs?
Government programs can’t require recipients to change their ways.
No change = Same ol’ same ol’
Let’s put out a fire by squirting gas, at $4+ a gallon, on it.
“Stupid is as stupid does.”
Stupid L…
Report comment to moderator
Is there a reason why this thread needs to be switched to a “gay marriage” discussion? This isn’t what the article is about.
Report comment to moderator
In other words, we can talk about the unintended consequences that Victoria wants highlighted, but should hush up about the ones she’d prefer not to talk about.
Report comment to moderator
NT,
We have all sorts of homosexual, ‘gay marriage’ threads. It just gets old when a thread which has no homosexuality in the TOPIC is switched once again to homosexual issues.
Report comment to moderator
The topic hasn’t been “switched” to anything. The topic is about unintended consequences, which gay marriage is a prime example of. Whether you support or oppose interracial marriage isn’t the point, as Cheryl seems not to have noticed. The point is that activist judges flaunted the will of about 95% of the people and tossed overboard laws that had been on the books for centuries, and Christians today applaud those rulings. Well, they can’t have it both ways. If those were good court decisions, so are the ones legalizing gay marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Carry on NT, you can ‘gay’ the thread, no one can stop you, there are others who will be more than happy to join you.
Report comment to moderator
No, Night Train, those were not the same thing at all, unless one thinks that black people aren’t really people. What the newer rulings have done is change the definition of marriage. Earlier decisions didn’t do that. Perhaps it might have been better left to the will of the people even then; frankly I’m too young to know much about the history of this, and won’t give an opinion either way. But the earlier ruling was getting rid of discrimination in marriage; this is fundamentally changing the meaning of marriage (one might as well let me marry my dog or my brother if we’re going to change the definition of marriage). See the difference now?
And no, we absolutely do not need another thread on gay marriage, and I’m done here.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, when I made those posts it didn’t include you as ‘gaying’ the thread. Just wanted you to know.
Report comment to moderator
No, Night Train, those were not the same thing at all, unless one thinks that black people aren’t really people.
Then, by your reasoning, anyone opposed to gay marriage regards homosexuals as subhumans. Since you oppose gay marriage, you must regard gays as subhuman, huh?
What the newer rulings have done is change the definition of marriage.
No, it didn’t, not fundamentally. At least not anymore than the interracial rulings, did. It simply opened up the institution of marriage to more people, just as the first one did. Before the interracial rulings, people who wanted to marry outside their race, which didn’t fit the legal DEFINITION of marriage, were out of luck. The legal DEFINITION of marriage was one man and one woman of the same race. When courts threw those laws out, they changed the legal definition to one man, one woman. Now they’ve simply made another minor change, defining it as any two adults. And, since we’re all supposedly descended from Adam, and each and every one of us is half male and half female by definition, what’s the problem? Oh yeah – homosexuals are subhuman because they’re not descended from Adam.
Earlier decisions didn’t do that.
Yes they did, as I said above. The definition used to be one man, one woman, both from the samer race. They changed it to one man, one woman.
Perhaps it might have been better left to the will of the people even then; frankly I’m too young to know much about the history of this, and won’t give an opinion either way.
Well, you’re in your 40s you’ve said before, and I’m in my 30s, so wasn’t there either. You don’t have to be old enough to remember it. There are plenty of books and online resources; you can even read the decisions online. And if you don’t know much about it, you really shouldn’t go around “correcting” people who do.
But the earlier ruling was getting rid of discrimination in marriage; this is fundamentally changing the meaning of marriage (one might as well let me marry my dog or my brother if we’re going to change the definition of marriage). See the difference now?
No, that’s simply your spin on it. There was no racial discrimination in laws against interracial marriage. None. It wasn’t a law about race; it was a law prohibiting a particular action/behavior. The laws applied equally to everyone. Everyone was free to marry within his race; and everyone was forbidden to marry outside their race. There was absolutely no discrimination. If the recent ruling “changed the defintion” of marriage, so did the ones about interracial marriage. If the previous rulings were simply about “getting rid of discrimination in marriage”, then so are the recent ones. You can keep insisting that you have the right to invent your own interpretations of the rulings, but you don’t.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train,
Race is an artificially constructed category while sex is an innate biological category. The underlying problem with the proponents of homosexual marriage is the same as that of the opposers of interracial marriage–confusing categories.
Report comment to moderator
That’s crazy. There’s nothing artificial about race. Tell it to the sickle cell anemia researchers.
Why do people say the most insane, bat guano crazy things when it comes to race?
Report comment to moderator
NT,
You are right when you speak of disease’s which effect different races of people such as ’sickle cell anemia’ in blacks and ‘Tay-Sachs disease in Jews.
Tay-Sachs Disease occurs in those with Jewish ancestory.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train,
Obviously people have different genetic traits. Just to speak of one minor thing, I’m Scottish and a lot of us (including me) have dark hair and blue eyes. Apparently for people of other national backgrounds, blue eyes usually go with blonde hair. Many of us Scottish folk have generally recognized skills and characteristics, as well (frugality, artistic talent, etc.). I’m more closely related to others of Scottish ancestry than to those of African ancestry, so it makes sense that I’m more likely to share the same traits.
But would you then say I should only marry other Scottish people? Perhaps only people from my own family tree? We can speak of racial characteristics, in other words, but they’re irrelevant to whom we should marry, from a standpoint of definition of marriage. (There might be good reasons not to marry someone from a very dissimilar cultural background, just as there are good reasons not to marry someone of a different religion. Neither is the government’s business.)
