US Representative John Lewis Disappoints Public Housing Residents

By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor, The Atlanta Progressive News (April 05, 2008)

(APN) ATLANTA – Public housing resident leaders and advocates are disappointed with US Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) after a recent meeting in his Atlanta office, where they said he repeated Atlanta Housing Authority slogans and failed to question the agency’s planned mass displacement of thousands of Atlanta families.

The meeting held March 25, 2008, included US Rep. Lewis and his staff; Diane Wright, President of the Resident Advisory Board and Hollywood Courts; Shirley Hightower, President of Bowen Homes; Anita Beaty, Executive Director of the Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless; Lindsay Jones, private attorney for the RAB Board and Hollywood Courts; Carl Hartrampf of the Task Force; Renee Glover, Executive Director of Atlanta Housing Authority; Barney Simms, Vice President for External Affairs for AHA; and Jeffrey Walker, President of Bankhead Court who was brought by AHA.

"He declares it an arbitration," Jones recalled of US Rep. Lewis. "He leans to their [AHA’s] side and starts taking their arguments: Aren’t these high crime areas and don’t people want to get out of them? He sat on the other side of the room with them."

"They [Lewis and AHA] came in together. John Lewis was falling asleep," Wright told Atlanta Progressive News after the meeting, adding that his behavior appeared erratic, and that he kept waking up in outbursts.

"John Lewis was sitting there like he was tired to death. That man didn’t want to hear what Lindsay [Jones] had to say," Wright said.

"His aide always talk for him," Wright added. "It’s like that’s the Congressman and John Lewis just a shell."

"John Lewis asked Shirley [Hightower] if she thinks the Mayor and Housing Authority are doing this [allowing the crime in Bowen Homes] purposely? Shirley said yeah. John Lewis shouted I can’t believe that," Wright said, adding she believes AHA told him that to try to discredit the residents.

"Then he asked another question toward Shirley again, do you want your people to be in safe, affordable, sanitary housing?" Wright replied, adding that is an AHA slogan.

"The meeting was a serious disappointment," Beaty said. "We had asked for the meeting in order to get relief from Congress at the federal level for displacement and lack of due process the Housing Authority has engaged in this last year and a half."

The residents and leaders, including, for instance, City Councilwoman Felicia Moore, have already attempted arbitration with AHA.

"It is very difficult to negotiate with powerful forces who are interested in profit and land exchange and gentrification which is the declared value of the AHA," Beaty said.

"The casualties of gentrification are low-income individuals and families, who have a multiplicity of issues which keep them from competing in the marketplace," Beaty said.

"It seems so simple, to have looked at the documents and seen the blatant disregard for justice and fairness," Beaty said.

"In the past, ten to fifteen years ago, I felt clear that we did have a friend in Congress. I think now he seems to be very concerned about his election. The folks around him are concerned about being as noncontroversial as possible," Beaty said.

"He's being steered into avoiding issues where he has to take a side," Beaty said.

"When his district director announced the purpose of the meeting, I made it clear we wanted intervention, we had not asked for mediation," Beaty said.

"He announced it was a meeting to preside over whatever we could do to come together. In walked Renee Glover and Barney Simms and it was clear they'd been there," Beaty said. "I was shocked of his seeming lack of knowledge about homelessness. He completely accepted their argument that all those residents are criminals. He also seemed to believe that homeless people are mostly Black men who have addiction issues or mental illness," Beaty said.

Lewis’s Office alerted AHA and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper of their activities with the residents before they happened. APN knew about the meetings but did not report on them beforehand so that the AJC would not have time to bully him before Lewis decided what actions, if any, to take.

"Somebody in his office, probably the press secretary, has been alerting the press about his meetings with us almost to ensure it's not going to result in anything," Beaty said.

"They were almost trying to protect the meeting from appearing to be confrontation. It was just appalling, it made us all sick to our stomachs. I want him [Lewis] to do something to justify his [progressive] reputation and I want him to do it now. We so desperately need leadership in this City," Beaty said.

Congressman Lewis is being challenged in the Democratic Primary to be held in July 2008, by Rev. Markel Hutchins, who was a spokesman for the family of Kathryn Johnston, a 92 year-old woman who was killed by Atlanta Police last year. Hutchins criticizes Lewis for his previous endorsement of US Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) for President of the United States, arguing Lewis should have supported Obama.

Another possible contender has made their interests known to APN and is currently exploring fundraising for a challenge to Lewis. This person hopes to make an announcement by April 15, 2008.

RESIDENTS, ADVOCATES REACH OUT TO LEWIS - Resident leader Diane Wright was the first to reach out to Lewis in late February 2008.

"We have treid [sic] to reach out to the housing authority here but! to not avail they have shut an deaf ear to the residents the assocations [sic] to the fact of relocation plan, Congressman Lewis our rights have been volated [sic] and no one seen to but us, We know there is not enough housing in the merto [sic] Atlanta area to house these residents," Wright wrote in an email [spelling errors left for accuracy] to Ruth Fletcher, an assistant to Congressman Lewis’s Office, on February 29, 2008.

"We had no in put in the plan what so ever and hud is not helping us either. We sent resoltion [sic] in to hud with our resident saying they had no say but! it seem like we are the only persons that hears us is us, We thought this was America you know the great USA,But! there seem to be a war on poor people in America... We are asking for help because we need to live and keep a roof over our children too. Mr. Congressman we are asking if you would to meet with the remaining resident presidents of the assocations [sic] so you will really understand our concerns."

Wright never received a reply.

Then, State Rep. "Able" Mable Thomas suggested at a legislative hearing on March 07, 2008, that she and other lawmakers write a letter to Mr. Lewis urging his intervention.

"We are writing to you as a state legislative delegation over fair housing and due process concerns that were recently brought to our attention by constituents whom we share with you and reside in public housing in the City of Atlanta," State Rep. Thomas and others wrote in a letter to Lewis dated March 10, 2008.

Attached to the letter were statistics showing a lack of affordable housing in Atlanta and a recent report by Deirdre Oakley, Assistant Professor of Sociology at Georgia State University, showing voucher-leasing opportunities tend to be clustered in majority Black and high poverty neighborhoods.

Then, Anita Beaty of the Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless requested a meeting with US Rep. Lewis on March 12, 2008, working with Jared McKinley in his office.

Congressman Lewis’s Office agreed that he would visit a monthly coalition meeting convened by the Task Force, visit some of the remaining public housing communities, and would meet with residents and leaders.

Mr. Lewis did visit the Task Force meeting on Thursday, March 20, 2008, at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Atlanta, where witnesses say he listened to a presentation by attorney Lindsay Jones, made a brief speech where he told residents "You have a friend," listened to testimony by two residents having problems with their vouchers, watched a video of resident testimony, and then quickly left to visit the communities.

"He did the dog and pony show. He said I'm down with the program. He spent five minutes in each community [Bowen Homes and Hollywood Courts]," Jones said.

When John Lewis arrived at Bowen Homes, Barney Simms from AHA showed up with police, Beaty said.

Hightower insisted Simms leave and eventually he did, Beaty said.

Lewis then visited Hollywood Courts where he gave a five minute speech to about 25 residents, Wright said. Lewis told the residents he wasn’t promising them anything, Wright said.
In all, Mr. Lewis never did take the time to learn the issues from the resident leaders and advocates before convening his mediation with AHA.

The AJC ran two news articles on the Lewis/AHA story, including one about a paragraph long, in addition to one opinions article. Mr. Lewis’s re-election campaign posted links to two of the articles on his website.

After the meeting, Lewis told the AJC he decided that he would support affordable housing tax credits in Congress, which does not in any way respond to the concerns of residents in danger of being displaced.

Mortgage Bill Passed by Senate Contains Little for Borrowers

A Message from the Coalition on Human Needs:

On April 10, the Senate passed The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, H.R. 3221, a bill that favors lenders and builders and does precious little to address the plight of struggling borrowers in danger of foreclosure. The bill passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 84 to 12. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) said, “Quite candidly, what we’ve done here doesn’t quite live up to the title.” Provisions in the bill include:

· allowing homebuilders and other money-losing businesses to apply money lost in 2008 and 2009 to tax returns filed as far back as 2004 and claim immediate refunds at a three-year cost of $25 billion;

· creating a $7,000 tax credit for buyers of foreclosed homes;

· providing a standard deduction of $500 for single filers and $1,000 for joint filers for homeowners who are non-itemizers who pay property taxes;

· permanently raising the value of homes that the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) is allowed to insure to $550,000;

· providing $4 billion through the Community Development Block Grant program to communities to buy vacant foreclosed properties to rehabilitate for sale or rent;

· providing $150 million for community groups to offer housing counseling and $30 million for legal service attorneys to help borrowers;

· authorizing $10 billion in new tax-exempt bond authority for state and local housing agencies to refinance troubled mortgages.

During bill consideration an amendment supported by many advocates to allow bankruptcy judges to renegotiate the terms of mortgages on primary residences was rejected. Some opponents of the measure contend that any such negotiations should occur directly between homeowners and lenders. However, in many cases the mortgages have been packaged and resold numerous times and the current mortgage holder is not accessible.

Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) and other analysts point out that that the most expensive tax provisions in the bill are likely to help large corporate homebuilders and yet do little for ordinary Americans who are affected by the dramatic downturn in home values. Some of the provisions are ill-designed, like the standard deduction for non-itemizers which provides no help to families without taxable income. The $7,000 tax credit for people who purchase foreclosed homes is likely to lead to higher prices for these homes. Some analysts are concerned that the bill’s provisions may provide some incentives for lenders to foreclose rather than negotiate new terms to enable owners to avoid loss of their homes.

