HUD Grants Approval to Demolish Bowen Homes

(FROM ATLANTA PROGRESSIVE NEWS) ATLANTA - The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) granted the Atlanta Housing Authority (AHA) approval June 20, 2008, to move forward with plans to relocate the residents of Bowen Homes and demolish the complex.

The AHA has been working for over a year to demolish Bowen Homes and the other 11 remaining public housing complexes under their jurisdiction. Five were demolished last year, leaving seven left, including Bowen.

As this story went to press, APN received unconfirmed reports that HUD has now also approved demolishing Bankhead Courts, Herndon Homes, Hollywood Courts, and Thomasville Heights, the last of the family developments. If the information is confirmed, this would leave just two senior high-rises-Palmer House and Roosevelt House-under consideration with HUD.

There are about a dozen additional senior high-rises and small developments not affected by the demolition plans. AHA's director, Renee Glover, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) newspaper, these would not be set for demolition; however, AHA requested City funds for redevelopment at these sites and suggested possible demolitions even for these communities at its most recent annual public hearing.

If successful, AHA would become the first large city in the United States to demolish all of its public housing communities.

The AHA submitted the Bowen Homes application March 17, 2008, to HUD, arguing that Bowen Homes has become physically obsolete, meaning that it would cost too much to renovate; and that it has become a haven for violence and crime.

"It don't surprise me in a way but I expected HUD to take a look a little deeper than they did," Shirley Hightower, President of the Bowen Homes resident association, told APN.

Hightower believes the AHA exaggerated its crime statistics and added that crime committed on the site is perpetrated by outside individuals.

The City Council of Atlanta had approved two resolutions in February 2008 proposed by Councilwoman Felicia Moore, providing for increased oversight of AHA's demolition applications.
The first resolution had allowed Moore one month to review the applications for Bankhead, Bowen, and Hollywood. Moore reviewed the applications and asked questions, but said she was not satisfied with the answers. Moore did not take any additional action after that point, telling APN she was fed up with AHA, and that she would address them again when they sought more funding from the City.

The second resolution, accepting measures volunteered by AHA, allowed the Community Resources and Human Development Committee (CDHR) three weeks to review all other demolition applications, which AHA never provided. APN made the Committee aware of this but no Members ever took action.

The second resolution also provided that AHA would hold quarterly presentations for CDHR. These presentations never occurred. Councilman Ivory Young told APN he inquired to AHA as to when the date of the first one would be, but never advised of one being scheduled. AHA was also supposed to hold two public hearings which never occurred.

Meanwhile, APN had sent in 82 questions to AHA, which they never answered. HUD promised resident leaders in writing this spring that the demolitions would not be approved until all the questions were answered. Neither APN nor residents have received the answers to the questions to date.

QUESTIONS LINGER OVER PHYSICAL OBSOLESCENCE - The AHA concluded, and HUD concurred, that it would be more cost effective to demolish Bowen Homes than redesign and rehabilitate the complex, according to a copy of a letter from HUD's Special Applications Center (SAC) in Chicago, to HUD's Atlanta Office of Public Housing, obtained by Atlanta Progressive News.

However, HUD's concurrence raises serious questions about its implementation of its own rules regarding physical obsolescence.

As previously reported by APN, AHA submitted inflated renovation budgets for multiple communities to make the cost of renovation seem unaffordable. They did this by including interior and exterior renovations to bring the units up to market standards as well as numerous luxury and aesthetic amenities. Meanwhile, HUD instructs AHA to provide renovation budgets for HUD's analysis, which include a reasonable program of modifications to bring the community back to "useful life," not market standards.

AHA initially placed the cost of redesigning and rehabilitating Bowen Homes at $103,351,472. HUD's SAC conducted a tour of the facility April 30, 2008, through May 2, 2008. "In summary, all major electrical and mechanical systems need upgrading and a central air conditioning system should replace the window-mounted units (these units were purchased by individual residents)," according to HUD's approval letter.

"None of the buildings' units comply with Section 504 requirements and the physical design makes retrofitting nearly impossible without major rehabilitation."

Jones attributed any disrepair at Bowen Homes to the lack of care and attention paid by the AHA over the years more than anything else.

While federal funding for public housing has decreased by 20% under the Bush Administration, AHA has increased revenue from its own residents by raising their rents; therefore, AHA has chosen to spend money on demolitions instead of improvements.

After the SAC inspection, the AHA removed "several ineligible items" from its estimate, such as a swimming pool, microwave range hoods, dishwashers, garbage disposals, and "other amenities and luxury items." This suggests that HUD took some notice of the questions raised by APN.

