John Moreno Gonzales / Associated Press Writer / Thursday, February 28, 2008
New Orleans advocates who've clamored for recognition of alleged human rights violations in the Hurricane Katrina recovery claimed victory Thursday, after United Nations' experts said thousands of black families would continue to suffer displacement and homelessness if the demolition of 4,500 public housing units is not halted.
"I think this is vindication of what public housing advocates have been saying from day one," said Monique Harden, co-director of the public interest law firm Advocates for Environmental Human Rights, who testified before Geneva-based U.N. experts.
"Recovery must mean the end of displacement for the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast," added Harden, who returned to New Orleans last week. "What we have instead is recovery that demolishes affordable housing."
U.N.-appointed experts Miloon Kothari, the U.N. Human Rights Council's investigator for housing, and Gay McDougall, an expert on minority issues, urged U.S. and local government leaders to further include current and former residents in discussions that would help them return home.
"The spiraling costs of private housing and rental units, and in particular the demolition of public housing, puts these communities in further distress, increasing poverty and homelessness," said a joint statement by the men. "We therefore call on the Federal Government and State and local authorities to immediately halt the demolitions of public housing in New Orleans."
But local officials said the U.N. experts were too detached from the complexities of the post-Katrina city to claim razing of the buildings was racist. City officials were riled, but mostly planned to ignore the finding.
"The past model of public housing in New Orleans has been a failed one - years of neglect and mismanagement left our public housing developments in ruin," said a joint statement issued by the city council Thursday. "These are critical times in our city's history - we can choose to continue on the path of progress and positive change or we can choose to maintain the status quo."
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development also weighed in, calling the U.N. expert findings "misinformed."
"We do not want to relegate thousands of minority and low-income families back into the sub-standard conditions of New Orleans' public housing - conditions only made worse by Hurricane Katrina," said a statement issued by HUD's press offices.
The expert comments did not entail an official U.N. resolution, but came a day before a larger U.N. racism panel planned to discuss Katrina recovery efforts and public housing in New Orleans. Neither opinion carries legal or regulatory power.
The demolition of the housing projects appears all but assured, early stages have begun at some developments only demolition permits remain for others. The council voted unanimously in December to raze the units. Still, critics say it was the council's first major action after the election of a white majority that reflected demographic shifts caused by Katrina.
"After the disaster there was a desire for a clean slate on the part of local leaders," said Robert Tannen, a local urban planner and housing advocate. "And that clean slate mostly displaces poor and minority residents."
Since the storm in August 2005, the city's black population has plummeted by 57 percent, while the white population fell 36 percent, according to U.S. Census data. Blacks now make up roughly 58 percent of New Orleans compared to 67 percent before the storm. Blacks have been in the majority for about three decades.
New Orleans has seen 65 percent of its total population return, according to a local demographer who uses utility hookups to offer the most detailed figures. But some black enclaves are a fraction of what they were, and others see their very existence threatened.
According to demographer Greg Rigamer, the Lower 9th Ward has seen only 9.9 percent of its population return. A traditionally mixed-race neighborhood within the Lower 9th, Holy Cross, has fared better with a 37 percent return, benefiting from the work of preservationists who seek to restore the federally declared historic district. Eastern New Orleans, a sprawling area that includes the black upper middle-class enclave of Eastover, has nearly kept pace with the overall return, with about 60 percent of its residents home.
But Rigamer's numbers bear out the racial and economic underpinnings of the recovery. Affluent and mostly white areas not only have all their residents back, but are growing. The Garden District has seen 107 percent of its population return, the French Quarter 103 percent, and an adjacent neighborhood called Faubourg Marigny has a 100.3 percent return rate.
Tannen, who has advocated for the housing to be improved but not destroyed, said while the focus on public housing is symbolically powerful, the loss of working-class rental units to Katrina is more significant.
According to the Oakland, Calif., think tank PolicyLink, hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed 41,000 apartments affordable to people earning less than the area's median income, and only 43 percent will be rebuilt under federal programs. Prospects are bleakest for those earning less-than $26,150. According to the think tank, only 16 percent of housing affordable to them is scheduled for federally funded redevelopment.
(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Showing posts with label Public Housing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Housing. Show all posts
Monday, July 28, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
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.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Seniors, Resident Leaders Ask HUD to Postpone Demolition Review
By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor, The Atlanta Progressive News (May 02, 2008)
(APN) ATLANTA – Resident leaders at Palmer House senior highrise and the citywide Resident Advisory Board for public housing have sent emails, letters, and resolutions to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development requesting a delay in their consideration of demolition applications currently under review, until residents and association leaders have a chance to review the demolition applications, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.
"Atlanta Housing Authority submitted to you demolition applications for several communities on February 4, 2008, without letting resident leaders and officers see or review the applications for comments before the were submitted. I would think that since they want to demolish our home that we should have been included in what they were doing to us," Eleanor Rayton, President of the Palmer House senior highrise, wrote in a letter to Ainars Rodins, director of HUD’s Special Application Center, dated March 30, 2008.
"We want a chance to review the application! We are senior citizens and we will need more time at least two or three months to review the application. It’s a very thick book and it will take some time for me to read all of it, and my officers want to read it also, we want to know how and why they justify their plans, what are their plans, and why didn’t they speak with us about their plans to see if we want to move or stay," Rayton wrote.
"I have a lot of seniors that are going through a lot of emotional changes about this moving, some of them are afraid that they will be homeless, and have had to up on nerve medication, they are seniors and they are afraid," Rayton wrote.
"We support Ms. Rayton’s request for a 60-90 day extension on HUD’s review of demo applications so residents have a chance to review them and respond," leaders of the RAB Board, wrote in a resolution dated March 23, 2008, which was also mailed to HUD.
Rayton has not received written replies to either her email or letter to Mr. Rodins, she says, and she has also left him several voice messages which have not been returned.
"Please do not shut us out of this process; this is our Home and the seniors want to have a voice, they’re afraid. Let’s be honest and truthful with our seniors, most of the seniors have lost their confidence in AHA. They don’t trust them, they come to me daily wanting to know they are being truthful with [sic], and will they end up homeless," Rayton wrote.
SENIORS ADAMANT THEY DO NOT WANT TO MOVE
"My residents are still saying they don't want to move. They don't want to go anywhere. We're going to stay right here," Rayton said.