Next, the bill will move to the House where last week the House Ways and Means Committee approved an $11 billion tax package that rejects help for home builders and offers a $7,500 tax credit to first-time homebuyers rather than buyers of foreclosed properties. The House Financial Services Committee hopes to add to legislation passed by the Senate a provision allowing the FHA to insure and guarantee an additional $300 billion in refinanced mortgages that have been restructured by mortgage holders and lenders to a level that the borrower can reasonably be expected to pay. Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) both support this provision.

HUD Presents 2nd National Report to Congress on Homelessness in US.

Following is the Executive Summary of the report with footnotes omitted and reformatting for copying purposes. The report can be viewed in it's entirety at: http://www.hudhre.info/documents/2ndHomelessAssessmentReport.pdf

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is pleased to present this second national report to Congress on homelessness in America. The first Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) was submitted in February 2007. These reports were developed in response to a series of Congressional directives beginning with the FY 2001 HUD Appropriations Act. In that year, Congress directed the Department to assist communities to implement local Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS) and required every jurisdiction to have client-level reporting within three years. Senate Report 106-410 noted that HMIS data could be used to develop an unduplicated count of homeless people and to analyze the use and effectiveness of homeless assistance services. To that end, Congress further charged the Department with collecting and analyzing HMIS data from a representative sample of communities in order to understand the nature and extent of homelessness nationally.

The second AHAR makes use of two primary data sources. The first source is HMIS data on the number, characteristics, and patterns of shelter use among sheltered homeless persons— or persons who used emergency and transitional housing—during a six-month period from January 1 through June 30, 2006. The data were obtained from a nationally representative sample of communities. A total of 58 sample sites participated in the second AHAR, including 49 communities that participated in the first AHAR and 9 new sample communities that were not able to provide data for the first report. Because some sample communities are still working to secure the participation of homeless assistance providers in HMIS, not all could provide data for this analysis (or could provide only partial data). As a result, the estimates provided in this report have large confidence intervals (i.e., sampling error).

In addition to the sample communities, 16 communities, or “contributing communities,” that were not part of the original sample met the minimum requirements for participation and volunteered to provide their data for this second report. These communities, or “contributing”
sites, have advanced HMIS systems, and several had participated in the first AHAR. Their data help to improve the reliability of the national estimates.

The report also makes use of data provided by all Continuums of Care (CoCs) as part of their 2006 HUD application for funding. The CoC application data contain information on sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night in January 2006. While only for a single night, these point-in-time (PIT) data complement the HMIS data because they provide information on the number of unsheltered homeless persons and on the national inventory of homeless shelter beds.

The remainder of this Executive Summary reviews the key topics addressed in the AHAR:

l The number of homeless persons based on point-in-time counts;
l The number & characteristics of sheltered homeless persons based on longitudinal HMIS data;
l The nation’s capacity to house homeless persons;
l Where homeless persons receive shelter; and
l The patterns of shelter use in emergency shelter and transitional housing.

The Number of Homeless Persons at a Point in Time - According to CoC application data, the total number of homeless persons reported on a single night in January 2006 was 759,101. At this point in time, more than half of the nation’s homeless population (56 percent or nearly 428,000 persons) were sheltered, while 44 percent (331,000 persons) were unsheltered. Overall, these numbers represent a slight decrease when compared to the PIT data reported by the CoCs in 2005 (from 763,010 in 2005 to 759,101 in 2006)

This change is comprised of a decrease (-13,700) in the total number of unsheltered homeless persons, offset somewhat by an increase (+ 9,800) in the number of sheltered homeless persons. Of the nearly 428,000 people in shelter, approximately 52 percent were persons in households without children, while approximately 48 percent of the sheltered homeless were persons in households with children. By contrast, unsheltered homeless persons were more than twice as likely to be in households without children. Nearly 70 percent of unsheltered persons were in households without children, while approximately 30 percent were persons in households with children. Compared to data reported in the first AHAR, we find that the distribution of sheltered and unsheltered persons by household type remains essentially unchanged.

Point-in-time data from CoC applications also provide information about sheltered homeless subpopulations, including the number of persons who are chronically homeless. Ending chronic homelessness has been a goal of the Administration for several years. A chronically homeless person is defined as an unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who has either been continuously homeless for a year or more or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years. To be considered chronically homeless, a person must have been on the streets or in emergency shelter (i.e., not in transitional or permanent housing) during these stays.

Based on their PIT counts, CoCs reported a total of 155,623 chronically homeless people in their jurisdictions in January 2006. This represents approximately 21 percent of the total sheltered and unsheltered homeless population. Approximately 66 percent of chronically homeless individuals in January 2006 were unsheltered homeless persons, and 34 percent were sheltered homeless persons. Compared to 2005 data reported in the first AHAR the number of chronically homeless persons declined by 11.5 percent (from 175,914). The decline could be partially attributed to HUD’s ongoing efforts to address the special needs of this subpopulation by developing permanent supportive housing and providing local communities with technical assistance guidance for developing effective interventions. It may also be attributed to improved techniques among local communities to capture this information accurately.

The HMIS data provided by the AHAR sample allow for estimation of the number and characteristics of people using homeless services over time. The population of people using homeless services over time is different from the population at a single point in time. Point-in-time estimates capture a higher share of homeless individuals and families who use shelters or transitional housing for long periods of time and underrepresent people whose homelessness is episodic (cycling in and out of shelters) and people who have single, brief episodes of homelessness. Thus, HMIS data can provide a more accurate picture than point-in-time estimates of the characteristics and shelter use patterns of people who experience homelessness over a period of time.

Based on the HMIS data provided by the national AHAR sample, more than 1,150,000 total persons used emergency shelter and/or transitional housing nationwide from January through June 2006. Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of all shelter users during the six-month time period are homeless as individuals or in households without children. About one-quarter (27 percent) are members of households with children. By comparison, a much larger proportion of the nation’s poor (65 percent) and the total U.S. population (55 percent) are persons in households with children.

Other key findings about sheltered homeless persons based on six months of HMIS data include:

The majority of all shelter users (53 percent) are single adult males. By comparison, single adult men constitute just 23 percent of the U.S. population and 16 percent of the poverty population.


Children represent roughly 20 percent of all people who use the shelter system. This includes unaccompanied youth and children in households with adults. Although this is a lower percentage than that of children among the U.S. poverty population (35 percent), the number of children who not only are poor but also become homeless is a cause for concern.


Homelessness disproportionately affects minorities, especially African Americans. Minorities constitute one-third of the total U.S. population and about half of the poverty population, but about two-thirds of the sheltered homeless population. African-Americans are heavily overrepresented in the sheltered homeless population, representing about 44 percent of the sheltered homeless population but 23 percent of the poverty population and only 12 percent of the general population.


Fourteen percent of all homeless adults who accessed a shelter during the six-month time period are veterans. While underrepresented among the poverty population, veterans are overrepresented in the homeless shelter population when compared to the general population.


A significant proportion of the sheltered homeless population is disabled. Sheltered homeless adults are more than twice as likely to have a disability when compared to the general U.S. population. Approximately 38 percent of adults who used a shelter between January 1 and June 30, 2006 had a disabling condition compared to 30 percent of the poverty population and 17 percent of the total U.S. population.

The Nation’s Capacity to House Homeless Persons

According to 2006 CoC application data, there are approximately 406,586 emergency and transitional year-round beds nationwide. About one-half of the total year-round housing inventory (206,877 beds or 51 percent) is in emergency shelters, and the remaining inventory (199,709 or 49 percent) is in transitional housing programs. The mix of available year-round beds differs slightly across household types. There are more family beds in transitional housing (about 103,743 beds) than in emergency shelters (95,301 beds), and conversely, there are more individual beds in emergency shelters (111,576 beds) than in transitional housing (95,966 beds).
The 2006 inventory also includes approximately 21,769 seasonal beds and 55,047 overflow/voucher beds, which are used sporadically throughout the year depending on weather conditions and demand. If these beds are added to the total number of year-round shelter beds in emergency and transitional housing programs, the nation’s peak bed capacity for homeless persons is about 483,402 beds.

In addition to funding emergency shelter and transitional housing beds, HUD continues to encourage communities to develop permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless persons. Overall, there are about 196,626 permanent supportive housing beds in the nation’s bed inventory. Approximately 56 percent of the beds (109,351) are in projects serving unaccompanied individuals, while the rest (87,275) are in projects serving families.

Where Homeless Persons Receive Shelter - Homelessness is, in general, concentrated in central cities. Based on data from the 2006 AHAR sample, approximately 75 percent of homeless persons are in central cities rather than in suburban or rural areas. This is roughly double the proportion of the poverty population in central cities and three times the proportion of the U.S. population in central cities.

Mobility patterns among homeless people most likely account for much of these differences. A 1996 study of people using homeless assistance services indicates that only 28 percent of homeless persons began their homeless spell in a central city (which is only a little higher than the share of the population living in central cities), and 44 percent of homeless persons left the community where their current homeless spell began. The AHAR data suggest that much of this mobility among homeless persons consists of moving from suburban or rural areas to central cities. There are many possible reasons for such mobility, including movement to more densely populated areas to find jobs, to be closer to relatives who may provide support, or to access the greater variety of homeless residential and supportive services that may be available in a larger city.