However, HUD allowed AHA to continue to include market-based improvements which are not based on any deficiencies with the buildings. "The exterior design readily identifies this site as public housing. Redesigning the exterior will require additions to the rear of the buildings, defined off-street parking, new fencing, sidewalks, and rear patios," HUD wrote.

"In order to make the units marketable, a redesign of the interior units is required since the bedrooms are too small by today's standards, a separate dining area is needed for larger families, and all kitchens and bathrooms will require upgrading," HUD wrote.

Still, with the swimming pool and other luxury items taken out, the new cost fell to
$72,649,543 with a separate cost for redesign that totaled $27,694,525.

Then, "the SAC modified the revised cost estimates by adjusting the quantity of interior doors, windows, light fixtures, and the demolition of some interior doors," according to HUD's approval letter. "The SAC also removed the rehabilitation cost for an administration and community building as [HUD] is comparing the rehabilitation cost with [Total Development Cost] TDC of units only."

As a result, the adjusted cost fell to $66,588,209, which is 58.90 percent of the Total Development Cost (TDC) limit. Regulations do not permit HUD to consider modifications cost effective if the modifications exceed 57.14 percent of the TDC at the time the application is submitted.

Thus, if the cost had been slightly lower-which it would have been by far if the exterior and interior market-based modifications were excluded-the demolitions could not have been approved.

RELOCATION - The relocation of remaining residents at Bowen Homes is expected to begin in July and will take approximately 12 to 18 months to complete. Relocation is expected to cost $5,718,120, which includes moving expenses for each family as well as staff salaries for relocation teams.

Hightower told APN residents are scared and uncertain of the future.

"They're not ready to leave but yet they want to go," she said. "They don't have the means to go."

As previously reported in APN, while the majority of residents attending association meetings at Bowen Homes and Bankhead Courts say they want to move, this does not reflect all of the communities. The majority of residents at Hollywood Courts and Palmer House have signed petitions stating they do not want to move. APN has no information regarding the wishes of residents at Herndon Homes, Thomasville Heights, or Roosevelt House.

The AHA said it will give residents Section 8 vouchers that will allow them to move elsewhere. Complaints on these Section 8 vouchers have included: not every resident that wants one has received one, residents are having a hard time finding another place to live, and some landlords do not take the vouchers.

Hightower told APN that those who have moved elsewhere on Housing Choice Vouchers are having a hard time adjusting.

"Most of the people I talk to on Section 8, it's not the rent, it's the utility bills that whip them," Hightower said. "In public housing, you get behind in rent, at least you get to catch up on your late fees. You're in Section 8, you don't pay your rent, you're gone."

Once all the residents are gone, AHA can begin demolishing Bowen Homes at an estimated cost of $5,850,000. The AHA plans to submit a Request for Proposal (RFP) to Atlanta's developer and investor community to build a mixed-use, mixed-income development.

AHA is no longer required to provide one-for-one replacement housing and HUD is not obligated to fund replacement housing due to changes in federal law over the last few years. Lindsay Jones, an Atlanta attorney who has been working with public housing residents for several months, told APN that HUD did not look close enough at the AHA's relocation plan, which he argues violates the US Fair Housing Act, which HUD enforces.

Jones, along with other individuals and groups, submitted evidence along with the AHA application that he said proves the violation. "It's obviously surprising to receive notice of HUD's approval, in light of all this evidence given to HUD," he told APN.

Jones and Hightower contend that under AHA's relocation plan, residents are either being moved from one public housing complex to another or placed in areas that are socially and economically segregated without access to good jobs, schools, or retail opportunities.

"I want to know, where are they going?" Hightower asked, adding the new places are "no better than where they left from." No resident should be relocated until the AHA brings its relocation plans in accordance with the Fair Housing Act, Jones said.

Advocates will take this complaint to the Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity office (FHEO) within HUD's Atlanta regional office for an appeal and also pursue other legal options.

RESIDENT CONSULTATION - HUD decided the AHA has met the requirements for resident consultation as required by federal law.

"In the application, the AHA states that they have worked diligently to keep AHA-assisted residents and the resident leadership fully informed of its plans for relocation and demolition and has engaged in significant consultation with residents and resident leaders to ensure that their questions, suggestions, and concerns have been addressed," according to HUD's approval letter.
The approval letter noted the AHA met with the Bowen Homes Resident Association April 26, July 26, and December 11, 2007; and with the Jurisdiction Wide Resident Council (JWRC) or Resident Advisory Board (RAB) on April 12, 2006, and February 14 and December 18, 2007.
While AHA has met with residents, these meetings involve AHA telling residents their plans, not asking residents their wishes. Also, AHA did not modify its plans to address any resident concerns.