"Me and several of my residents talked today, including my Vice and we were talking about it. We think it’s really wrong how they doing us, how they wanting us to move. We stayed here during the time it was so bad you couldn't walk the streets. Why can't we be here to enjoy the beautiful location of Techwood now?" Rayton said.
Palmer and Roosevelt House are located near Centennial Park, where Techwood/Clark Howell was demolished by AHA in the 1990s under HOPE VI and was replaced with Centennial Place.
"We went through all that bad times here and now they want us to move and it's just not right. We want to enjoy all this beautification. It's for the rich people. Either for like the people that have to drive maybe 50 to 60 miles to get to work, the people that live out in the suburbs and they don't to spend all that time coming down to Atlanta, that's what we feel like," Rayton said.
PALMER HOUSE BUILDING IN GOOD CONDITION
Atlanta Progressive News reviewed the architectural report for Palmer House by Praxis 3 architectural firm for the Palmer House demolition application.
The report shows Palmer House, like Hollywood Court and possibly other communities, is "structurally sound." APN has only had time to review Hollywood Courts’s full application [around 1000 pages] and only portions of other applications thus far. Palmer House is reported by Praxis 3 to be in good physical condition.
The only two physical issues with Palmer House are that discoloration on the roof suggests standing water, which can be fixed for $7500; and that refurbishment is needed for the glazing on the exterior walls, which can be fixed for $75,000. Thus, the total refurbishment cost is $82,500 to address physical issues listed in the report.
However, AHA has apparently made a fraudulent claim to HUD that Palmer House, like Hollywood Courts, is physically obsolete, a claim not even supported by the architectural reports they commissioned.
RESIDENTS SCARED BY AHA RELOCATION TEAMS
Relocation teams have been approaching senior citizens at Palmer House and Roosevelt House since February 2008, resident leaders say.
"The first time when they came out here I did not know they was coming. They were on the floor and some of the residents had called me saying they had signed a letter and people wanted their social security numbers," Rayton told Atlanta Progressive News.
"I said who are these people? Where are they from? They said they're from Housing. I said, do they have a business card to give y'all? They said no they didn't want to tell us their name. I said this wasn't right. I was in a lot of pain that day," Rayton said.
"I went to a couple of seniors’ apartments and looked at the paper. I talked to my Vice and said I can't go door to door. So I went on the intercom. I said people who say they're from AHA are here, I don't know who they are. And I don't know where they come from. I said those papers, you might be signing your life away or you might be signing yourself outdoors. So don't sign any more papers," Rayton recalled.
"The people got mad and came to the management office and wanted to know who said that," Rayton said.
"I went down trying to block them by the water fountain as people got on the elevator," Rayton said.
"One lady she said I'm not going to sign this. I said y'all don't sign anything til I go out and find out what's going on. [AHA’s] Mr. .Simms called my office and my VP said I wasn't there," Rayton said.
"He called downstairs to management. I asked them, did they have any business cards and they said they didn't. I said we'll just wait until we find out about you all," Rayton said.
"Mr. Simms called management to come get me to the phone. He tried to explain what was going on. I said that wasn't right because we didn't know what was going on. And he should come down here himself," Rayton said.
RAYTON’S VISIT TO LOCAL HUD
Determined to find answers, Rayton visited federal HUD’s Atlanta office on Marietta Street.
"I went down to HUD to find out. Down on Marietta Street. I spoke with [Onri Harvey]. She was somebody on staff. We went up and I sat and talked with her. We took the papers and asked was those papers correct? She said yes. They had to do that now because last year they had a lot of drama with AHA coming and saying to move in 90 days, and that's not enough time for us to be able to move," Rayton said.
From the way the letters are described, they are likely letters which were included the various demolition applications. The letters let residents know that applications have been submitted to HUD and that if they are approved, then the residents will be displaced.
"They said it's for us to sign to receive them so we can't say you only gave us 60 days."
Rayton asked Harvey why her building was proposed for demolition, she said.
"She told us it was gonna have to go because it's so old and they can't keep putting money into it and fix it up the way they should be fixed up for us to live in here. But my residents don't want to go," Rayton said.
When told in recent days by APN that Palmer House is not physically obsolete and can be refurbished with funds AHA has already set aside for relocation: "Well I think what they said was wrong. They just lied," Rayton said.
"I wanted a copy of the developers. She told me they don't have a copy of that because they don't have any developers," Rayton said.
Rayton also asked HUD for a copy of the demolition application.
"She said they don't have a copy of it. She told us we couldn't get one," Rayton said.
RAYTON’S EMAIL TO AHA AND HUD
When local HUD would not provide Rayton a copy of the demolition application, after AHA never provided Rayton a copy, she emailed AHA director Renee Glover and carbon copied HUD officials in Chicago.
"I've ask [sic] several times for a copu [sic] of the demolition application, I would like to also know what will be did with this building and will some of the residents get to move back it they want to, I would like to know who are the developers that will get this building," Rayton wrote in an email dated March 10, 2008.
"I'm the resident president of the palmer house senior high rise and we're very concern that AHA didn't send us a copy of the demolition application before they submited [sic] it to HUD, we have serious concerns and questions about the demolition application that was submited to HUD on February 1, 2008 we feel that we be included in everthing [sic] that has to do with the Palmer House Senior High Rise because this is our home, this is where we live, we never had a chance to see the copy of the demolition application, my residents are asking me to see it and I don't have it to show them," Rayton wrote.
AHA’s Barney Simms responded to Rayton’s email on March 12, 2008.
"Ms. Glover forwarded to me your e-mail dated March 9, 2008 in which you requested a copy of the demolition application for Palmer House," Simms wrote, according to an email obtained by Atlanta Progressive News.
"I was not aware that you had requested a copy of the application before; however, I think it would be great for you and other Palmer House residents to have access to the application. Therefore, I will make sure that you receive a hand delivered copy of the application before the close of business on Friday of this week. I will also make another copy available so that it can be kept in the property management office so other Palmer House residents will have access to it," Simms wrote.
"In fact, I think your idea to provide the applications to the residents is such a wonderful idea that I will make available copies of the demolition applications for each affected community. One copy will be provided to the resident association president and another will be made available for residents' access within the property management office of the community," Simms wrote.
Rayton received her copy Friday of that week, she said.