Patterns of Shelter Use in Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing - More than three-quarters of all those served by homeless residential programs between January and June 2006 used emergency shelters only. About 18 percent used transitional housing programs only, and a small share (3.5 percent) accessed both types of residential services.

The length of stay in emergency shelters and transitional housing is very different for families with children than for individuals. For emergency housing only, about 19 percent of the persons in households with children stayed a week or less compared to 40 percent of unaccompanied females and 45 percent of unaccompanied males. At the same time, 7 percent of persons in families stayed at an emergency shelter every night (181 nights) during the study period compared to less than one percent of unaccompanied individuals. The median length of stay in emergency shelter for persons in families was 37 days compared to 17 days for unaccompanied females and 12 days for unaccompanied males.

There are also differences in length of stay between individuals and households with children who were served in transitional housing during the six-month reporting period for the second AHAR. The median length of stay for persons in households with children was 135 days compared to 94 days for unaccompanied females and 72 days for unaccompanied males. Transitional housing programs usually allow clients to stay for up to two years while working toward a permanent housing solution, so it not surprising that many people stayed there during the entire six-month (or 181 days) reporting period. Almost one-third (30 percent) of persons in families stayed in transitional housing the entire study period compared to only 13 percent of unaccompanied males. The share of unaccompanied females staying the whole period was close to that of persons in families (27 percent).

Looking Ahead - Participating communities have made much progress since the start of the AHAR 2 data collection period in early 2006, but additional work is needed to increase the precision of the estimates and the breadth of information reported. HUD is continuing outreach and technical assistance activities to help communities increase the number of providers participating in HMIS and improve the quality and usefulness of data for local needs. These efforts will also enable more communities to participate in AHAR. Simultaneously, HUD continues to provide technical assistance to communities on conducting one-night street and shelter counts, which will continue to be the source of information on the unsheltered homeless population in future AHAR reports.

HMIS implementation has progressed to the point that communities should now be able to provide data for an entire year. Since the third AHAR will cover a one-year period (October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007), HMIS data will also be able to provide more detailed patterns of service use for people experiencing homelessness. This will help clarify the picture of current homeless service use and the needs of people experiencing homelessness.


Editor Note: Added the 1st report for review

The Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress(February 2007, 98 pages)

State Committee Convenes Hearing on Public Housing

By Jonathan Springston, Senior Staff Writer, Atlanta Progressive News (March 10, 2008)

(APN) ATLANTA – The Housing and Economic Development Committee of the Georgia State House of Representatives met Friday, March 07, 2008, to listen to testimony concerning Atlanta’s campaign to demolish all remaining public housing in Atlanta.

"We all knew we had to do something," State Rep. Mable Thomas, Chair of the Committee, said. "We all sort of came together to see what we could do."

Several legislators, including State Reps. Margaret Kaiser and Pat Gardner, joined Thomas to hear hours of testimony about the Atlanta Housing Authority’s (AHA) deceptive practices in dealing with public housing residents.

One purpose of the hearing was to document, with a court reporter and video recording, resident and community concerns regarding the demolition applications for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Also, the legislators are considering possible actions they can take to prevent residents from being forcibly displaced and possibly made homeless.

APN’s News Editor, Matthew Cardinale presented an analysis of the demolition applications AHA has drafted for Hollywood Courts, to raise concerns about AHA’s claims that the buildings are obsolete, question where is AHA’s evidence that there are adequate voucher-leasing opportunities for residents, and show that there was a lack of consultation with residents and the public. See: http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0303.html

APN is offering an opportunity to our readers to submit their written comments on the demolition applications to HUD. Please email them to demolitioninput@gmail.com. APN will bundle them together on April 01, 2008, and forward them to HUD, seeing as how AHA never solicited public input regarding the applications.

The applications are online for review at: http://www.homelesstaskforce.org/demolitions.html
"The burden that is about to be placed on [public housing residents] is overwhelming," Boubacar Sarr, Arts Director for the Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless, said at the hearing.
The AHA is calling for the relocation of 9,600 public housing residents and demolition of over 3,000 units of permanent public housing.

Once gone, this land will be turned over to private developers for redevelopment.

Sarr and Tony Thomas, Public Relations Coordinator for the Task Force, went to Bowen Homes and Hollywood Courts and taped interviews with numerous residents who said they have no idea where they are going, are confused by the process, and are not ready to leave.

"The Housing Authority has been misrepresenting to HUD... that they have consulted with tenants," Lindsay Jones, an attorney working with public housing residents facing eviction, said.
HUD has yet to approve the AHA’s demolition and relocation plans for the last remaining large family developments in Atlanta as well as two senior highrises: Bankhead Courts, Bowen Homes, Hollywood Courts, Herndon Homes, Thomasville Heights, Palmer House, and Roosevelt House.
APN reported months ago that the AHA included falsified documentation in its application to HUD, including sending in fabricated meeting notes showing they had properly consulted with residents.

While the AHA claims 96 percent of all public housing residents want to move out, Jones said he has collected numerous affidavits from residents of Bowen Homes and Hollywood Courts saying they want more consultation from the AHA.

Also, as previously reported by APN, AHA’s claim is based on AHA asking residents to fill out a 4 inch by six inch card, with the question, "Would you like the opportunity to receive a Housing Choice Voucher?" Residents, who were already told AHA was planning to demolish their homes, likely thought this was their opportunity to sign up for a voucher, not that they were telling HUD they wanted the demolitions to proceed.

Jones urged the Committee to draft emergency legislation calling for a moratorium on all public housing demolition and relocation plans.

THE VOUCHER MYTH - The AHA claims every resident that wants a voucher will receive one and, in turn, be able to find another place to live anywhere they want.

Jones noted vouchers have a life of 90 days, meaning once a resident receives a voucher, she has 90 days to find another place to live or lose the voucher.

He also pointed out that there is only a year-to-year obligation to fund vouchers and a landlord can opt out of accepting vouchers after one year.

“The Housing Authority says it has the authority to extend the life of a voucher beyond 90 days [but] they refuse to put any of these promises in writing that is legally enforceable,” Jones said.
“If the Housing Authority is saying you can move to Buckhead and Druid Hills, it ain’t gonna happen,” Deirdre Oakley, an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Georgia State University who focuses on urban development, said.

Oakley noted that voucher holders are moving into housing primarily in the southeast and southwest portions of Atlanta, which she added are racially segregated with high poverty levels.
"Voucher housing does little to deconcentrate poverty," she said.

Jones noted moving residents into such neighborhoods could be a violation of the federal Fair Housing Act, which prohibits racial steering in housing opportunities.

"They have treated us almost like we are not human," Shirley Hightower, President of Bowen Homes resident association, said of the AHA. "They have no respect for anybody."

Much of the public housing scheduled for demolition rests on land targeted for redevelopment under the Beltline initiative, Jones said.

AHA proposes that private developers receive publicly subsidized land transfers and other public subsidies to assist them in financing and building privately owned mixed-use developments. This includes a recent request to the City of Atlanta for over $250 million.
Jones also urged the Committee to draft legislation that would call for mandatory inclusionary zoning laws that would force developers to set aside 10 to 15 percent of the units in these new developments for low-income residents.

THE HOUSING GAP - It is unclear where public housing residents are expected to live once they are removed from public housing. Atlanta is facing a serious crisis when it comes to affordable housing.

Atlanta currently has an 81,000-unit shortfall for families making under $22,000 and a 137,000-unit shortfall for families making under $40,000, according to a recent study conducted by Georgia Tech.

The AHA has yet to address how it will provide replacement housing that is consistent with the Fair Housing Act.

"What matter of people are we dealing with," Hightower asked. "Somebody’s got to put these people in check. Somebody must put an end to this demolition plan until we know where we’re going."

"It’s sad I have to come before you and beg for help," Hightower told the Committee. "We’re asking you for your help to do all you can. We need someone to step up so we can have some security."

Dr. Larry Keating, a former Professor of City and Regional Planning at Georgia Tech, said that the history of public housing demolition in Atlanta has been about gentrification and continued segregation.

Keating suggested the State could provide Housing Authorities with funds directly for housing repairs, as well as restrict any funding to Housing Authorities that actually house low-income people.

ANALYSIS: AHA Demolition Applications Raise Questions

By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor, The Atlanta Progressive News (3/09/08)

(APN) ATLANTA – Public housing demolition applications to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for all the remaining large family developments in Atlanta raise serious questions about Atlanta Housing Authority’s arguments that the buildings are physically obsolete, about where the displaced residents would be going, and about the agency’s lack of resident and public consultation, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.

APN intensively reviewed the demolition application for Hollywood Courts, about 1,000 pages long, having obtained a copy of that and two other applications, for Bankhead Courts and Bowen Homes, from City Councilwoman Felicia Moore.

APN is offering an opportunity to our readers to submit their written comments on the demolition applications to HUD. Please email them to demolitioninput@gmail.com. APN will bundle them together on April 01, 2008, and forward them to HUD, seeing as how AHA never solicited public input regarding the applications.

The applications are online for review at: http://www.homelesstaskforce.org/demolitions.html -

Moore received the three applications for about one month of review from AHA after the City Council of Atlanta approved last month a resolution, overriding a veto from Mayor Shirley Franklin, asking AHA to provide Moore the applications for review and comment. Moore introduced the legislation after APN fought to obtain five previous applications in 2007 from AHA and HUD, who would not release them voluntarily. Those applications showed, among other things, Mayor Franklin had been signing off on the demolitions without Council knowledge, review, or input.