APN previously reported the AHA sent in a false agenda and minutes for the February 14, 2007 JWRC meeting along with five demolition applications to HUD.

While the matter was referred to the HUD's Office of the Inspector General, the OIG never contacted APN about it, and the SAC did not even mention the issue in their letter. AHA submitted the same fabricated documents to HUD again in these applications.

APN had provided HUD's SAC with a copy of the forged and original documents by certified mail.
Moreover, the SAC did not mention the fact that the Resident Advisory Board had adopted a resolution opposing the demolitions, even though a copy of this resolution was also sent certified.
The application also noted several other meetings: April 4, 2006 (initial meeting to discuss demolition and relocation plans); April 18, 2006 (public hearing on 2007 annual plan at Atlanta City Hall; and April 19, 2007 (public hearing to discuss 2008 annual plan).

HUD also acknowledged receiving e-mails, faxes, and written comments from residents and other concerned groups and individuals who oppose the AHA's relocation/demolition plans, but did comment on what it saw.

Several of the acknowledged comments were from APN readers, who sent emails to APN for forwarding to HUD. These APN readers who HUD acknowledged were Alan M. Harris, John R. Caruso, and Elisabeth Omilami, Executive Director of Hosea Feed the Hungry.

HUD also acknowledged letters from the Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless and attorney Lindsay Jones; receipt of APN's analysis; and receipts of letters from three resident presidents, Elaine "9X" Osby of Cosby Spears, Eleanor Rayton of Palmer House, and Diane Wright of Hollywood Courts and the RAB Board. APN had assisted the three Presidents in articulating their concerns.

"I'm not pleased with it at all," Hightower said of HUD's decision. "I haven't given up. We're not through with them at all."

Diane Wright declined to be interviewed for this article.

AHA Whistleblower Corroborates Document Forgery

By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor, The Atlanta Progressive News / 12/08/07

(APN) ATLANTA – Exclusive testimony by a whistleblower who formerly worked for the Atlanta Housing Authority (AHA) corroborates the case that AHA seems to have deceived the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding its consultation with the Resident Advisory Board (RAB Board) regarding their demolition applications for Jonesboro North, Jonesboro South, Inglewood Manor, U-Rescue Villa, and Leila Valley, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.

HUD’s demolition/disposition applications under the "Section 18" program–different from HOPE VI–require a Housing Authority certify and explain how they consulted with resident groups and advocacy groups, particularly the RAB Board. To make a case for how they met this requirement, AHA sent in the fabricated meeting minutes and other documents.

The whistleblower, Anthony Bostic, was cited in the forged documents [and the real ones, also obtained by APN] and was the individual who presented to the RAB Board AHA’s demolition plans in general, and also put together the relocation plans for AHA for the applications to HUD. Bostic previously blew the whistle on other agenda wrongdoing in a previous APN exclusive about widespread voucher terminations.

APN first reported to the City Council of Atlanta in a public comment on December 03, 2007, that AHA had forged meeting minutes, sign-in sheets, and meeting agendas for the Jurisdiction Wide RAB Board’s February 14, 2007, meeting, in the five applications. APN published an article regarding the matter on December 04, 2007.

On December 05, 2007, APN notified the Deputy Assistant Secretary of HUD, Jereon Brown, as well as the director of the Special Applications Center which received the applications, Ainars Rodins, of the misrepresentation to HUD by AHA. Brown thanked APN for the information and said he forwarded it to the Program Director for Public and Indian Housing.

As Atlanta Progressive News has reported for some time, AHA did not consult with the RAB Board. Indeed, a copy of the February 14, 2007, RAB Board Meeting minutes, prepared by Louis Amey, Secretary, obtained several months ago by APN, state Barney Simms and Anthony Bostic of AHA made a presentation regarding the demolitions to the RAB Board.

"At Antoine Graves [senior high-rise] we did have a meeting, I believe it was on February 14th. I did go through the standard Quality of Life Initiative (QLI) presentation. It did not call for a vote nor did it call for any meaningful resident feedback," Bostic recalled in an interview with Atlanta Progressive News.

"All of our presentations invite residents to ask questions, but it wasn't really anything where we took any of their thoughts into consideration. Or take any of their thoughts to brainstorm about them and get back to them. The meeting was not designed to incorporate any of their feedback into the plan. It was more of an announcement and trying to convice residents it’s a good thing,” Bostic said.