Rayton believes it is unfair AHA did not involve the resident association in their planning.
AHA claims it has held over 20 meetings with the various resident associations, but these meetings typically involve AHA telling residents their plans.
"They made the plan by themselves. We didn't know anything about it. We really should have. If they didn't want to include the residents, I think the officers should have been included. When they did HOPE VI for Techwood/Clark Howell, they gave them the plans and everything. They sat down and talked with them about it," Rayton said.
Rayton is currently hopeful she will hear back from Mr. Rodins regarding her request. She is actively seeking support from various community leaders for her request as well, APN can report.
Rayton, along with other RAB Board members, has requested a sit-down meeting with HUD in Chicago and is waiting to see if HUD is willing.
"I would just like to ask them, could they just come back, reevaluate this building and let us stay here? This is our home. This is where we want to stay. We don't want to move out of Atlanta. We don't want to move out of Downtown Atlanta. We want to stay here. And if there's anything wrong with the building, could they just repair it and let us continue to live here? We have some residents live here 30 something years and they don't want to go anywhere," Rayton said.
(APN) ATLANTA – Resident leaders at Palmer House senior highrise and the citywide Resident Advisory Board for public housing have sent emails, letters, and resolutions to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development requesting a delay in their consideration of demolition applications currently under review, until residents and association leaders have a chance to review the demolition applications, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.
"Atlanta Housing Authority submitted to you demolition applications for several communities on February 4, 2008, without letting resident leaders and officers see or review the applications for comments before the were submitted. I would think that since they want to demolish our home that we should have been included in what they were doing to us," Eleanor Rayton, President of the Palmer House senior highrise, wrote in a letter to Ainars Rodins, director of HUD’s Special Application Center, dated March 30, 2008.
"We want a chance to review the application! We are senior citizens and we will need more time at least two or three months to review the application. It’s a very thick book and it will take some time for me to read all of it, and my officers want to read it also, we want to know how and why they justify their plans, what are their plans, and why didn’t they speak with us about their plans to see if we want to move or stay," Rayton wrote.
"I have a lot of seniors that are going through a lot of emotional changes about this moving, some of them are afraid that they will be homeless, and have had to up on nerve medication, they are seniors and they are afraid," Rayton wrote.
"We support Ms. Rayton’s request for a 60-90 day extension on HUD’s review of demo applications so residents have a chance to review them and respond," leaders of the RAB Board, wrote in a resolution dated March 23, 2008, which was also mailed to HUD.
Rayton has not received written replies to either her email or letter to Mr. Rodins, she says, and she has also left him several voice messages which have not been returned.
"Please do not shut us out of this process; this is our Home and the seniors want to have a voice, they’re afraid. Let’s be honest and truthful with our seniors, most of the seniors have lost their confidence in AHA. They don’t trust them, they come to me daily wanting to know they are being truthful with [sic], and will they end up homeless," Rayton wrote.
SENIORS ADAMANT THEY DO NOT WANT TO MOVE
"My residents are still saying they don't want to move. They don't want to go anywhere. We're going to stay right here," Rayton said.
"Me and several of my residents talked today, including my Vice and we were talking about it. We think it’s really wrong how they doing us, how they wanting us to move. We stayed here during the time it was so bad you couldn't walk the streets. Why can't we be here to enjoy the beautiful location of Techwood now?" Rayton said.
Palmer and Roosevelt House are located near Centennial Park, where Techwood/Clark Howell was demolished by AHA in the 1990s under HOPE VI and was replaced with Centennial Place.
"We went through all that bad times here and now they want us to move and it's just not right. We want to enjoy all this beautification. It's for the rich people. Either for like the people that have to drive maybe 50 to 60 miles to get to work, the people that live out in the suburbs and they don't to spend all that time coming down to Atlanta, that's what we feel like," Rayton said.
PALMER HOUSE BUILDING IN GOOD CONDITION
Atlanta Progressive News reviewed the architectural report for Palmer House by Praxis 3 architectural firm for the Palmer House demolition application.
The report shows Palmer House, like Hollywood Court and possibly other communities, is "structurally sound." APN has only had time to review Hollywood Courts’s full application [around 1000 pages] and only portions of other applications thus far. Palmer House is reported by Praxis 3 to be in good physical condition.
The only two physical issues with Palmer House are that discoloration on the roof suggests standing water, which can be fixed for $7500; and that refurbishment is needed for the glazing on the exterior walls, which can be fixed for $75,000. Thus, the total refurbishment cost is $82,500 to address physical issues listed in the report.
However, AHA has apparently made a fraudulent claim to HUD that Palmer House, like Hollywood Courts, is physically obsolete, a claim not even supported by the architectural reports they commissioned.
RESIDENTS SCARED BY AHA RELOCATION TEAMS
Relocation teams have been approaching senior citizens at Palmer House and Roosevelt House since February 2008, resident leaders say.
"The first time when they came out here I did not know they was coming. They were on the floor and some of the residents had called me saying they had signed a letter and people wanted their social security numbers," Rayton told Atlanta Progressive News.
"I said who are these people? Where are they from? They said they're from Housing. I said, do they have a business card to give y'all? They said no they didn't want to tell us their name. I said this wasn't right. I was in a lot of pain that day," Rayton said.
"I went to a couple of seniors’ apartments and looked at the paper. I talked to my Vice and said I can't go door to door. So I went on the intercom. I said people who say they're from AHA are here, I don't know who they are. And I don't know where they come from. I said those papers, you might be signing your life away or you might be signing yourself outdoors. So don't sign any more papers," Rayton recalled.
"The people got mad and came to the management office and wanted to know who said that," Rayton said.
"I went down trying to block them by the water fountain as people got on the elevator," Rayton said.
"One lady she said I'm not going to sign this. I said y'all don't sign anything til I go out and find out what's going on. [AHA’s] Mr. .Simms called my office and my VP said I wasn't there," Rayton said.
"He called downstairs to management. I asked them, did they have any business cards and they said they didn't. I said we'll just wait until we find out about you all," Rayton said.
"Mr. Simms called management to come get me to the phone. He tried to explain what was going on. I said that wasn't right because we didn't know what was going on. And he should come down here himself," Rayton said.
RAYTON’S VISIT TO LOCAL HUD
Determined to find answers, Rayton visited federal HUD’s Atlanta office on Marietta Street.