About two weeks ago, Moore also sent questions about the applications to AHA, which they will answer at Tuesday’s Community Development and Human Resources Committee meeting of the City Council, March 11, 2008 at 1230pm. Moore said the meeting was scheduled even though she will be out of town that day.

As to whether the answers will be satisfactory, “I don’t know. I will have to watch the tape and I understand Ms. Glover sent some information to me Friday afternoon. They waited to the very last second to respond to me. They didn’t leave me any time to do anything about it and I’m not happy about that,” Councilwoman Moore told APN.

APN submitted a 19 page letter about the applications, including 82 questions and several comments, to AHA, Friday, March 07, 2008; APN copied HUD on the letter. Councilwoman Moore also forwarded these to AHA. AHA has not yet responded.

AHA BY-PASSED COUNCIL ON FOUR APPLICATIONS - APN can reveal that AHA has already submitted demolition applications in early February 2008 for two senior highrises, Palmer House and Roosevelt House, and two family developments, Herndon Homes and Thomasville Heights. APN will be discussing the senior highrise situation further in an upcoming article.

However, AHA appears to have submitted the applications to HUD improperly, while at the same time deceiving the City Council that the CD/HR Committee would receive copies for review at least three weeks prior to submission to HUD.

On February 04, 2008, the Full Council unanimously approved a resolution incorporating the following promise by AHA:

"AHA will provide to CD/HR Committee of city council a draft copy of any proposed demolition/disposition application, that, when implemented, would result in the permanent relocation of the majority of the affected families from an AHA development, at least three weeks before AHA submits the application to HUD," (AHA Letter to Felicia Moore and City Council, 2/4/08).

One of the four applications was received by HUD on February 05, 2008, according to HUD’s website, after the resolution, which incorporated the above letter, was approved unanimously by Council. The others were received on February 01, 2008, while AHA was still in negotiations with Felicia.

"I think it goes to good faith. They were negotiating this, but I don’t know if they did anything other than what they intended to do," Lindsay Jones, private attorney for the residents, including the Resident Advisory Board and Hollywood Courts resident association, said. "Everything they did appears to be for political cover."

Eleanor Rayton, President of the Palmer House resident association, said she was left stranded by the Office of Councilman Ivory Lee Young, who has publicly made many comments concerning the senior relocations, after AHA sent representatives to Palmer House, asking them to sign letters the seniors did not understand.

"It was an assistant to him, the lady who I talked to. I called his office and she called me back. She said, they did not have anything to do with what Housing do. And Housing didn’t have to come through them for nothing," Rayton told Atlanta Progressive News.

"Well I feel like that was a let down to the residents and I felt like we just didn’t have nobody to help us,” Rayton said, adding she was surprised “and I was very disappointed."

Councilwoman Mary Norwood, who is on the CD/HR Committee and exploring a run for Mayor in 2009, did not return a voice message left by APN over a week ago concerning the senior citizens.

BOGUS JUSTIFICATION FOR DEMOLITIONS - Justification for the demolitions is one of the major problems with the application for Hollywood Courts, reviewed by APN.

In order to justify the demolition of Hollywood Courts, AHA argues the demolition meets the Two Part Obsolescence Test, and certifies that "the project... is obsolete as to physical condition, location, or other factors, making it unsuitable for housing purposes, and no reasonable program of modifications is cost-effective to return the public housing project or portion of the project to useful life," (Application Form, Pages 4-5).

AHA provides a report by Praxis 3 architectural firm to argue that it is more cost effective to tear down and completely rebuild Hollywood Courts (HC), than to refurbish the existing structures, in order to provide the figures on Page 5 of the application.

AHA and Praxis 3 argue that it would cost 1.9% more to refurbish HC than to completely tear it down and start anew, aside from the fact that Hollywood Courts residents would not be living at the new site in the latter scenario.

AHA and Praxis 3 state it would cost $32,858,073 to refurbish HC and $32,248,700 to tear it down and rebuild.

This argument is extremely problematic based on how Praxis 3 calculates the cost of refurbishing HC as well as the "obsolescence report," which states that the buildings are structurally sound.

As to the obsolescence report, AHA claimed in its resolution to demolish HC on January 17, 2008, that "the Hollywood Courts buildings continue to deteriorate steadily and are in a condition of severe physical distress."

AHA claimed in its attachment for Section 6, Line 1: "The report details the physical obsolescence of the property."

However, Praxis 3's report states "The buildings, with exceptions noted below, are structurally sound," (p. 3). The only structural issues raised are pest infestation and "that the storm sewer system is overflowing during heavy rains," the latter of which is not an issue with the buildings but an issue with the City which would affect any rebuilt property as well (p. 3).

Praxis 3 does not even use the term physical obsolescence. They use the term "market obsolescence."

Praxis 3 indicates what they mean by market obsolescence when they describe their recommendations for bringing HC up to market standards. "Local Market studies indicate that each unit should have dedicated water heater and HVAC systems with air conditioning," instead of wall units, (p. 2).

"Market analyses indicate the existing units are too small. An addition to the rear of the units provides for the inclusion of the new mechanical room, enlargement of kitchen/dining areas, rearrangement and enlargement of bedroom/closet areas, and an additional bathroom," (p. 2).
A closer examination of the numbers reveals that AHA's submission highly inflates the cost of refurbishing Hollywood Courts, thus making its cost-comparison to demolishing HC fallacious and deceptive.

HUD requires AHA undertake an analysis of the cost of refurbishing, it asks for a "reasonable program of modifications... to return the public housing project or portion of the project to useful life;” not market conditions, but "useful life"; not a list of ideal add-ons, aesthetics, and luxury amenities, but "a reasonable program of modifications."

In order to argue the buildings are physically obsolete and deteriorating, AHA said they would forcibly displace residents because AHA could not afford about $338,350 for landscaping, $60,600 for play areas, $25,000 for new site furnishings, $330,000 for new swimming pool, $25,000 for new athletic amenities, $15,000 for vehicular gates when these already exist, $194,000 for a new perimeter fence when this already exists, $171,000 for adding concrete patios, $303,000 for privacy fences and gates, $404,000 for upgrading existing exterior finishes, $707,000 for new roofing, $2,727,000 for new front porches, $300,000 for a new management center, when this already exists, $190,000 for new community center, when this already exists, $931,826 for new carpet, when carpet not mentioned in report, $487,830 for new doors inside, $397,940 for new doors outside, $401,576 for door hardware, $1,272,600 for new glaze windows, $202,808 for new mini blinds, $404,000 for new stair treads and railings, plus new walls, kitchen and bathroom renovations, new closet walls, constructing additions to the rear of units, central air and heat, new water heaters, and washer/dryer hookups.

When subtracting items in Praxis 3's analysis that appear to be unnecessary and unreasonable towards addressing the minimal physical issues laid out in its analysis, the actual cost to refurbish HC is only a fraction of the cost to develop a new property, and is likely less than the cost of relocating residents.

AHA appears to have put all of these expenses in there to make it seem like it's more expensive to fix it up than tear it down, to make a false case for obsolescence to HUD.

RELOCATION PLANS: WHERE ARE THEY GOING? - The main question that is not addressed in these relocation plans is: Where is AHA's evidence that there are available voucher-leasing opportunities for the residents who would be displaced?

HUD asks a Housing Authority in the relocation plans to "describe, generally, the availability of rental housing to voucher holders in the metropolitan area over the planned period of relocation. What is the vacancy rate? Is there a shortage of such housing?"

In AHA's answer they write, "Atlanta has experienced a soft rental market for the past several years.

According to REIS Rental Market Data, there were approximately 3,564 property vacancies in the Atlanta/Fulton submarket, and over 28,767 vacancies in the metro Atlanta area as of mid-year 2007," (Relocation Plan, Page 10).

However, this data gives property vacancies, not, as HUD inquires, "availability of rental housing to voucher holders." A listing of vacant properties does not even mean that those units are affordable, and therefore able to be covered under the limits on the vouchers established by AHA under the voucher program.

In a meeting AHA held with resident leaders in December 2007, City Councilwoman Felicia Moore requested copies of "studies" that AHA alleged having from their developer partners showing that there are available housing opportunities.

"Your comment was the developers have insured [sic] you that there are enough units within the city of Atlanta. Well, I'd like to see that documentation from developers. You said you've done these studies. I'd like to see those studies," Councilwoman Moore said on December 18, 2007.

"All right. Well, we'll work with you on that and I'm sure you can get some closure," AHA Director Renee Glover said.

Councilwoman Moore has still yet to receive those studies that AHA promised regarding available units.

Deirdre Oakley, an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Georgia State University has produced a report, of which APN has obtained a copy, showing that those landlords in Atlanta who do accept vouchers tend to be spatially clustered in regions that are almost all majority Black, have high poverty rates, high unemployment rates, and high rates of single mothers.

Oakley's research is based on data from HUD regarding voucher leasing-opportunities contained in a 2000 HUD report called Picture of Subsidized Housing. This counters AHA's claims that residents have the "choice" to stay in the City and move where they want. Also, it contradicts the notion that any substantial de-concentration of poverty or "quality of life" improvements are occurring for public housing residents.

Oakley found that in the geographical clusters in Atlanta where there's high percentage of voucher housing: 94% of the clusters are majority Black, poverty rate is 35%, 61% female headed households, 19% unemployment. The majority of the vouchers are in Southeast and Southwest Atlanta.