But I’m sorry, marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. No side issues about race can possibly change that basic fact. If we are going to change that basic definition, we might as well drop the definition of marriage altogether. Because if men can marry men, then there’s no reason at all that a man can’t marry three other men, or marry one of each, one man and one woman. (The “two partners” thing is based on having one of each. Get rid of one of each, and you really should get rid of the limit of two.) We also might as well include children, and maybe great apes that want to be human. And yes, include relatives, particularly in homosexual unions since they won’t result in children anyway. If we’re going to throw out the only definition that “marriage” has ever had, if we aren’t going to limit it to “one man and one woman,” then it makes no sense at all to limit it to “two (and only two) adult humans who aren’t related to each other by birth.” The male/woman part is far more basic to marriage than any of these other distinctions are; the others lead naturally from it.
But if you don’t get it, you don’t get it, and I won’t bother trying to explain it any clearer.
Report comment to moderator
a couple of themes hit me;
- a reactionary notion of keeping the bad blacks locked away or cordoned off lurks under the surface.
- emasculation of poor men, note its the daughters who adapt better in the new neighbourhood and see new opportunities. The boys revert back to a false sense of machoism created by youth gangs as they subconsciously note they can’t measure up in comparison to their wealthier neighbors.
- if one plans such an inmense social change, it can work, but lack of proper planning and forethought will kill it.
- lack of assimilation; neighbourhood culture doesn’t transfer and those who move out feel alienated from their new surroundings. Some manage to adopt the new lower middle class ethos but not everyone. Its not a racial difference but a class difficulty; the lumpen proletariat don’t integrate well — a similar program with trailer parks would have the same rate of success.
Report comment to moderator
That’s crazy. There’s nothing artificial about race. Tell it to the sickle cell anemia researchers.
Like Cheryl said, certain traits become prominent as groups of people live in close proximity and breed, but these are not differences in kind.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, they are.
Some kinds of people are much more susceptible to sickle cell anemia – blacks. Blacks, whether you like it or not, are certainly a kind of human being.
Some kinds of people are much more susceptible to Tay Sachs – Jewss. Jews, whether you like it or not, are certainly a kind of human being.
Report comment to moderator
#32 Cheryl D.
This is the reason to vote for the upcoming CA ballot initiative on the definition of marriage coming up in November that I have been looking for.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Bob, it definitely would if I lived in California. My brothers (and families) who live there undoubtedly will.
Report comment to moderator
French Canadians and Cajuns are more susceptible to Tay Sachs — are they the same kind of human being? Or more likely its because they “live in close proximity and breed”
Report comment to moderator
So what happens when a Jew marries a Black? What kind of children do they have?
Report comment to moderator
Maybe this “bat guano crazy” article will help you understand. http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/race.htm
The strange thing is that this truth about race is one of the few things that most liberals and I agree with. Postmodernists understand it. Christians understand it. Only incurable modernists, apparently, can’t let go of the idea that race is a biological category.
Report comment to moderator
But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 1 Peter 2:9
1 Now when these things had been completed, the princes approached me, saying, “The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, according to their abominations, those of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians and the Amorites.
2 For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has intermingled with the peoples of the lands; indeed, the hands of the princes and the rulers have been foremost in this unfaithfulness. Ezra 8
The dictionary meaning of “race.”
RACE
Definition
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
The problem with those quotes is that the first passage is not written to Jews, and apparently doesn’t mean “race” as we know it, probably just “people group.” I don’t think there’s anything wrong in using the word “race” for skn colors and similar distinctions, but they aren’t really very important in the grand scheme of things.
Report comment to moderator
Ezra was speaking to the children of Israel, who are Jews.
In Peter 2:9 —- Because those who have come to Christ are a chosen elect race, we are an elect nation, (church) just as the children of Israel were elect and are a race.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train: Are you a Christian or not?
If so, how can you ignore this passage: “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” (Romans 1:26+27)
If not, then I know we disagree. Why mince words? Move on, please.
Report comment to moderator
No, I’m not a Christian.
I’m also opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage. Which has nothing at all to do with my point, which is how we got to gay marriage.
And who’s mincing words? You love to quote the parts of the Bible where God condemns same gender sex, but you ignore those passages where he condemns interracial sex/marriage, like Nehemiah.
Report comment to moderator
NT – 45
In Nehemiah 13 —- Nehemiah is speaking to Jews who had taken wives from heathen nations.
We as Believers are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. Today we are not under the law, we can marry whom we wish, but they must be Believers.
Report comment to moderator
but you ignore those passages where he condemns interracial sex/marriage, like Nehemiah.
Victoria’s right. Scripture consistently prohibits God’s covenant people intermarrying with those outside God’s covenant. It has nothing whatever to do with skin color. Even under the Old Covenant, Jews legally married Jewish proselytes. Christ’s ancestry even included women who weren’t ethnically Jewish.
Report comment to moderator
Back to the original topic –
Here’s the problem. We’re dealing with people. There will never be a solution to housing that is completely perfect. Perfect for us white folks usually means that we live in a suburb away from any signs of poverty. What the article failed to investigate more thouroughly was the impact of sprawl. As wealth moves out further and further away, it only stretches out the sustainability of the housing market, and as a result creates a volatile environment for crime.
Everyone likes to complain about government, and I’m not not a fan of many government policies, but the Hope VI program has been something that is worth striving for. We as caucasian Americans are going to have to get over the fact that poverty has deep roots in oppression. It’s not going to fix itself overnight. The best hope for us is to learn to live together as one people. Hope VI is atleast an effort to make this happen.
If you don’t believe it, take a trip to downtown Memphis – visit the uptown neighborhood. It’s not all composed of “rich white folks with in the eddie bauer chairs” sitting opposite of the poor black folks. It’s not perfect, but where else in the city are people trying to make it work? We’ve got to try don’t we?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!