"I went down to HUD to find out. Down on Marietta Street. I spoke with [Onri Harvey]. She was somebody on staff. We went up and I sat and talked with her. We took the papers and asked was those papers correct? She said yes. They had to do that now because last year they had a lot of drama with AHA coming and saying to move in 90 days, and that's not enough time for us to be able to move," Rayton said.
From the way the letters are described, they are likely letters which were included the various demolition applications. The letters let residents know that applications have been submitted to HUD and that if they are approved, then the residents will be displaced.
"They said it's for us to sign to receive them so we can't say you only gave us 60 days."
Rayton asked Harvey why her building was proposed for demolition, she said.
"She told us it was gonna have to go because it's so old and they can't keep putting money into it and fix it up the way they should be fixed up for us to live in here. But my residents don't want to go," Rayton said.
When told in recent days by APN that Palmer House is not physically obsolete and can be refurbished with funds AHA has already set aside for relocation: "Well I think what they said was wrong. They just lied," Rayton said.
"I wanted a copy of the developers. She told me they don't have a copy of that because they don't have any developers," Rayton said.
Rayton also asked HUD for a copy of the demolition application.
"She said they don't have a copy of it. She told us we couldn't get one," Rayton said.
RAYTON’S EMAIL TO AHA AND HUD
When local HUD would not provide Rayton a copy of the demolition application, after AHA never provided Rayton a copy, she emailed AHA director Renee Glover and carbon copied HUD officials in Chicago.
"I've ask [sic] several times for a copu [sic] of the demolition application, I would like to also know what will be did with this building and will some of the residents get to move back it they want to, I would like to know who are the developers that will get this building," Rayton wrote in an email dated March 10, 2008.
"I'm the resident president of the palmer house senior high rise and we're very concern that AHA didn't send us a copy of the demolition application before they submited [sic] it to HUD, we have serious concerns and questions about the demolition application that was submited to HUD on February 1, 2008 we feel that we be included in everthing [sic] that has to do with the Palmer House Senior High Rise because this is our home, this is where we live, we never had a chance to see the copy of the demolition application, my residents are asking me to see it and I don't have it to show them," Rayton wrote.
AHA’s Barney Simms responded to Rayton’s email on March 12, 2008.
"Ms. Glover forwarded to me your e-mail dated March 9, 2008 in which you requested a copy of the demolition application for Palmer House," Simms wrote, according to an email obtained by Atlanta Progressive News.
"I was not aware that you had requested a copy of the application before; however, I think it would be great for you and other Palmer House residents to have access to the application. Therefore, I will make sure that you receive a hand delivered copy of the application before the close of business on Friday of this week. I will also make another copy available so that it can be kept in the property management office so other Palmer House residents will have access to it," Simms wrote.
"In fact, I think your idea to provide the applications to the residents is such a wonderful idea that I will make available copies of the demolition applications for each affected community. One copy will be provided to the resident association president and another will be made available for residents' access within the property management office of the community," Simms wrote.
Rayton received her copy Friday of that week, she said.
Rayton believes it is unfair AHA did not involve the resident association in their planning.
AHA claims it has held over 20 meetings with the various resident associations, but these meetings typically involve AHA telling residents their plans.
"They made the plan by themselves. We didn't know anything about it. We really should have. If they didn't want to include the residents, I think the officers should have been included. When they did HOPE VI for Techwood/Clark Howell, they gave them the plans and everything. They sat down and talked with them about it," Rayton said.
Rayton is currently hopeful she will hear back from Mr. Rodins regarding her request. She is actively seeking support from various community leaders for her request as well, APN can report.
Rayton, along with other RAB Board members, has requested a sit-down meeting with HUD in Chicago and is waiting to see if HUD is willing.
"I would just like to ask them, could they just come back, reevaluate this building and let us stay here? This is our home. This is where we want to stay. We don't want to move out of Atlanta. We don't want to move out of Downtown Atlanta. We want to stay here. And if there's anything wrong with the building, could they just repair it and let us continue to live here? We have some residents live here 30 something years and they don't want to go anywhere," Rayton said.
About the author:
Matthew Cardinale is the News Editor for The Atlanta Progressive News and may be reached at matthew@atlantaprogressivenews.com.
Matthew Cardinale is the News Editor for The Atlanta Progressive News and may be reached at matthew@atlantaprogressivenews.com.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Advocate Guide to Public Housing
From the National Low Income Housing Coalition
The Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Public Housing program is administered by the Office of Public and Indian Housing. Public housing was created in the 1937 Housing Act, one of the landmark legislative victories of the New Deal. Public housing is owned and operated by public housing authorities (PHAs) that are chartered by the states in which they operate and are governed by locally-appointed or elected Boards of Commissioners. There are nearly 14,000 public housing developments operated by 3,050 PHAs containing more than 1.2 million units.
PHAs have historically not received adequate annual appropriations from Congress to operate (through the public housing operating subsidy) and sustain (through the public housing capital fund) the public housing stock. When the public housing stock deteriorates, it can become a candidate for demolition. When public housing units are demolished, they are often not replaced at the same rate. There is a direct connection between adequate annual appropriations for public housing and the long-term efficacy of these units.
Program History - Established by the 1937 Housing Act, a moratorium on public housing was declared in 1974. At that point, housing policy shifted to subsidize the private sector's involvement in affordable housing through the Section 8 program. Federal funds specifically for adding to the public housing stock were last appropriated in 1994, but little public housing has been built since the early 1980s. Federal law capped the number of public housing units at the number each PHA operated on October 1, 1999.
Program Beneficiaries - Public housing is home to several million people. About 43% are families with children, 19% are elderly households without children and the rest are households headed by people with disabilities or those without children. More than half of these households are headed by people of color and 38% of these households are headed by women. The demand for public housing far exceeds the supply. In many large cities, where affordable housing needs are most severe, waiting list times can be up to 10 years.
Access to public housing is means-tested. Low income (households earning 80% or less of the area median) is the threshold for eligibility. However, the income categories of those eligible to live in public housing are quite complex. Federal preferences that allowed those with the most serious housing problems, i.e., the lowest income, to go to the top of the public housing waiting list were repealed in the mid-1990s. The assessment was that very poor people were concentrated in public housing, and with them, a host of social problems. Today, PHAs can limit the number of extremely low income households (earning 30% or less of area median) to 40% of new admissions. They also can establish preferences for admission that will favor more prosperous members of the eligible population or favor other specific populations (such as the elderly, full-time workers, domestic violence victims and people who are homeless or who are at risk of becoming homeless).