"All of the Section 8 opportunities are within the African American community. Demolishing... only reinforces the segregated policies of the past. They haven’t demonstrated how they’re going to promote and secure Fair Housing Opportunities. That’s what their relocation plan is missing," Jones told APN.

"They certify this plan is going to be consistent with the Fair Housing Act. Based on Deirdre’s analysis, that doesn’t appear possible," Jones said. "They’re going to steer those tenants, based on the market, back into those communities. You cannot require landlords outside these areas to take those vouchers. If you offer incentives to landlords who aren’t interested in affordable housing, because of social concerns, they’re maintaining discriminatory practices. Those incentives aren’t enough to overcome this."

While AHA argues there is available rental housing in Atlanta, "There’s been a surplus in more affluent apartments, of $1500-2000 per month. The question is whether the landlords will take in Section 8 certificates. First, they’d have to come down in rents," Jones said.

"Are the management companies and investors that built them going to have the political will to put people of low-income who have been marginalized for some time in the same buildings with people who pay cash for their rent? And driving people with discriminatory fears out of those complexes, turning those apartments into Section 8 rental? I don’t think they’re going to do that historically. Why would that change? Because the Housing Authority wanted to happen?" Jones said.

There is a lack of affordable housing available in Atlanta, according to a study by David Sawicki at Georgia Tech University City and Planning Department. "The City of Atlanta has a deficiency in affordable housing of approximately 137,191 units. Fifty-nine percent (81,191 units) of this housing deficiency represents units having rents less than $600 per month," the Sawicki report states.

AHA writes that public housing residents with a criminal background will not be eligible for a voucher but will receive a one-time payment, the amount of which is not disclosed in the application.

AHA does not address what will happen to residents with poor credit who are not able to obtain a lease in the private market, except to say that they will receive counseling. However, counseling may not be enough if people truly have bad credit that cannot be repaired in a short time.

AHA also states residents will have 90 days to find a place to live with the voucher, but does not specify what will happen to a resident who does not find a place to live within that time frame.
AHA stated during the consultation with resident leaders at the Loudermilk Center on December 18, 2007, that it currently uses hotel rooms for residents who are not able to be successfully relocated. It is unclear how many hotel rooms AHA has booked for displaced residents so far and at what cost to taxpayers.

LACK OF RESIDENT CONSULTATION - As APN has reported previously in depth, AHA continues to proceed with its plans without having had meaningful consultation with residents.
According to AHA: "During one of these [consultation] meetings, AHA polled the residents as to their preference to either remain at Hollywood Court or to receive a Housing Choice Voucher to relocate. One hundred percent (100%) of the 22 residents attending the meeting and participating in the survey expressed their desire to receive a voucher to relocate out of the community."

However, the survey consists a 4 inch by 6 inch card which states: "Please check your answer to the following question: Would you like the opportunity to receive a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV). Yes. No."

Thus, it is completely deceptive of AHA to state as it does in the application to HUD that it polled residents whether they want to stay in HC or move. Staying in HC was not an option included in AHA's so-called survey. The poll did not even ask them if they wanted to move.

"We did the surveys, these four by six cards, do you want an opportunity? We’ve been brainwashing you about the demolitions. Do you want a lifeline or not?" Jones said of AHA and the cards. "They create events and then they interpret them."

However, only two cards were provided in the applications and Diane Wright, President of Hollywood Courts and the RAB Board, says her residents left the cards on the floor when they came in April 2007. She says they did not come in July 2007, although AHA claims they did.
A vast majority of residents of Hollywood Courts have signed a petition stating that they do not want to move and support legal action to prevent them from having to move, which have already been sent certified to HUD. APN obtained a recent copy of the petition with 115 signatures.

AHA promised to provide the resident leaders with copies of the demolition applications and transcripts from the meetings in the various public housing communities at a December 18, 2007, meeting. AHA has failed to provide these documents to the resident leaders.

As previously reported by APN, AHA states they consulted with the RAB Board on February 14, 2007. However, as APN has already documented to HUD, the minutes provided by AHA are not the actual minutes of the RAB Board. AHA’s Barney Simms has already admitted this. However, AHA included the fabricated Minutes again in this round of applications to HUD.

AHA provided the following description as a summary of all comments and concerns received by HC residents: They wanted to know exactly how the voucher program works. They expressed concern for paying utilities. And "Hollywood Court residents expressed a desire to move earlier than AHA's proposed relocation start date."

A review of the applications for Bowen Homes and Bankhead Courts shows that AHA used the exact same language to summarize the alleged three concerns of all three resident associations.
That there would be no variation at all between the three is highly unlikely.

AHA did not include a copy of the RAB Board resolution opposing the demolitions in the application.

AHA stated they would submit the demolition applications after March 10, 2008, to HUD. It usually takes HUD between two and four months to review an application. Residents are currently working with their attorney to file for an injunction. Meanwhile, the Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless has been collecting video statements and written affidavits from residents.

Foreclosed Homes Occupied by Homeless

By THOMAS J. SHEERAN - Associated Press Writer - Monday, February 18, 2008

The nation's foreclosure crisis has led to a painful irony for homeless people: On any given night they are outnumbered in some cities by vacant houses, and some street people are taking advantage of the opportunity by becoming squatters.


Foreclosed homes often have an advantage over boarded-up and dilapidated houses abandoned because of rundown conditions: Sometimes the heat, lights and water are still working.
"That's what you call convenient," said James Bertan, 41, an ex-convict and self-described "bando," or someone who lives in abandoned houses.


While no one keeps numbers of below-the-radar homeless finding shelter in properties left vacant by foreclosure, homeless advocates agree the locations — even with utilities cut off — would be inviting to some. There are risks for squatters, including fires from using candles and confrontations with drug dealers, prostitutes, copper thieves or police.


"Many homeless people see the foreclosure crisis as an opportunity to find low-cost housing (FREE!) with some privacy," Brian Davis, director of the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, said in the summary of the latest census of homeless sleeping outside in downtown Cleveland.


The census had dropped from 40 to 17 people. Davis, a board member of the National Coalition for the Homeless, cited factors including the availability of shelter in foreclosed homes, aggressive sidewalk and street cleaning and the relocation of a homeless feeding site. He said there are an average 4,000 homeless in Cleveland on any given night. There are an estimated 15,000 single-family homes vacant due to foreclosure in Cleveland and suburban Cuyahoga County.


In Texas, Larry James, president and chief executive officer of Central Dallas Ministries, said he wasn't surprised that homeless might be taking advantage of vacant homes in residential neighborhoods beyond the reach of his downtown agency.


"There are some campgrounds and creek beds and such where people would be tempted to walk across the street or climb out of the creek bed and sneak into a vacant house," he said.


Bertan, who doesn't like shelters because of the rules, said he has been homeless or in prison for drugs and other charges for the past nine years. He has noticed the increased availability of boarded-up homes amid the foreclosure crisis.


He said a "fresh building" — recently foreclosed — offered the best prospects to squatters.
"You can be pretty comfortable for a little bit until it gets burned out," he said as he made the rounds of the annual "stand down" where homeless in Cleveland were offered medical checkups, haircuts, a hot meal and self-help information.


Shelia Wilson, 50, who was homeless for years because of drug abuse problems, also has lived in abandoned homes, and for the same reason as Bertan: She kept getting thrown out of shelters for violating rules. "Every place, I've been kicked out of because of drugs," she said.


Michael Stoops, acting executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, hasn't seen evidence of increased homeless moving into foreclosed homes but isn't surprised. He said anecdotal evidence — candles burning in boarded-up homes, a squatter killed by a fire set to keep warm — shows the determination of the homeless to find shelter.


Davis said Cleveland's high foreclosure rate and the proximity of downtown shelters to residential neighborhoods has given the city a lead role in the homeless/foreclosure phenomenon.


Many cities roust homeless from vacant homes, which more typically will be used by drug dealers or prostitutes than a homeless person looking for a place to sleep, Stoops said.
Police across the country must deal with squatters and vandalism involving vacant homes:


- In suburban Shaker Heights, which has $1 million homes on wide boulevards, poorer neighborhoods with foreclosed homes get extra police attention.


- East of San Francisco, a man was arrested in November on a code violation while living without water service in a vacant home in Manteca, Calif., which has been hit hard by the foreclosure crisis.


- In Cape Coral, Fla., a man arrested in September in a foreclosed home said he had been living there since helping a friend move out weeks earlier.


Bertan and Wilson agreed that squatting in a foreclosed home can be dangerous because the locations can attract drug dealers, prostitutes and, eventually, police.


William Reed, 64, a homeless man who walks with a cane, thumbed through a shoulder bag holding a blue-bound Bible, notebooks with his pencil drawings and a plastic-wrapped piece of bread as he sat on a retainer wall in the cold outside St. John Cathedral in downtown Cleveland. He's gone inside empty homes but thinks it's too risky to spend the night.


Even the inviting idea of countless foreclosed empty homes didn't overcome the possible risk of entering a crack house.


"Their brains could be burned up," said Reed, who didn't want to detail where he sleeps at night.
Sometimes it's hard to track where the homeless go.


In Philadelphia, the risk is too great to send case workers into vacant homes to check for homeless needing help, said Ed Speedling, community liaison with Project H.O.M.E. "We're very, very wary of going inside. There's danger. I mean, if the floor caves in. There's potential danger: Sometimes they are still owned by someone," Speedling said.