"It wasn't that it was in draft form and we're trying to incorporate [their concerns]. It was to alert the residents of what is going on. But the plan had already been finalized. By February 14th, we'd already met with Concerned Black Clergy and had a meeting at Pascale's restaurant with local elected officials," including several City Council Members and State Rep. "Able" Mable Thomas, Bostic said.

"When we met with them [the RAB Board] the plan was in place. If we had gone back into serious revisions we would have had to have gone back to the political officials to make an announcement of what we were doing. The [QLI] plan was already announced, promoted, and disseminated," Bostic said, adding that the demolition applications themselves were not ever made public to his knowledge.

Bostic made an analogy to illustrate AHA’s presentation to the RAB Board. "I'm inviting you to my house, we're having steak, shrimp, and salad. And it doesn't matter that you're a vegetarian. I told you what was on the menu. But [you say] there was no opportunity for me to voice my opinion that I'm a vegetarian," Bostic said.

Did AHA ever go back and consult with the RAB Board about the applications? "I didn't and I don't believe it was done." Bostic left the agency in May 2007 after apparently being fired for exposing agency wrongdoing. "To my knowledge, there was not a time that we actually went to the residents and said, what do you think about this? Our position is to demolish the properties, and put the residents in a better situation," Bostic said.

"Our plan was around how do we meet basic HUD requirements? They would probably use [the meeting minutes] to show consultation but again that wasn't an opportunity for consultation," Bostic said. "It's kind of an undertone, we have to involve the residents because HUD tells us to do so, but they don't get it. They're complacent. They want the status quo even though it's not best for them."

According to the real minutes from the February 14 meeting, after Bostic’s presentation, the floor was opened to questions. "Some of the questions or concerns were: Doesn’t AHA need approval from JWC [Jurisdiction-Wide Council also known as the RAB Board] to move forward? (Answer:) AHA doesn’t need approval from JWC and they only need approval from HUD. They are just letting us know what the plan is so we can tell our Residents what to expect," the real minutes state.

"I remember the question coming up. Barney [Simms] probably gave the answer. That was the sentiment: we're not seeking your approval," Bostic told APN.

However, the demolition applications contain a different version of the minutes from the same meeting, apparently composed by AHA. These minutes are only one page, instead of two pages, and they contain completely different descriptions of what went on that day. They do not include AHA’s assertion of only needing to tell residents their plans but not consult with them.
Who typed up the fake RAB Board meeting minutes?

"I know I did not and I probably know who did. Probably someone on his [Simms’s] staff but I don't know. I knew we had to have evidence to submit to HUD. It [putting together the demolition applications] didn't fall under my realm, so I didn't pay attention to it very much. It actually fell under real estate management," Bostic said.

"We [AHA] did type them up. We had a staff person there on Barney's team that was there to type the minutes for the purpose of the application and not necessarily working with the Secretary [of the association]. I have no knowledge that we ever reached out to the Secretary of the body to get their notes," Bostic said.

"If they also seem very rote, standard, they're all part of the same format... You're not gonna have 5 or 6 public housing residents using the same legal language," Bostic said. "All 6 communities have their own Secretaries and their own set of minutes."

The demolition applications also contain typed-up sign in sheets, which RAB Board President Diane Wright says are not the RAB Board’s actual sign-in sheets. The sign-in sheets sent to HUD were typed, whereas the AHA sign-in sheets contain handwritten names.

The demolition applications also contain copies of the agenda from that meeting, although Wright says it is not the actual agenda. APN has actual RAB Board agendas from other months and they are not in the same format nor font, nor on the same letterhead, as the agenda AHA sent in to HUD.

Residents, press, advocates, and local officials have been trying to see copies of the applications for months. Wright told City Council in a July 2007 Work Session that AHA refused to let her see the applications, a Channel 26 video shows.

Attorney Lindsay Jones, also of Emory University, helped residents with a public records
request to AHA including a request for the applications, where AHA never responded to the individual items.

City Councilwoman Felicia Moore also requested the applications several times, she told APN. Wright also hand delivered to AHA’s director, Renee Glover, a second public records request at the November 2007 AHA Board of Commissioners and never heard a response, she said.
AHA’s spokesperson, Rick White, first told APN they would be happy to share the documents, but about one hour later said it would have to go through with public records. APN finally obtained them from HUD’s Freedom of Information office after six weeks of attempting to view them.

AHA also told HUD they received no written comments on the applications but the problem is that they were not made available to the public for such comment.

Residents and advocates are continuing to pursue an injunction against AHA, and are also interested in possible criminal charges against relevant AHA officials. The City Attorney recently told Council that AHA is liable for its own damages.