Structure - Like other federal housing assistance programs, residents of public housing pay the highest of: (1) 30% of their monthly adjusted income; (2) 10% of their monthly gross income; (3) their welfare shelter allowance; or (4) a PHA-established minimum rent of up to $50.
Most PHAs are required to complete annual and five-year plans detailing many aspects of their housing programs, who is assisted and how the programs will be administered. These plans are submitted to HUD. The five-year plan must include the PHA's mission and a statement of goals and objectives to meet its mission. The annual plans must be developed in consultation with a Resident Advisory Board (RAB) (see Resident Participation chapter) and be consistent with the applicable Consolidated Plan. Notice of plan development and a public hearing are required before a plan can be submitted to HUD.
Funding - Public housing agencies receive two annual grants from HUD - the Operating Fund and the Capital Fund. The Operating Fund pays for operating costs that exceed the rent payments collected from residents. Major operating costs include building maintenance, utilities, services for residents and PHA employee salaries and benefits. The FY06 Operating Fund appropriation was $3.6 billion. The FY06 appropriated level only funds PHAs at 85.5% of their actual operating needs. The amount the President has requested for FY07 would only fund PHAs at 75%-79% of operating fund needs.
The Operating Fund is in the midst of a major change. As a result of the 1998 Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, HUD published a final new operating subsidy formula in September 2005. The new formula was to become operational in October 2006. But, because HUD delayed issuing guidance on the new formula, and because there was considerable disagreement over HUD's final Operating Fund rule, HUD announced in 2006 that implementation would be delayed at least until April 2007. The Senate FY07 HUD funding bill would have delayed implementation until October 2007. It is unclear if a delay in implementation will be addressed in the FY07 joint funding resolution (see section on FY07 joint funding resolution).
The new operating formula will base an agency's operating subsidy on a property-by-property basis, rather than the current PHA-by-PHA basis. If, compared to the current formula, a PHA gains operating subsidy with the new formula, the addition will be phased in over two years. Conversely, if a PHA loses subsidy under the new formula compared to the old, then the loss can only be tempered (and potentially arrested) by that PHA's conversion to asset-based management. After a gradual implementation of losses, all will be imposed by October 1, 2011.
The Capital Fund is also appropriated annually by Congress and is distributed by HUD to PHAs based on a formula. The Capital Fund can be used for modernization, including developing, rehabilitating and demolishing units, replacement housing and management improvements. The Capital Fund was funded at $2.4 billion in FY06 and the President only requested $2.1 billion for FY07. There is a more than $20 billion backlog for Capital Fund repairs in public housing. Funding for public housing in FY07 will be determined by the FY07 joint funding resolution (see section on FY07 joint funding resolution).
Since FY01, funding for public housing has decreased by more than $1 billion. This includes cuts to operating, capital and HOPE VI funds and the elimination of the drug elimination program.
Issues - HUD's recent proposals to redefine public housing have largely failed. In the 109th Congress, HUD's State and Local Housing Flexibility Acts (H.R. 1999 and S. 771), which would have given most housing agencies the ability to change rent policies away from income-based rents, alter income targeting away from the lowest income households, and impose time limits on assistance and other reforms under the guise of "deregulation" proved to be a non-starter in Congress.
In 2006, a bipartisan group of House Financial Services Committee members introduced H.R. 5443 as an antidote to H.R. 1999. H.R. 5443, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2006 (SEVRA), provides some reforms to the public housing and voucher programs without exposing the programs to widespread deregulation.
For public housing, SEVRA proposes the following changes:
Rent Simplification. While keeping rents tied to incomes and retaining the "Brooke Amendment," which caps rents of public and assisted-housing residents at generally 30% of adjusted gross income, SEVRA seeks to simplify the rent-setting process for both residents and PHA staff. For example, recertification of incomes would only be required at least every three years, instead of the current annual recertification, for elderly and disabled families on fixed incomes (at least 90% of their incomes from Social Security, SSI or some similar source). Interim income recertifications would be required for income decreases of $1,500; interim income recertifications for earnings increases would not be required. The bill would also increase the standard deduction for elderly and disabled households to $750 from the current $400, while narrowing individual medical deductions to those expenses exceeding 10% of income, up from the current 3% of income. The bill would also allow 10% of all employment earnings to be deducted from income.
Moving to Work. The bill would increase, from the current 30 total PHAs to 40 PHAs at any given time that are eligible to participate in the public housing Moving to Work (MTW) program. (The current MTW demonstration would become permanently authorized by SEVRA). Under MTW, a PHA may combine its public housing operating, capital and voucher funds to assist substantially the same total number of families as otherwise would have been served. MTW allows PHAs to change rent policies (for example, rents may no longer be income based but must merely be "reasonable"), impose time limits and remove current income-targeting standards. Under SEVRA's MTW proposal, up to 90% of assistance could go to households with incomes up to 60% of area median. Because many of the original 30 MTW demonstration sites are still running their initial demonstrations, adequate evaluation of the MTW has not occurred and, critically, the potential for harm to residents and the long-term health of the PHAs is at stake. Therefore, NLIHC believes the MTW program is not ready for expansion or permanent authorization.
A revised form of SEVRA is expected to be introduced in 2007.
Capital Fund. To raise the revenue to address the backlog, the Administration continues to urge PHAs to use the Capital Fund to leverage private investment dollars. Advocates remain concerned that, with the limited amount of resources made available to PHAs, PHAs may have difficulty repaying debt accrued from private financing, which could lead to the threat of foreclosure. Congress must also appropriate sufficient capital funding.
Operating Fund. The new Operating Fund subsidy formula must be implemented cautiously and with adequate consultation with residents and PHAs. While some PHAs will gain operating subsidy, those that are in a position to lose must be given every reasonable opportunity to comply with the new framework. Congress must also appropriate sufficient operating funding.
What Advocates Can Do
Advocates should partner with public housing residents and PHAs to promote the benefits and positive aspects of public housing to convince policy makers and the public that public housing is worth the investment needed to preserve and improve it. Public housing should be funded at the level necessary to do so.
