By Donal Malone

In many cities today, most of the new housing created is luxury or market rate housing out of reach for most residents. At the same time, working and middle class families struggle to find affordable housing.

According to a recent report from Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies, almost half of renter households in the U.S. spend over 30 percent of their income on rent, up from one third in 2000. The federal government considers these families "cost burdened" since spending over a third of their income on housing makes it difficult for them to pay for other basic needs such as food, clothing, transportation and utilities.

Why is so much luxury housing being built in cities where the need for low and middle-income housing is so great? One of the main reasons for this is the government's reliance on the market to create affordable housing. Luxury housing developers are given tax incentives and other subsidies to include a certain percentage of affordable housing in their projects.

In most cases this means setting aside 5 - 20 percent of units for affordable housing or contributing funds for it to be built elsewhere. In the process, the government is subsidizing the creation of up to four luxury housing units for every new affordable one. This is poor public policy since it makes the very condition it is trying to address even worse by promoting gentrification, further dividing cities along racial, ethnic and class lines.

Since relying on the market to create housing for working and middle class families has not been effective, what else can local governments do? One response is Jersey City's recent decision to become the "master developer" for a large-scale mixed income development project. In June Jersey City's City Council approved mayor Steven Fulop's proposal to purchase 95 acres of vacant property for $180 million to develop as a mixed-use complex with 50 percent affordable housing. According to a press release from the mayor's office, this project will be a "national model of mixed-income development facilitated by city government."

While many of the details of how this project will be financed and carried out are still unclear, it is important in restoring the role of government in providing essential public goods like housing. As master developer, Jersey City will decide how this property called Bayfront will be developed, not private developers whose interests are at odds with the housing needs of the city's mostly working class and immigrant families. It is another example of how cities today are attempting to fill in the gaps left the by the federal government's reduction in support for housing as well as other public needs.

However Jersey City decides to develop this property, it will do it in consultation with its residents, many of whom are community activists with the organization, Jersey City Together. This organization played a key role in the city's reversal of an earlier decision to allow luxury housing developers free reign in developing Bayfront in exchange for a small amount of affordable housing.

Jersey City Together called for the city to purchase this property to ensure community control of its development. It put forward a plan to create a mixed income community of housing, businesses and jobs for residents. Over 7,000 residents surveyed supported this plan over one based mainly on luxury housing.

Jersey City Together's description of their vision for Bayfront is in stark contrast to the one they ascribe to developers:

"When developers look at Bayfront, they see mega-profits and luxury housing. When we look at this land - which we fought for 30 years to clean up - we see an unprecedented opportunity to build a beautiful, inclusive community where Jersey City residents of all incomes can afford to live and raise their families."

These contrasting views highlight the conflict between those who see housing as a basic human need and those who view it as an investment. They also point to the class struggle between working and middle class residents and powerful real estate interests in shaping the redevelopment of Jersey City.

Jersey City Together's vision for Bayfront is about more than housing. It is about creating a community for the city's workers who are its backbone - its cops, firefighters, teachers, childcare, healthcare, retail and factory workers, and so many other residents who make Jersey City an appealing and diverse place to live and raise a family.

Many have weathered the hard times in the city and would now like to share in its prosperity. This vision, which also calls for creating jobs and small businesses, is more inclusive, sustainable and just than the top-down approach driven by luxury housing and corporate relocation schemes that have marked Jersey City's development for decades. While providing little in the way of housing and jobs for residents, it costs at least $80 million a year in lost taxes. Instead of rebuilding the city from the "outside in," Jersey City Together wants to rebuild the city from the "inside out."

Although much is made of the importance of voting and elections, and rightly so, it is in our everyday lives that a great deal of democratic power can be exercised.

In Jersey City, a group of residents has come together to fight for an alternative to the usual way in which redevelopment has taken place in their city. Maybe their approach can also become a national model of a more inclusive, economically viable and equitable way to rebuild our cities.

Donal Malone is an Associate Professor in the Sociology & Urban Studies Department at Saint Peter's University in Jersey City.

Submit letters to the editor and guest columns at jjletters@jjournal.com