This study, recognizing the longstanding criticisms of HOPE VI as a vehicle for gentrification, compares the goals of local officials with the stated goals of HOPE VI in order to investigate the extent to which local officials are using or misusing HOPE VI to achieve local development and revitalization goals. HOPE VI positioned itself as a program intended to deconcentrate poverty, however, in the case of Liberty Green, the focus on neighborhood development embedded within the federal policy results in HOPE VI developments being described as successful based on physical changes at the site rather than outcomes for public housing residents, who largely do not benefit from these changes. Evidence from this study suggests that most of the emphasis for the Liberty Green HOPE VI development revolves around neighborhood and community development goals. And self‐sufficiency, while a goal of the HOPE VI program, remains secondary.