Advocates should also:
Support adequate funding for public housing operating and capital funds.
Oppose expansion of the Moving to Work program.
Participate in the development of your PHA's annual and five-year plans and support the participation of PHA residents in these plans.
Oppose efforts to diminish the numbers of PHAs that must complete annual and five-year PHA plans.
Question proposals to demolish public housing without replacing it or considering rehabilitation.
Demand assurances that residents of demolished units will be guaranteed suitable, affordable housing.
Determine the what impact the new operating formula will have on their local PHA and work to ensure any losses do not jeopardize the public housing units and that any subsidy gains positively impact the housing options of the lowest income people.
For More Information : National Low Income Housing Coalition • 202-662-1530 • www.nlihc.org
National Housing Law Project • 510-251-9400 • www.nhlp.org
ENPHRONT (Everywhere and Now Public Housing Residents Organizing Nationally Together) • 917-577-1368 • www.enphront.com
The Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Public Housing program is administered by the Office of Public and Indian Housing. Public housing was created in the 1937 Housing Act, one of the landmark legislative victories of the New Deal. Public housing is owned and operated by public housing authorities (PHAs) that are chartered by the states in which they operate and are governed by locally-appointed or elected Boards of Commissioners. There are nearly 14,000 public housing developments operated by 3,050 PHAs containing more than 1.2 million units.
PHAs have historically not received adequate annual appropriations from Congress to operate (through the public housing operating subsidy) and sustain (through the public housing capital fund) the public housing stock. When the public housing stock deteriorates, it can become a candidate for demolition. When public housing units are demolished, they are often not replaced at the same rate. There is a direct connection between adequate annual appropriations for public housing and the long-term efficacy of these units.
Program History - Established by the 1937 Housing Act, a moratorium on public housing was declared in 1974. At that point, housing policy shifted to subsidize the private sector's involvement in affordable housing through the Section 8 program. Federal funds specifically for adding to the public housing stock were last appropriated in 1994, but little public housing has been built since the early 1980s. Federal law capped the number of public housing units at the number each PHA operated on October 1, 1999.
Program Beneficiaries - Public housing is home to several million people. About 43% are families with children, 19% are elderly households without children and the rest are households headed by people with disabilities or those without children. More than half of these households are headed by people of color and 38% of these households are headed by women. The demand for public housing far exceeds the supply. In many large cities, where affordable housing needs are most severe, waiting list times can be up to 10 years.
Access to public housing is means-tested. Low income (households earning 80% or less of the area median) is the threshold for eligibility. However, the income categories of those eligible to live in public housing are quite complex. Federal preferences that allowed those with the most serious housing problems, i.e., the lowest income, to go to the top of the public housing waiting list were repealed in the mid-1990s. The assessment was that very poor people were concentrated in public housing, and with them, a host of social problems. Today, PHAs can limit the number of extremely low income households (earning 30% or less of area median) to 40% of new admissions. They also can establish preferences for admission that will favor more prosperous members of the eligible population or favor other specific populations (such as the elderly, full-time workers, domestic violence victims and people who are homeless or who are at risk of becoming homeless).
Structure - Like other federal housing assistance programs, residents of public housing pay the highest of: (1) 30% of their monthly adjusted income; (2) 10% of their monthly gross income; (3) their welfare shelter allowance; or (4) a PHA-established minimum rent of up to $50.
Most PHAs are required to complete annual and five-year plans detailing many aspects of their housing programs, who is assisted and how the programs will be administered. These plans are submitted to HUD. The five-year plan must include the PHA's mission and a statement of goals and objectives to meet its mission. The annual plans must be developed in consultation with a Resident Advisory Board (RAB) (see Resident Participation chapter) and be consistent with the applicable Consolidated Plan. Notice of plan development and a public hearing are required before a plan can be submitted to HUD.
Funding - Public housing agencies receive two annual grants from HUD - the Operating Fund and the Capital Fund. The Operating Fund pays for operating costs that exceed the rent payments collected from residents. Major operating costs include building maintenance, utilities, services for residents and PHA employee salaries and benefits. The FY06 Operating Fund appropriation was $3.6 billion. The FY06 appropriated level only funds PHAs at 85.5% of their actual operating needs. The amount the President has requested for FY07 would only fund PHAs at 75%-79% of operating fund needs.
The Operating Fund is in the midst of a major change. As a result of the 1998 Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, HUD published a final new operating subsidy formula in September 2005. The new formula was to become operational in October 2006. But, because HUD delayed issuing guidance on the new formula, and because there was considerable disagreement over HUD's final Operating Fund rule, HUD announced in 2006 that implementation would be delayed at least until April 2007. The Senate FY07 HUD funding bill would have delayed implementation until October 2007. It is unclear if a delay in implementation will be addressed in the FY07 joint funding resolution (see section on FY07 joint funding resolution).
The new operating formula will base an agency's operating subsidy on a property-by-property basis, rather than the current PHA-by-PHA basis. If, compared to the current formula, a PHA gains operating subsidy with the new formula, the addition will be phased in over two years. Conversely, if a PHA loses subsidy under the new formula compared to the old, then the loss can only be tempered (and potentially arrested) by that PHA's conversion to asset-based management. After a gradual implementation of losses, all will be imposed by October 1, 2011.
The Capital Fund is also appropriated annually by Congress and is distributed by HUD to PHAs based on a formula. The Capital Fund can be used for modernization, including developing, rehabilitating and demolishing units, replacement housing and management improvements. The Capital Fund was funded at $2.4 billion in FY06 and the President only requested $2.1 billion for FY07. There is a more than $20 billion backlog for Capital Fund repairs in public housing. Funding for public housing in FY07 will be determined by the FY07 joint funding resolution (see section on FY07 joint funding resolution).
Since FY01, funding for public housing has decreased by more than $1 billion. This includes cuts to operating, capital and HOPE VI funds and the elimination of the drug elimination program.
Issues - HUD's recent proposals to redefine public housing have largely failed. In the 109th Congress, HUD's State and Local Housing Flexibility Acts (H.R. 1999 and S. 771), which would have given most housing agencies the ability to change rent policies away from income-based rents, alter income targeting away from the lowest income households, and impose time limits on assistance and other reforms under the guise of "deregulation" proved to be a non-starter in Congress.