William Walker, 57, who was homeless for seven years and now counsels drifters at a sprawling warehouse-turned-shelter overlooking Lake Erie, has seen people living in foreclosed homes in his blue-collar neighborhood in Cleveland. He estimated that three or four boarded-up homes in his neighborhood have homeless living there from time to time.


Sometimes homeless men living in tents in a nearby woods disappear from their makeshift homes, Walker said. "The guys who were there last year are not there now. Are they in the (foreclosed) homes? I don't know. They are just not in their places," Walker said.

AHA Defrauds, By-Passes Council, Fails to Answer Questions

By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor, The Atlanta Progressive News (April 13, 2008)

(APN) ATLANTA – Atlanta Housing Authority’s Vice President for External Affairs, Barney Simms, made a fraudulent claim to the City Council of Atlanta, on Tuesday, March 11, 2008, about its promise to consult with the Community Development and Human Resources Committee regarding demolition applications.

"I wanted to point out that the Atlanta Housing Authority has already submitted the applications to HUD for Palmer House senior high rise, Roosevelt House senior high rise, Herndon Homes, and Thomasville Heights," the present writer told Council during public comments lasting about fifteen minutes."

The residents, resident leaders were not notified that they were sent. And the reason that is a problem is the date that they sent the applications... Remember how AHA made those voluntary measures and those were incorporated into Felicia Moore’s second resolution which replaced the ordinance? I wanted to tell you about one of those voluntary measures," the present writer said.

On February 04, 2008, the Full Council unanimously approved a resolution incorporating the following promise by AHA:"AHA will provide to CD/HR Committee of city council a draft copy of any proposed demolition/disposition application, that, when implemented, would result in the permanent relocation of the majority of the affected families from an AHA development, at least three weeks before AHA submits the application to HUD," AHA wrote."I’m sure that the Committee will be troubled that they did not have the opportunity. Obviously they couldn’t have had three weeks cause they were sent... one of them was received by HUD a day after this resolution passed, first of all. Second of all, the other three were received on February 1st, three days before the resolution passed, but that basically means that AHA was in negotiations with Felicia and the other Members of the Council... and then sending those applications into HUD without doing that," the present writer said.

"One of the things I wanted to make certain that you and your Committee understood, the Housing Authority never promised we would not submit the applications forward to HUD. We promised we would not submit the three applications that include those in Felicia Moore’s District," Simms said.

Simms’s statement was fraudulent, however.APN obtained a second copy of the resolution directly from the Clerk’s Office, minutes after Simms’s remarks, and distributed copies of the resolution to all Committee Members and personally informed Maddox of the documentation as well.

Anita Beaty of the Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless told the Committee in her remarks that AHA’s statement had been verified as false and that AHA had indeed by-passed Council.

AHA DEFLECTS APN’S QUESTIONS

After promising to Council that they would respond to APN’s 82 questions about the demolition applications, which were hand delivered to Renee Glover’s Office on March 10, 2008, and presented to CD/HR on March 11, 2008, AHA’s response was more of a non-response.

"Thank you for your comments and questions regarding Atlanta Housing Authority’s (AHA) draft demolition applications for Bankhead Courts, Bowen Homes, and Hollywood Courts. AHA has reviewed your comments and will consider them as we finalize those demolition applications to be submitted to... (HUD). We will also share your questions and comments along with a copy of this response as part of the submission to HUD," Simms wrote in a letter to Atlanta Progressive News dated March 12, 2008.

Dozens of Hollywood Courts residents have signed a petition, which will be sent to HUD, demanding, "WE WANT REAL ANSWERS!"

AHA’S RESPONSE TO FELICIA MOORE QUESTIONS

"I don’t have a formal presentation," Simms told the Committee. "I just wanted to... share with you and your Committee that the Housing Authority has addressed and answered all of Councilwoman Felicia Moore’s questions regarding demolition applications for Bankhead Courts, Bowen Homes, and Hollywood Courts."

Simms stated that Renee Glover was absent because she was in Washington, D.C.."I’m also happy to report to you that we have completed Phase One of the AHA Quality of Life Initiative and that ended February 29th and we moved a total of 694 families successfully. The projects that we moved the families away from were Inglewood Manor, Jonesboro North, Jonesboro South, Leila Valley, and U-Rescue..."

It is unclear whether the families were moved “successfully,” however, as AHA has admitted many residents end up in hotel rooms; AHA has provided no evidence of available voucher leasing-opportunities; and such opportunities have been concentrated in poor, Black neighborhoods.

Diane Wright, President of Hollywood Courts and the Resident Advisory Board, said she has heard residents were told AHA didn’t care where they went, even if they had to go live with relatives, but that they had to leave.

"And I believe we shared with you answers to those questions we received from the Councilwoman," Simms said."We did receive the questions and the answers that you all provided to [sic]. And I sent a letter or memo to Ms. Moore who is unable to be with us today to ask her to review it. And to, if she’s satisfied with the answers or she has further answers, of course she can get back in touch with you all," Chairman Jim Maddox said."I have not heard back from her from that memo, pointing out any one that she’s, one way or the other, whether she’s satisfied or not quite satisfied, I really haven’t heard back," Maddox said.

Maddox asked Council Members if they had questions and none did.

AHA ABSENT FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY, BRIEFLY RETURNS

At that point, Simms and AHA staff and attorneys prepared to leave."I would suggest that you hang around because we have some other people have signed up and they may have questions for you, I don’t know," Maddox said.

"All right, thank you, Ms. Glover is not in the office today so I will step out for a moment and I’ll come back," Simms said.AHA staff and attorneys then left.

Cheri Mitchell, of People First of Georgia, then spoke about her concerns regarding the disabled.The present writer, Matthew Cardinale, spoke next, presenting an analysis of the demolition applications for Bankhead Courts, Bowen Homes, and Hollywood Courts.For more information about APN’s analysis of the applications, please see: http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0303.html

"First, I would like to point out that AHA has left the room," this writer said."I think we all knew that and they said they would be back. They had to go out and make some calls," Maddox said. "I just spoke with him [Simms] and he said he may be back but that is not his intention. He’s taking his contingent towards the highway," activist Ben Howard interjected.

"And I just think that this is... We’re going to be sending this videotape to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, and I’m sure they fill find that this is very disrespectful to the residents, very disrespectful to the public and those of us who have concerns, and this is part of their pattern so I just wanted to put that on the record," this writer said.

"Let me ask, if Mr. Simms is out there, please ask him and his delegation to please come back in. Because these people are raising questions, and I think they should be in here to answer them, not to leave the building at this point," Maddox said.

Simms and his contingent returned during APN’s and Ben Howard presentations and then left again after Simms made two sets of remarks.Mr. Howard asked whether Councilwoman Moore’s questions and AHA’s answers could be sounded for the public, as well as APN’s questions and AHA’s answers to those."Mr. Simms, do you want to go through those at this point?" Maddox asked.

SIMMS’S REMARKS TO APN AND BEN HOWARD

"Mr. Maddox, I don’t want to be disrespectful to you or your Committee. I was not coming here for a Town Hall Meeting. I was not prepared. I can certainly read those questions, the 82 questions I received from APN. They came to the Office on Friday... It’s my responsibility to address those questions," Simms said.

"I would assume you all gonna respond to the person who sent the questions," Maddox said."Yes sir..." Simms said. "Much of what was said, and I have to say, that what we’ve been doing is under the cloud of suspicion and those kinds of things. It really is disconcerting," Simms said."

First of all, with the applications, we have to get a third-party objective bias [sic] from engineers to certify what we’re suggesting to HUD. HUD also has been here, and all of the properties that we’re recommending for demolition, none of them, not one of them, passed the HUD’s REACT inspections," Simms said.

The REACT inspections are comprehensive and include items above and beyond and physical condition of the buildings, Wright said, adding Hollywood Courts did not pass REACT inspection because the maintenance room was unclean.

"And when we send these applications, if any of you know anything about HUD or the IGA system or anything, they’re gonna be on the ground. They’re gonna be doing their due diligence. We’re doing the application and they will do their due diligence," Simms said. "And I just want folks to be engaged and involved in that."

"And even with the resident consultation, we have done numerous consultations. We’ve had some of those consultations that have included HUD officials to be part of the act and the situations," Simms said.AHA’s idea of consultation, however, telling residents their plans and taking questions."And I understand clearly what it means when you give someone a questionnaire, are you for it or are you against it? They can be biased and I admit that, if you’re only presenting one side of it. Do you agree, check here? But just as we’ve done our surveys and they’ve done those," Simms said.

"But at the end of the day, if you would at, judge the merits of the applications, and HUD has approved Phase One of those applications and the properties all kind of mirror one another," Simms said."We are where we are and I just want everybody to understand when we submit an application, we’re submitting an application for HUD’s approval. And HUD has to approve that application based on a variety of facts. HUD is aware of the conditions of the properties because they inspect those properties annually... So this is not news coming to HUD that something is wrong," Simms said.

"And I was not aware I was coming for these presentations or have the appropriate staff to be joining me for the presentations," Simms said."Other folks that come before this Committee and come before the Council, to make presentations come prepared to do just what that person said he did not come prepared to do," Howard said.

"In addition, they subject themselves to questions by people like me, Dave Walker, Carrie Duncan, and others. But the Atlanta Housing Authority somehow feels that they’re an exception to the rule. That they can come, that they can make what they call a presentation. And not stay to provide any substantiation for their claims except that smattering that he chose," Howard said.

OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS

Public comments were also made by Lindsay Jones, private attorney for various residents’ groups; Assistant Professor Deirdre Oakley of Sociology at Georgia State University, who presented her maps showing voucher leasing opportunities are concentrated in poor, Black neighborhoods; Shirley Hightower, President of Bowen Homes; and Anita Beaty, Carl Hartrampf, Boubacarr Sarr, and Tony Thomas from the Task Force for the Homeless, the latter of whom presented a video of residents from Bowen Homes and Hollywood Courts.

MOORE UNSATISFIED WITH AHA’S RESPONSE

"I wanted to come and sort of close the loop for now... Unfortunately, I think it would have been helpful and beneficial to citizens in my communities who were concerned who couldn’t make it down, who were watching to see what some of the answers to the questions were that I posed, but they were not required to sort of reiterate those," Councilwoman Moore told CD/HR Committee on Tuesday, April 01, 2008.

"I will say... that I’m not satisfied with the answers that was given by the Atlanta Housing Authority. They were very generic and didn’t really speak to the answers I’ve been trying to get, in one question in particular that they have still yet to answer," Moore said.

The one question is: where are these residents going?"I guess I’m coming to the realization that the only reason you don’t answer is either you can’t or you don’t want to. I’m not sure which one they’re guilty of, maybe it’s a bit of both," Moore said.

"So I just wanted to let you all know that I’m not happy at all with Atlanta Housing Authority. I’m not happy with how they operate. I have for years been a very big supporter of Atlanta Housing Authority. I’ve been a big defender of the Housing Authority with other elected officials, members of my community, and others," Moore said.

"And frankly I feel foolish. Having so vigorously went against those people or try to work and put myself in the way of those people and the Housing Authority to try to work out issues. When in fact I guess it only took a matter of time for me to realize what their real concerns were because I have the same ones now," Moore said.

"So I just wanted to... let the public know that I am not at all happy with the Housing Auhority, I’m not happy with the response that we get. And that’s putting it politically correct. I could be much more frank than that," Moore said.

"I have not figured out yet what I’m doing to do. But I’m determined in the back, in my spirit, that the Housing Authority is going to have to make some changes. I’m just not clear on how I’m going to make those happen. But I did want to come and at least express that to you in case I take up more of your time in the future dealing with Housing Authority issues."

"If this Committee can do anything to assist, we’d be happy to help," Maddox said.

Moore also complained AHA didn’t respond early enough to where she could seek follow-up, before they sent the applications to HUD.

"They waited until the very last minute... to attempt to answer the questions. Why? Because they knew if they gave it to me two weeks before, which they had plenty of time to do it, I probably would have asked for follow-up," Moore said.

"It’s the height of arrogance. I think that they are operating the way that they wish to operate. And that’s why I’m here to let you know I’m not comfortable with them, and I don’t care for them frankly at this point. I don’t think that they’re being the way that they should be, particularly since we as a Council and the City support their endeavors," Moore said.

"But I’ll deal with them one way or the other. What goes around comes around, and it will come back around," Moore said.

City Council Overrides Veto of Public Housing Oversight

By Jonathan Springston & Matthew Cardinale - Atlanta Progressive News (February 04, 2008)

(APN) ATLANTA – The City Council of Atlanta voted Monday, February 4, 2008, 10-5 to override Mayor Shirley Franklin’s veto of a resolution that asks the Atlanta Housing Authority (AHA) to consider putting on hold the demolition of Bankhead Courts, Bowen Homes, and Hollywood Courts, until the Council and the public have a chance to thoroughly examine demolition applications sent to US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The Full Council approved the resolution on January 22, 2008, but Mayor Shirley Franklin vetoed it on January 30, 2008.

Voting yea were Council Members Ivory Lee Young, Natalyn Archibong, Howard Shook, Clair Muller, Felicia Moore, C. T. Martin, Joyce Sheperd, Caesar Mitchell, Mary Norwood, and H. Lamar Willis.

The five votes against overriding the veto were Carla Smith, Kwanza Hall, Cleta Winslow, Anne Fauver, and Jim Maddox.

Ten votes had been required to override the veto. Had Mr. Willis not rushed in late, the resolution may not have passed, Moore told Atlanta Progressive News.

Mr. Young changed his vote from nay when the resolution was originally approved by Council, to yea on the override. Young originally supported the bill in CDHR Committee.

Ms. Fauver and Ms. Smith changed their votes from yea when the resolution was originally approved to nay on the override. The resolution had initially passed 11-1, with several Members absent or abstaining. Council President Lisa Borders did not vote either time.

Members of the CDHR Committee and others were particularly well informed about the issues after months of testimony from residents, advocates, and the public.
"There is no reason for the Mayor to have vetoed this resolution," Councilwoman Felicia Moore (District 9), author of the resolution, said.

Moore noted that a veto was not necessary because the resolution is not legally binding and the AHA could simply choose to ignore it.

Several members of the public spoke before the vote and urged the Council not to bow under executive pressure.

"My name was put on a document that was supposed to be signed for me not being at a January 9th meeting of the RAB Board, and... I left some literature for all Board Members to have that’s a retraction letter. My signature that was supposed to go on... it was put on something saying I said one thing when it wasn’t that," Elaine Olsby, President of Cosby Spears senior high rise told the Council.

AHA submitted to Council at its last meeting a letter signed by Olsby and others saying they supported the demolitions. However, as exclusively reported by Atlanta Progressive News, she states that AHA misled her as to what she was signing and did not give her time to read the letter. APN obtained a retraction letter from her today; Olsby has asked APN to send the letter to HUD.

"The Council has already made its position known," Joe Beasley, the Southeast Regional Director of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, said. "I hope you will hold your ground."

Beasley accused the AHA of using "insidious moves" to remove Atlanta’s poor population outside the City. "There’s something wrong with that," he said.

"Every time AHA states that these residents are ready to go, that is not true," Diane Wright, President of Hollywood Courts resident association and the RAB Board, said. "I have 112 signatures from my community alone because they’re uncertain of where they’re going."
"All we’re asking for is a fair chance…to be able to sit down with the AHA to learn where we’re going."

"I really hope you will override the veto. I think deciding where thousands of people are gonna go or not go is too important for one person to sign off on. I think many more people need to be involved in that process. And in fact I think the money that’s being used to tear down and rebuild for people other than low-income people, that money needs to spent to fix up what’s available and to build more because we don’t have enough housing," Amy Hastey, Atlanta Jobs with Justice, said.

"Why wouldn’t we insist on a one-for-one replacement? That’s a local decision we can make. These are our local tax dollars, and we should at least get a one-for-one replacement, maybe a two-for one," Carl Hartrampf, Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless, said.

"We spent an hour today in meetings with the Mayor’s [Commission on Homelessness], to find housing for mothers and children, and yet we’re tearing down housing right now we could place those mothers and children in," he said.

"I want Renee Glover and Barney Simms, all them not to demolish the building, put the poor people out the community, like they did the Cheyenne, like the Ku Klux Klan was doing the Black people, running them out of the community. I want the Black folks to live in the community," "General" Larry Platt, resident of Palmer House senior high rise said.

SECOND RESOLUTION AFFECTS ALL DEMOLITIONS

The Council also voted to file a separate City ordinance crafted by Felicia Moore that seeks to give the Council more oversight of AHA initiatives.

While the Council voted to file the ordinance for now, Members unanimously signed off on a new resolution accepting to a process outlined by the AHA in two separate letters to Council.
Council Members had voted January 22, 2008, to table the ordinance, which the AHA had spoken out loudly against. They accused Moore of crafting such an ordinance to protect her own political standing.

The AHA also argued the Council had no jurisdiction over what the agency does, even when HUD requires consultation with all appropriate local government officials in demolition applications.
Both sides spent the past several days attempting to create a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) negotiating several points.

Moore had initially been unsatisfied with an offer in the form of a letter by AHA’s director Renee Glover dated February 1, 2008, to hold two public forums on housing issues annually and submit quarterly reports to Council on its initiatives.

That letter had also promised to provide Moore with copies of the demolition applications for review three weeks before submitting them to HUD.

The second, dated February 4, 2008, extended that promise to providing the CDHR Committee with copies of any demolition applications.

"AHA will provide to CD/HR Committee of city council a draft copy of any proposed demolition/disposition application, that, when implemented, would result in the permanent relocation of the majority of the affected families from an AHA development, at least three weeks before AHA submits the application to HUD," according to a copy of the letter obtained by Atlanta Progressive News.

The letter went on to note that Moore would file her ordinance as a result of AHA’s voluntary actions.

Even though filing an ordinance essentially kills the bill, Moore told Council she would continue working on this issue until solid legislation passes.

"The Council has legal authority to set policy," Moore maintained. "We’re not through with this issue yet," she said in her remarks.

"I think there's still a long way to go in dealing with the issues that surround public housing," Moore told APN in a phone interview. "This is a small step. There's a lot of issues that need to be addressed... To make sure we have notice and opportunity for input, at least we got that for now."

About the authors: Jonathan Springston is a Senior Staff Writer for Atlanta Progressive News and may be reached at jonathan@atlantaprogressivenews.com.
Matthew Cardinale is the News Editor for Atlanta Progressive News and may be reached at matthew@atlantaprogressivenews.com.

