ABSTRACT
A longstanding debate among progressive community development advocates has been the extent to which efforts should focus on mobility programs that give residents of distressed neighborhoods more opportunities to move out or on investments to improve those communities. While most observers at least pay lip service to the need for both strategies, debates still rage over the merits and demerits of both approaches. Does mobility undercut traditional support networks? Does investment in distressed communities lead to gentrification and displacement of longstanding but relatively poor residents? The challenge is to find complementary ways to enhance choice and create more inclusive and vibrant communities.