About the author: Matthew Cardinale is the News Editor for Atlanta Progressive News and may be reached at matthew@atlantaprogressivenews.com

AHA Falsified Applications to HUD

By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor, Atlanta Progressive News (December 03, 2007)

(APN) ATLANTA – The Atlanta Housing Authority (AHA) sent in five demolition applications to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) containing falsified documents, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.

APN notified the City Council of Atlanta of this troubling revelation during the public comment period of the December 03, 2007, full Council meeting.

APN obtained the documents through the Freedom of Information Act from HUD, after both AHA and HUD’s press offices refused to disclose the documents voluntarily. HUD’s Donna White said the documents would have to come through AHA or public records since they were produced by AHA, but did not explain why. AHA’s Barney Simms had Rick White from the Alisias PR firm return a phone call from APN. White said he would be happy to provide the documents, only hours later saying they would instead have to come through public records, meaning it would cost around $300, contain several redactions, and take several weeks.

APN received expedited processing from HUD. HUD granted expedited processing because APN was able to show that not having the documents could lead to the loss of safety of others, particularly since the public has not seen the relocation plans for residents being evicted. In all, it took about six weeks to get the documents. The applications were for the Jonesboro North, Jonesboro South, Inglewood Manor, U-Rescue Villa, and Leila Valley communities. Donna White from HUD told APN they were approved in June 2007.

In addition to obtaining forged documents, the applications also raise other serious issues. Mayor of Atlanta Shirley Franklin has been sending letters to HUD expressing the approval of the “City of Atlanta” of the demolitions. However, this has been done without the consent of the City Council.

Also, the applications state that no written comments from the public were received on the applications. However, AHA never held public hearings on the applications, Diane Wright, President of the Resident Advisory Board, told APN. Also, if the applications were not made public, being that they could only be obtained through public records requests for a fee, it’s not clear how the public would have been able to comment on them.

FORGED DOCUMENTS REGARDING RESIDENT CONSULTATION

One of the most important requirements of the application process to HUD for each demolition/disposition application is to demonstrate how the residents were consulted with, particularly the RAB Board.

As Atlanta Progressive News has reported for some time, AHA did not consult with the RAB Board. Indeed, a copy of the February 14, 2007 RAB Board Meeting minutes, prepared by Louis Amey, Secretary, obtained several months ago by APN, state Barney Simms and Anthony Bostic of AHA made a presentation regarding the demolitions to the RAB Board. Incidentally, Bostic is now an AHA whistleblower who has shared with APN other instances of AHA wrongdoing, as APN has already reported.

After this presentation, the floor was opened to questions. "Some of the questions or concerns were: Doesn’t AHA need approval from JWC [Jurisdiction-Wide Council also known as the RAB Board] to move forward? (Answer:) AHA doesn’t need approval from JWC and they only need approval from HUD. They are just letting us know what the plan is so we can tell our Residents what to expect."

However, the demolition applications contain a different version of the minutes from the same meeting, apparently composed by AHA. These minutes are only one page, instead of two pages, and they contain completely different descriptions of what went on that day. They do not include AHA’s assertion of only needing to tell residents their plans but not consult with them.

The demolition applications also contain typed-up sign in sheets, which Wright says are not the RAB Board’s actual sign-in sheets. The sign-in sheets sent to HUD were typed, whereas the AHA sign-in sheets contain handwritten names.

The demolition applications also contain copies of the agenda from that meeting, although Wright says it is not the actual agenda. APN has actual RAB Board agendas from other months and they are not in the same format nor font, nor on the same letterhead, as the agenda AHA sent in to HUD.

LETTER FROM MAYOR FRANKLIN

Mayor Franklin wrote five letters to HUD supporting each of the applications on January 29, 2007. "The City of Atlanta supports The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta’s (AHA) plan to submit a demolition application to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development relating to the Englewood Manor [or respective] community," Franklin wrote.
Franklin insisted the City was a partner in the demolitions. "As a partner, The City of Atlanta is committed to working with AHA to promote more effective and efficient operation of low-income housing, to better serve the needs of these residents, and to reduce the concentration of poverty in Atlanta neighborhoods," Franklin wrote.

However, one Member of City Council told Atlanta Progressive News that the Council has not voted to approve the demolitions. Some Members of Council, particularly Ivory Lee Young, have stated that the Council has no jurisdiction over the AHA in regards to these demolitions. However, the City Council does have a say as relevant local government officials through the demolition application process.

HUD’s Donna White told APN that traditionally, HUD prefers for the letter to come from the Mayor or County Chair, where applicable.