In 2006, a bipartisan group of House Financial Services Committee members introduced H.R. 5443 as an antidote to H.R. 1999. H.R. 5443, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2006 (SEVRA), provides some reforms to the public housing and voucher programs without exposing the programs to widespread deregulation.
For public housing, SEVRA proposes the following changes:
Rent Simplification. While keeping rents tied to incomes and retaining the "Brooke Amendment," which caps rents of public and assisted-housing residents at generally 30% of adjusted gross income, SEVRA seeks to simplify the rent-setting process for both residents and PHA staff. For example, recertification of incomes would only be required at least every three years, instead of the current annual recertification, for elderly and disabled families on fixed incomes (at least 90% of their incomes from Social Security, SSI or some similar source). Interim income recertifications would be required for income decreases of $1,500; interim income recertifications for earnings increases would not be required. The bill would also increase the standard deduction for elderly and disabled households to $750 from the current $400, while narrowing individual medical deductions to those expenses exceeding 10% of income, up from the current 3% of income. The bill would also allow 10% of all employment earnings to be deducted from income.
Moving to Work. The bill would increase, from the current 30 total PHAs to 40 PHAs at any given time that are eligible to participate in the public housing Moving to Work (MTW) program. (The current MTW demonstration would become permanently authorized by SEVRA). Under MTW, a PHA may combine its public housing operating, capital and voucher funds to assist substantially the same total number of families as otherwise would have been served. MTW allows PHAs to change rent policies (for example, rents may no longer be income based but must merely be "reasonable"), impose time limits and remove current income-targeting standards. Under SEVRA's MTW proposal, up to 90% of assistance could go to households with incomes up to 60% of area median. Because many of the original 30 MTW demonstration sites are still running their initial demonstrations, adequate evaluation of the MTW has not occurred and, critically, the potential for harm to residents and the long-term health of the PHAs is at stake. Therefore, NLIHC believes the MTW program is not ready for expansion or permanent authorization.
A revised form of SEVRA is expected to be introduced in 2007.
Capital Fund. To raise the revenue to address the backlog, the Administration continues to urge PHAs to use the Capital Fund to leverage private investment dollars. Advocates remain concerned that, with the limited amount of resources made available to PHAs, PHAs may have difficulty repaying debt accrued from private financing, which could lead to the threat of foreclosure. Congress must also appropriate sufficient capital funding.
Operating Fund. The new Operating Fund subsidy formula must be implemented cautiously and with adequate consultation with residents and PHAs. While some PHAs will gain operating subsidy, those that are in a position to lose must be given every reasonable opportunity to comply with the new framework. Congress must also appropriate sufficient operating funding.
What Advocates Can Do
Advocates should partner with public housing residents and PHAs to promote the benefits and positive aspects of public housing to convince policy makers and the public that public housing is worth the investment needed to preserve and improve it. Public housing should be funded at the level necessary to do so.
Advocates should also:
Support adequate funding for public housing operating and capital funds.
Oppose expansion of the Moving to Work program.
Participate in the development of your PHA's annual and five-year plans and support the participation of PHA residents in these plans.
Oppose efforts to diminish the numbers of PHAs that must complete annual and five-year PHA plans.
Question proposals to demolish public housing without replacing it or considering rehabilitation.
Demand assurances that residents of demolished units will be guaranteed suitable, affordable housing.
Determine the what impact the new operating formula will have on their local PHA and work to ensure any losses do not jeopardize the public housing units and that any subsidy gains positively impact the housing options of the lowest income people.
For More Information : National Low Income Housing Coalition • 202-662-1530 • www.nlihc.org
National Housing Law Project • 510-251-9400 • www.nhlp.org
ENPHRONT (Everywhere and Now Public Housing Residents Organizing Nationally Together) • 917-577-1368 • www.enphront.com
At Chicago Housing Project, Both Fear and Renewal
By SUSAN SAULNY - New York Times - March 18, 2007
CHICAGO — On a night of freezing temperatures, a bare-chested baby crawled alone along an open ninth-floor gallery at the Cabrini Green housing project, its wails piercing through a nearby apartment’s living room walls.
“Whose child is this?” Mattie Gibson shouted, darting from the apartment and peering into vacant units. “Hello? There’s a baby here!”
From a corner apartment, two little boys from a family of squatters emerged to take the child from Ms. Gibson’s arms.
“This is the kind of chaos all around here,” said Ms. Gibson, a payroll clerk who has lived here for 15 years. “No one seems to be listening. It’s like they all moved on.”
For the most part, they have.
More than a decade ago, when the Chicago Housing Authority began dismantling much of its notoriously dysfunctional stock, the worst of Cabrini Green was the first to meet the wrecking ball because it was considered to be among the most frightful addresses in the country.
For some families, it still is. Under the supervision of a federal judge, the demolitions have slowed while the residents of several deteriorating buildings and the Housing Authority negotiate redevelopment plans and where the displaced population will go.
In one 19-acre part of the project officially known as the William Green Homes, there were once more than 1,000 apartments in eight 15-story towers. Today, 176 families and an unknown number of squatters live there in three remaining buildings. At its peak, the entire Cabrini project was home to about 15,000 people in hundreds of row houses and towers. Many of those structures are long gone, or are awaiting rehabilitation or demolition.
The project was popularized by the 1970s sitcom “Good Times” as a neighborhood of strivers and funnymen, but reality was more cruel: Cabrini Green was the kind of place where a young boy could be killed by sniper fire while holding his mother’s hand on the way to school, as happened in the fall of 1992.
Now the neighborhood, near the intersection of Halsted and Division Streets on the North Side near downtown, is rapidly gentrifying with new condominiums and shopping strips, amenities that were unthinkable just a decade ago.
Though life in the project remains hellish — a woman recently fatally overdosed in the stairwell near Ms. Gibson’s door, and drug dealers sometimes take control of the building entrances — there is a feeling that the worst of the bad old days are over for the neighborhood at large. From the gallery outside her apartment, Ms. Gibson can see the gleaming lights of two new Starbucks, a Blockbuster and the shopping carts from a stylish grocery store.
Because of the changes, many public housing residents have refused to leave the area, where roots run generations deep. In 2004, the Local Advisory Council, which represents hundreds of residents, sued the Housing Authority over relocation plans from the city’s Plan for Transformation, a $1.4 billion blueprint for public housing renewal adopted in 2000.
