Actually, the Stanford article you cited says: “…The two studied affordable housing projects’ impact on the surrounding neighborhoods over a 10-year span, and found that new projects in poorer neighborhoods increased surrounding home prices and reduced crime, while new projects in wealthier neighborhoods drove down home prices and decreased racial diversity.”
That sounds like an argument against building low income housing in affluent neighborhoods.
And this(From TP): “In addition to “conspicuously [identifying] the development as ‘low-income government-subsidized housing,’” they’d have to include “a description of the development and an independent study of the development’s anticipated effects on local schools, area crime rates, infrastructure, governmental expenditures, population density, area property values, and the revenue of local, state, and federal governmental entities.”
I suppose Think Progress would rather the infrastructure stress and higher taxes be a surprise?
Finally, from your CityLab cite: “Although communities with a higher prevalence of voucher households appear to be higher in crime,” Lens writes, “there is no evidence that this is due to voucher households increasing crime.”
Okay, so how does Lens account for the correlation?
Think Progress’s cited articles, once you read past the gobbledy-gook really make the case that low income housing development should go to the low income people live. Per the articles, low income housing developments enhance low income neighborhoods but damage property values and raise taxes in affluent areas.