Yet, that does not mean the letter should be written by the Mayor on behalf of the City without consultation with the legislative body whose role it is to set policy and represent citizens.
Atlanta Progressive News will inform top HUD officials of the issues, including the apparent fraudulent documents, related to this application. Residents and advocates have already made a civil rights complaint to HUD, which HUD is investigating, stating they were not consulted as well.

At this point, residents and advocates are interested in pursuing a legal injunction preventing AHA from relocating residents and demolishing the properties.

About the author: Matthew Cardinale is the News Editor for Atlanta Progressive News and may be reached at matthew@atlantaprogressivenews.com

HUD Has Not Approved Palmer, Roosevelt House, nor Other Demolitions

By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor, The Atlanta Progressive News (12/02/07)

(APN) ATLANTA – The Atlanta Housing Authority has not made an application to, or received an approval from, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, for several remaining public housing communities in Atlanta, including Palmer House and Roosevelt House, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.

A City Council resolution proposed by Council Members Ivory Lee Young and Kwanza Hall, and two articles in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper state that Palmer House is stated for demolition beginning in January of 2008, in just one month, with Roosevelt House to follow in 2009. One of the articles, an AJC editorial argued the City Council’s possible approval of a Housing Relocation Task Force would impede the plans already in place.

However, if AHA indeed already planned to demolish, or begin the demolition process next month, that would be illegal.

AHA has to receive approval from HUD before they begin any demolitions, Donna White, head spokesperson for HUD, told Atlanta Progressive News.

HUD prepared a list for Atlanta Progressive News several weeks ago of approved demolitions in Atlanta upon request from the news service. HUD later deemed the list “proprietary” and would not issue it to APN voluntarily, but answered questions about specific properties on the list and the dates and number of units of approvals.

Neither Palmer nor Roosevelt House were on the list. Donna White confirmed to APN on November 30, 2007, that Palmer House had still not been approved. Neither again did Palmer nor Roosevelt House appear on a public list of applications under consideration on HUD’s website for the Special Applications Center in Chicago, Illinois, which receives applications for demolition/disposition.

Eleanor Rayton, President of the residents’ association for Palmer House, confirmed to APN that AHA told her and the Palmer House residents that relocation teams would be beginning the process of relocating residents in January 2008.

There is nothing wrong with AHA offering vouchers to public housing residents in communities where demolitions have not been approved, Donna White said.

However, most residents and members of the public encountered by this writer believe the demolitions are a done deal.

The residents believe that they have to take the vouchers because they believe they have no other choice, Diane Wright, President of the Resident Advisory Board, told Atlanta Progressive News.

AHA has not informed most of the residents nor the public about the application process to HUD. Indeed, the City Council and AJC appear to believe Palmer House was slated for demolition next month.

Councilman Ivory Lee Young has suggested the HRTF could prepare brochures and other materials for public housing residents explaining their rights. "Could a brochure have helped to mitigate it? And for me personally, I think some of this is just getting the information to people impacted in an efficient way. Knowing the challenges that seniors have in attending meetings and getting information, going the extra mile," Young said in comments at Thursday’s Community Development and Human Resources Committee meeting of the City Council of Atlanta.

However, when community groups have attempted to make presentations to the senior residents at Palmer House, AHA has shut down their meetings, as reported previously in APN.
When Terence Courtney from Jobs with Justice was a planned special guest at a Special Call Meeting of the Palmer House resident association, AHA’s Barney Simms showed up with security and had him escorted off the property.

Therefore, AHA has not only failed to provide senior residents with information about their rights, but they have actively prevented them from receiving information inconsistent with the agency’s message.

HUD Civil Rights Investigation of AHA Continues

By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor, The Atlanta Progressive News (October 27, 2007)

(APN) ATLANTA – The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has officially processed two complaints made by resident association leaders, Diane Wright and Shirley Hightower, of Hollywood Courts and Bowen Homes public housing communities, respectively, according to documents concerning the investigations obtained by APN.

What was originally a joint complaint by the two resident leaders, both officers on the Resident Advisory Board (RAB), has been split into two separate complaints on behalf of each individual, APN has learned.

Wright’s complaint has its own case number and is called “Wright, Diane v Atlanta Housing Authority.” HUD prepared its own two-page summary of Wright’s complaint, according to a copy obtained by APN.

Additionally, each of the complaints is being investigated by two separate offices: both HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity and the Georgia Commission on Equal Opportunity.

"Your complaint, alleging one or more discriminatory housing practices, was officially filed on 09/20/07 as a complaint under the Federal Fair Housing Law... Additionally, the complaint was filed under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964... that prohibits discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance," James Sutton, Regional Director of HUD FHEO, Region IV, wrote in a letter to Wright dated September 20, 2007.

