ShareThis Page
Prof spends year in trailer park as witness to poverty |

Prof spends year in trailer park as witness to poverty

Michael Kienitz
Matthew Desmond

Matthew Desmond spent a year living in a trailer park and a rooming house in an inner-city neighborhood in Milwaukee. He watched as people, unable to pay their rent, were evicted from their apartments. He talked to people who often had to make a choice between eating or paying their utility bills. He accumulated 5,000 single-spaced pages of notes and transcripts, much of it heart-breaking material about being helplessly trapped in poverty.

Yet, at the end of Desmond’s “Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City” (Crown, $28), there’s a message of hope. “Each one reminds me how gracefully they refuse to be reduced to their hardships. Poverty has not prevailed against their deep humanity,” he writes.

“I think the huge challenge, at least for me, when trying to write about the texture of poverty in America is the temptation to reduce people to the problem,” says Desmond, who appears Aug. 4 at Carnegie Library Lecture Hall in Oakland as a guest of Pittsburgh Arts & Lectures New & Noted series. “The temptation is to focus only on the negative stuff and not write about the humor or generosity or the courage or ingenuity in the face of this hardship.”

“Evicted” is the story of eight families who try to avoid losing their residences. They range from Lamar, a Vietnam veteran and double-leg amputee, to Scott, a nurse who grew up on a dairy farm in Iowa. Desmond, the John L. Loeb associate professor of the social sciences at Harvard, also features Sherrena, a landlord who takes no pleasure in evicting renters who are habitually late.

“I really wanted to capture the landlords’ perspective as much as possible because I thought we let ourselves off the hook a lot of times with these types of stories,” Desmond says. “We’re just quick to pick a side, saying these tenants are lazy or these landlords are crazy, when it’s way more complicated than that. And you see that in Sherrena, who is just this incredibly honest person, but she didn’t lose sleep at night over her job.”

Desmond admits there were times when he grew frustrated. He became angry with Larraine, a grandmother living at the trailer park who once spent her entire allotment of food stamps on a single, extravagant dinner. But the more Desmond thought about it, the more he understood Larraine’s action.

“What she did, to me anyway, is very human and very relatable,” Desmond says. “We can’t all live by bread alone, and the one thing you can do to survive the emotional or spiritual toll that is deep poverty is to survive a little bit in color. And there’s a bunch of behavioral economics and psychology that backs this up. It shows, for Larraine, that she’s not poor because she makes bad decisions; she makes bad decisions, if that’s what we’re going to call them, because she’s poor.”

Desmond’s research indicates that most American families spend 30 percent of their income on housing. The majority of poor renting families spend at least 50 percent of their wages on utilities and housing, with a quarter of those families spending 70 percent.

The solution, according to Desmond, is a voucher program in which families with the lowest levels of income would pay no more than 30 percent of their wages on housing.

“There’s a huge benefit for addressing poverty in America,” he says. “There’s a clear benefit to children. If we want to give children a fighting shot to reach their full potential, we have to give them stable, affordable housing. There’s a clear benefit to communities. We know that when people work together, they can improve their communities by driving down crime and keeping the streets safer. But not if we’re strangers, not if we allow this massive churning over in poor communities.”

Rege Behe is a Tribune-Review contributing writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.