A Shelter Is Built Green, to Heal Inside and Out

By CAROL POGASH - New York Times - Published: January 28, 2008

OAKLAND, Calif. — Although he will not be moving from the dilapidated homeless shelter here for another week, Paul McClendon, 55, has his oversized baby-blue garbage bags packed. Sitting on his bed in a winter jacket, he talked Thursday about the new, so-called green shelter with the central heating that he will be moving into.

With its distinctive exterior, the state-of-the-art $11 million shelter is already a landmark in Alameda County.

For a man who has lived on the streets, the prospect of the new facility was hard to fathom.
“It’s going to be one beautiful place,” Mr. McClendon said, smiling. “It has respect for the environment, global warming and saving trees.”

The facility, Crossroads, which will accommodate 125 residents, may be the only “green” homeless shelter built from the ground up. It has a solar-paneled roof, hydronic heating, artful but practical ceiling fans, nontoxic paint, windows that can be opened to let in fresh air, and desks and bureaus made from pressed wheat.

It will be a big change for residents, who are used to the old shelter with ratty couches, small and inadequate space heaters, floors and walls pocked and blackened with dirt, broken lighting, electrical cords snaking along floors and a leaky ceiling.

The residents are waiting for beds to be delivered to Crossroads so that they can move in.
When Wendy Jackson, executive director of the East Oakland Community Project, began searching for financing for the project, she said some people told her, “ ‘They need a good place, but that’s going too far.’ ” People, she said, “didn’t get it.”

But, Ms. Jackson, a social worker who graduated from Bard College and worked at a homeless shelter for young men in the East Village in Manhattan, said, “There’s a larger issue than just sheltering people.” Most of her residents have asthma, allergies, H.I.V. or diabetes, she said, and they need a healthy environment in which to heal.

Ms. Jackson “had this holistic approach,” said David Kears, the director of the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency. Her attitude, he said, was “ ‘The building has to be healthy to make people healthy.’ ”

Ms. Jackson spent 10 years, seven of them raising money from government and private agencies, replacing the decrepit facility with a state-of-the-art $11 million building. It is about a mile from the old shelter, in one of the poorer parts of town: there are more than 6,000 homeless in Alameda County, nearly half of them in Oakland.

Most homeless shelters opened in the 1980s in churches, synagogues and abandoned warehouses, said Michael Stoops, acting executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless in Washington. Mr. Stoops, who has worked in the field for 35 years, said he believed Crossroads was the first green homeless shelter and should be “a model for others around the country.”

“The homeless care about the environment,” Mr. Stoops said. “If they can be part of a facility that is reducing energy costs and saving the planet, homeless folks are all in favor of that, just like most Americans.”

Over time, Ms. Jackson convinced critics that an old warehouse was not good enough for her residents.

At Crossroads, each resident will have his own locker closet and storage drawers built into his bed. A day room provides durable wooden chairs and computer carrels.

The dorm-like structure painted crayon colors has angled exterior walls that make it an instant landmark. Ms. Jackson said she wanted a building that was “dignified,” adding, “People in crisis need to see things are under control.” Ms. Jackson said she hoped to lure volunteers with the clean, well-lighted place. Crossroads has an examining room for medical volunteers, a wing for homeless families, with bathrooms and tubs for toddlers who otherwise must shower with their parents, a private dining area and kitchen.

One dorm room and bathroom is set aside for transgender residents. Another will serve as an infirmary for those just released from the hospital.

As Ms. Jackson gave tours of the facility on a recent afternoon, sunlight poured through the windows. “People will be sleeping in a cozy environment and waking to sunlight,” she said.
“This is the intersection of environmental and social justice issues,” said Dr. Mini Swift, the board chairman of the East Oakland project.

Periodically during the afternoon the newly installed security alarm blared — another matter Ms. Jackson would have to resolve.

“We’re asking people to focus on serious issues in their lives,” Ms. Jackson said during a quiet moment. “It’s easier to do that when the place is functional.”

So Many Places to Live, but So Far Out of Reach

By LESLIE EATON - New York Times - Published: January 27, 2008

NEW ORLEANS — Thousands of people are looking for a place to live in this city. Many thousands of houses are vacant or for sale, and acres of land sit empty.

A new three-story home stands next to abandoned houses and empty lots, a situation residents call the jack-o’-lantern effect.

But turning potential housing into inhabited homes is proving to be a major challenge, even for a city that survived the fury of Hurricane Katrina and the failure of the levees. For those who need shelter the most, these houses are out of reach.

More than 8,800 houses are for sale in the New Orleans metropolitan area — almost as many as were sold in the last 12 months, according to one of the city’s leading real estate brokerage firms. High insurance costs and the crash in the mortgage market nationwide have slowed sales here, whether people are moving out of town or opting to relocate to a different neighborhood.

Thousands more damaged houses — probably 6,000 within the city limits — are being bought by the State of Louisiana through its Road Home program, which compensates homeowners for their losses in the 2005 hurricanes. These properties will be turned over to local governments for redevelopment or resale. (By one estimate, as many as 20,000 buildings in the city are derelict.)

Meanwhile, 27,500 families, mostly from New Orleans, are still living in tiny, tinny government-issued travel trailers across the state, waiting for their homes to be repaired or for some kind of affordable housing to become available. Many other people remain in faraway cities. And hundreds — by some accounts, thousands — live on the city streets.

The housing situation in New Orleans varies almost block by block. Some areas are hotter than before the storm; others are wastelands. In some neighborhoods, new or rebuilt houses are scattered among empty lots and boarded-up homes, a phenomenon known here as the jack-o’-lantern effect.

By Lake Pontchartrain, in a middle-class neighborhood called Vista Park, a resident, K. C. King, can see a little of everything: new houses raised 10 feet above sea level to surpass new flood regulations, abandoned ranch houses with moldy furniture inside, bald lots, for-sale signs, travel trailers and one renovated house — not popular with the neighbors — that has been turned into a rental. There is even a swimming pool still full of what people living nearby say is filthy floodwater.

“In this neighborhood,” Mr. King said, “the jack-o’-lantern effect is in 3-D.”

Many reasons figure into the mismatch between the need and availability of housing, including history, geography, lingering storm damage and the impact of government programs, intended and unintended. The factor most obvious to economists is price.

“At the very low end of the income strata, we do have a shortage of housing,” said Ivan J. Miestchovich, director of the Center for Economic Development and Real Estate at the University of New Orleans.

Demand for expensive property, however, is low. “On houses more than $350,000 in price, your marketing time is 18 months,” Dr. Miestchovich said. “Over $1 million, it’s two years and more.”
Housing prices, which spiked after the 2005 storm, have been declining. The average sale price in the city dropped to $159,000 in November, the lowest level in years (though it increased in December to an average of $222,000). Even so, sales numbers have been weak for the last few months.

Part of New Orleans’s allure used to be that it was possible to live well on little because a lot of cheap, if rundown, housing was available — a result of years of slow migration from the city. Much of that housing was destroyed; many remaining properties need expensive repairs.
Construction and insurance costs have soared, and borrowers need better credit records to get a housing loan because of problems in the national mortgage market, said Mtumishi St. Julien, executive director of the Finance Authority of New Orleans.

Before Hurricane Katrina, most people in the city were renters, not owners, and more than 50,000 rental units in the metropolitan area were damaged or destroyed when the floodwaters rose. Rents at the remaining apartments shot up by almost 50 percent; a two-bedroom apartment that might have rented for $660 a month in 2004 now costs close to $1,000 a month, according to federal data.

Efforts to help replace rental housing got off to a slow start. Melissa Landry, press secretary for the Louisiana Recovery Authority, said state programs were helping to build 25,000 apartments that would be affordable for low-income residents.

The state, the city and private civic organizations like the Jeremiah Group are hoping eventually to turn those renters into homeowners, by providing subsidies, reducing construction costs and finding a way to cut the price of insurance.

Local and federal officials said they did not expect an increase in homelessness after recent decisions to demolish public housing projects and to close trailer parks run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

But people who work with the families in question are not so sure. The Rev. Marshall Truehill Jr., pastor of the First United Baptist Church, said he was so concerned about an influx of homeless families that he asked the city to convert several former school buildings into shelters.
Based on the turnout at recent forums and public meetings, one question on the minds of many people here is what will happen to all the houses, most badly damaged, that the Road Home program is buying from people who are not rebuilding.

In the city, the properties will be handled by the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority, which before the hurricanes was supposed to deal with blighted properties, and by most accounts failed. Joseph Williams, a former banker who became executive director of the agency a year ago, said it had been underfinanced and understaffed in the past but was gearing up to deal with both the Road Home properties and abandoned sites.

Progress has been slow. Last fall, the agency sold 27 blighted properties for redevelopment pilot projects; a nonprofit group called Assisting Hand will break ground Friday on the first of these, in the Seventh Ward.

But what the agency will be able to do with the Road Home properties remains unclear. For one thing, it does not yet know all their locations. In addition to proposals to encourage developers to build or rebuild housing that could be made affordable, the agency is actually planning to reduce the amount of potential housing by allowing neighbors to buy adjacent properties to, for example, expand their yards.

That is what Mr. King would like to do with the house next to his in the Vista Park neighborhood — or rather, next to where his house will be when he rebuilds. He and his wife, Kathi, are still trailer-bound. But many details remain to be worked out, like how much the city will charge for the property.

“I’d just as soon buy it and split it with the neighbors,” he said. “But I’m not sure I can afford it.”