The respondent, AHA director, Renee Glover, had the right to respond within 10 days, the letter says.

"Our responsibility under the law is to undertake an impartial investigation and, at the same time, encourage all sides to reach an agreement, where appropriate, through conciliation,” the letter says. “We will conduct an impartial investigation of all claims that the Fair Housing Act has been violated."

Law requires the FHEO to complete the investigation within 100 days, the letter states.
"If the investigation indicates there is not evidence establishing jurisdiction, the case will be dismissed. At any point you can request that our staff assist you in conciliating (or settling) this complaint with the respondent(s)," the letter states.

"If the case is not resolved, we will complete our investigation and decide whether or not the evidence indicates that there has been a fair housing violation... The Department will issue a determination as to whether there is reasonable cause to believe a discriminatory housing practice has occurred," the letter states.

"If our investigation indicates that there is reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful discriminatory housing practice has occurred, the Department must issue a charge... In either event, you will be notified in writing," the letter states.

"If the determination is one of reasonable cause, the notification will advise you and the respondent(s) of your rights to choose, within 20 days, whether you wish to have the case heard by an Administrative Law Judge, or to have the matter referred for trial in the appropriate US District Court," the letter states.

"Under federal law, even if the Department dismisses the complaint, you still have the right to bring an individual suit under the Federal Fair Housing Act," the letter states.

A second letter to Wright dated September 24, 2007, states that under the Fair Housing Act, the complaint is being investigated by the Georgia Commission on Equal Opportunity (CEO).
The letter does not specify, but implies that this means a second investigation is occurring with the Georgia CEO, on top of the investigation under the HUD FHEO.

Wright says she has not spoken directly with HUD or the CEO since the complaint was filed, but that this is the understanding conveyed to her by her pro bono attorney, Lindsay Jones, of Emory University School of Law.

"They have their own separate process, but it [originally] was put into one package. They broke it up," Wright told Atlanta Progressive News in an interview.

APN previously reported that the complaint was on behalf of the RAB Board, because Wright and Hightower’s names were at the top of the complaint, listing their leadership titles on the RAB Board: President and Treasurer, respectively.

"I asked him [Jones] if he did the complaint for all the communities, and he said yes," Wright said.

However, Wright and Hightower stopped working together several weeks ago after they had personal disagreements and differences over strategy.

At one point, Jones notified Wright that she and Hightower would have their own individual complaints, Wright said.

The RAB Board still has an opportunity to file its own complaint, Wright said.

HUD has already told APN they will not comment an on ongoing investigation.

Wright had to send in to HUD a signed form attesting her complaint was true, which she has now sent in, she said. She also signed a release of information so Jones can speak with HUD on her behalf, she said.

About the author: Matthew Cardinale is the News Editor for The Atlanta Progressive News and may be reached at matthew@atlantaprogressivenews.com

Public Housing on the Chopping Block in the US

By Matthew Cardinale / ATLANTA PROGRESSIVE NEWS

ATLANTA, Aug 30 (IPS) - Even as people around the United States and the world recall the horrors of Hurricane Katrina two years ago, which displaced tens of thousands of the Gulf Coast's poorest residents, government-subsidised housing has come under increasing attack by policymakers in the U.S.

Starting in the 1990s, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) encouraged the demolition of 100,000 units. Since then, local authorities across the country have destroyed at least 78,015 public housing apartments under HOPE VI, with another 10,354 planned for demolition, according to HUD data, Linda Couch, deputy director of the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, told IPS.

There are currently about 1.2 million public housing units in the U.S., HUD spokesperson Donna White told IPS.

Couch estimates the HOPE VI demolitions are only half of the total demolitions so far.
Under that programme, public housing communities were torn down and replaced with "mixed-income communities". However, the mixed-income communities often include high-priced houses, luxury condos, upscale shopping, and very few housing units affordable to low-income families.

For instance, in 2002 in New Orleans, after the St. Thomas project was demolished, only 9 percent of the units in the redevelopment were affordable to the people who used to live there, even though the community was originally promised that half the new units would be affordable, according to a report by Brod Bagert, Jr., the son of a prominent New Orleans lawyer and politician who wrote his master's thesis for the London School of Economics on the issue.

The campaign to tear down public housing communities has employed an argument that came out of social science, called the "concentration of poverty". Officials argue that having too many poor people living in close proximity to each other was the cause of unemployment, low school achievement, and neighbourhood crime.

However, residents and advocates say it was the deliberate under-funding and mismanagement of public housing which allowed it to get run down. They say the real reason for the demolitions is to help private investors make money off the properties, to destroy the welfare state, and to leave no alternative to the private rental market.

In 1998, Congress did away with the one-to-one replacement rule, Couch said, which required rebuilding one unit for each unit torn down.

"Demolishing the most severely distressed -- that was their goal in 1996," Couch said.
Now, under a new programme, "Section 18" or demolition/disposition, "They have the ability to demolish or sell off their housing by completing a simple application form. They don't have to seek a grant. They have to say this is what we think is best for our agency," Couch said.
In Atlanta, the housing authorities are pursuing a plan that would destroy all low-income housing in the city, including high-rise apartments for the disabled and senior citizens.
"Atlanta now wants to get rid of all of its public housing," she said. "Atlanta definitely represents an extreme. We also think there is a lack of will on behalf of some communities to figure out ways to replace those units," Couch said.

While Atlanta plans to offer vouchers to the residents they would displace, many serious problems with the vouchers have arisen.

First, the vouchers have to be renewed by the U.S. Congress every year. Between 2004 and 2006, the Republican-led Congress de-funded 150,000 vouchers. And with the welfare state on the Congressional chopping block, it may be politically easier to quietly de-fund vouchers than to tear down public housing and send people into the street all at once.

Local housing authorities also terminate people's vouchers for dozens of reasons. One whistleblower who worked for the Atlanta Housing Authority (AHA) told IPS that the agency attempts to terminate as many vouchers as possible.

For example, AHA terminates vouchers if people don't pay their electricity bills, but does not provide the utility subsidies required by HUD, another AHA whistleblower said.

Atlanta is also disqualifying many public housing residents for vouchers even before tearing down their homes. Atlanta won't issue vouchers to residents with poor credit histories, and is telling residents who they allowed in years ago that they can't get a voucher because of some item on their criminal background check, two local attorneys told IPS.

Landlords don't have to accept vouchers. The vouchers only cover low-income housing, often leading to new concentrations of poverty. AHA has steered residents into site-based vouchers, which prevent residents from moving again if they want to keep their voucher. Residents also have to re-certify every year, another barrier.

One untold consequence of the U.S. mortgage crisis is that many families with vouchers have been evicted because their landlords have not been paying their mortgages, even though the tenants have been paying their rent. AHA has reportedly been neglectful in responding to these emergencies.

Resident leaders Diane Wright and Shirley Hightower in Atlanta say they have not been consulted regarding AHA's demolition plans. Section 18 requires resident leaders' signatures on AHA's application, and it remains to be seen whether they will be able to stop the demolitions.
Wright and Hightower recently filed a civil rights complaint with HUD, alleging that AHA's actions violate the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against African Americans, who are the majority of public housing tenants in Atlanta.

People of colour make up the majority of low-income renters in Atlanta too, so they will end up paying higher rent as public housing is destroyed and those renters are sent into the low-income housing market.

After the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, residents have complained that officials with Housing Authority of New Orleans used the calamity as an excuse to destroy public housing in the city.

"Following Katrina, although this brought untold suffering, the majority of the elite saw this as an opportunity, the silver lining to cleanse New Orleans of the poor, change racial and class demographics, privatise everything," said Dr. Jay Arena, a community activist in New Orleans.
"Most of the public housing was closed. Iberville was reopened because of the agitation we had done before the hurricane and after. Four major developments remain closed: St. Bernard, the Lafitte -- which barely got any water -- the BW Cooper, only a few of those are open, and CJ Peete," Arena said.

"But there's been a lot of struggle. We've marched and been arrested and protested and denounced what has happened," he told IPS.

"We broke in, we led people back into their homes. We broke through the police lines. We highlighted the contradictions of what the government was saying -- people had a right to return, and the government was blocking people's right to return.

"HANO [Housing Authority of New Orleans] put fences around the development. At Lafitte, they spent millions of dollars putting these steel doors on there. A group of us from C3, people from Common Ground, we occupied. We went into the second story through a ladder. We knocked down the steel door from the inside. The cops came and they arrested nine of us, The Lafitte 9," Arena said.

In June, advocates from public housing communities across the country met at the U.S. Social Forum in Atlanta to begin coordinating a national movement. This week, the groups will meet again in New Orleans for the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina to formalise their plans.
"In America, it's urban and economic cleansing. [HUD Secretary] Alphonso Jackson should be tried for crimes against humanity. Is it not a crime to destroy the only tool to deal with homelessness?" asked J.R. Flemming of the Chicago-based Coalition to Protect Public Housing.

"What's going to happen to these other cities? They're gonna fall as we fall? Right now we think we have a better chance fighting together than fighting as individuals," Flemming said.