Richard Wheelock, a lawyer for the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago, which represents the tenants, said the Housing Authority’s demolition program had far outpaced its construction, leaving families with few options beyond “equally dangerous and segregated communities” on the city’s West and South Sides. “The only leverage the residents have is to say we’re going to stay here until you build the stuff,” he said.
Mr. Wheelock also said that tens of thousands of displaced residents who meet certain standards have received federal housing vouchers, which allow them to move wherever they find a willing landlord.
About two-thirds of the displaced families with vouchers have indicated that they would prefer to return to traditional public housing, officials said. But the Plan for Transformation, a national model in its scope and original ambition, is off schedule and in need of more money. The goals were to demolish obsolete buildings and to break up pockets of poverty by incorporating public housing into mixed-income communities.
Seven years into it, slightly less than 30 percent of the new housing for those residents in mixed-income developments has been built or rehabilitated, according to the authority’s 2007 annual plan. That represents about 2,270 new dwellings for people with permanent relocation rights on a waiting list of 15,000 families. (And beyond those who were displaced by the demolitions, there are more than 90,000 people from the general public on another waiting list for public housing.)
Under the transformation plan, the Housing Authority also set out to rehabilitate 5,000 units of public housing for families by 2010. So far, 1,733 units have been delivered, the annual plan said. The time frame for everything has been extended to 2015.
The authority has produced housing much more quickly for its older citizens, rehabilitating almost all of the 9,438 units it promised. It has also rehabilitated more than 2,500 units for families in so-called scattered sites around the city.
“What drives us is money,” said Sharon Gist Gilliam, the chief executive of the Housing Authority. “If I could get my hands on a quick $2 billion we could get this done in three or four years.”
There are signs of hope: Just across from what remains of Cabrini Green are new mixed-income communities that are thriving as models for the future. Many more are on the way but housing officials point to rising construction costs as their main obstacle to a faster delivery.
With so much of the project gone now, residents said the problems have not disappeared so much as been concentrated. Housing officials insist that the buildings are well maintained and that there is a constant police presence.
The place tells its own story.
Drug dealers form thickets in the lobbies so deep that it resembles a crowded market. The elevators are often out of service, forcing residents into stairwells that addicts have claimed for their own purposes.
And then there are the squatters.
“I want to be out of here so bad,” said Sierra Milton, who lives on the 14th floor of one of the last towers. “There are people hiding everywhere, in the hallways, around the corners. I want to go because I’m scared. I’ve been living here since 1998 and this is the worst I ever felt.”
Nikia Evans was born on the fifth floor of the Green Homes because an ambulance did not make it to her mother in time. She is still there, along with her aunt and grandmother, waiting for a time and place to move. The uncertainty is unsettling.
“I heard that we were getting vouchers,” said Ms. Evans, who works at a catalog call center and qualifies for a voucher. “But I’ve heard so many stories I don’t know what to believe.”
Two doors down, Ms. Evans’s aunt, Thelma Hicks, 67, sought to reassure the family.
“If I had a choice, I’d stay here because this is my roots,” she said. “But we know things change. And we always have to be open to new things. It’s hard to deal with this but they say things will change for the best. We’ll see.”
CHICAGO — On a night of freezing temperatures, a bare-chested baby crawled alone along an open ninth-floor gallery at the Cabrini Green housing project, its wails piercing through a nearby apartment’s living room walls.
“Whose child is this?” Mattie Gibson shouted, darting from the apartment and peering into vacant units. “Hello? There’s a baby here!”
From a corner apartment, two little boys from a family of squatters emerged to take the child from Ms. Gibson’s arms.
“This is the kind of chaos all around here,” said Ms. Gibson, a payroll clerk who has lived here for 15 years. “No one seems to be listening. It’s like they all moved on.”
For the most part, they have.
More than a decade ago, when the Chicago Housing Authority began dismantling much of its notoriously dysfunctional stock, the worst of Cabrini Green was the first to meet the wrecking ball because it was considered to be among the most frightful addresses in the country.
For some families, it still is. Under the supervision of a federal judge, the demolitions have slowed while the residents of several deteriorating buildings and the Housing Authority negotiate redevelopment plans and where the displaced population will go.
In one 19-acre part of the project officially known as the William Green Homes, there were once more than 1,000 apartments in eight 15-story towers. Today, 176 families and an unknown number of squatters live there in three remaining buildings. At its peak, the entire Cabrini project was home to about 15,000 people in hundreds of row houses and towers. Many of those structures are long gone, or are awaiting rehabilitation or demolition.
The project was popularized by the 1970s sitcom “Good Times” as a neighborhood of strivers and funnymen, but reality was more cruel: Cabrini Green was the kind of place where a young boy could be killed by sniper fire while holding his mother’s hand on the way to school, as happened in the fall of 1992.
Now the neighborhood, near the intersection of Halsted and Division Streets on the North Side near downtown, is rapidly gentrifying with new condominiums and shopping strips, amenities that were unthinkable just a decade ago.
Though life in the project remains hellish — a woman recently fatally overdosed in the stairwell near Ms. Gibson’s door, and drug dealers sometimes take control of the building entrances — there is a feeling that the worst of the bad old days are over for the neighborhood at large. From the gallery outside her apartment, Ms. Gibson can see the gleaming lights of two new Starbucks, a Blockbuster and the shopping carts from a stylish grocery store.
Because of the changes, many public housing residents have refused to leave the area, where roots run generations deep. In 2004, the Local Advisory Council, which represents hundreds of residents, sued the Housing Authority over relocation plans from the city’s Plan for Transformation, a $1.4 billion blueprint for public housing renewal adopted in 2000.
Richard Wheelock, a lawyer for the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago, which represents the tenants, said the Housing Authority’s demolition program had far outpaced its construction, leaving families with few options beyond “equally dangerous and segregated communities” on the city’s West and South Sides. “The only leverage the residents have is to say we’re going to stay here until you build the stuff,” he said.
Mr. Wheelock also said that tens of thousands of displaced residents who meet certain standards have received federal housing vouchers, which allow them to move wherever they find a willing landlord.
About two-thirds of the displaced families with vouchers have indicated that they would prefer to return to traditional public housing, officials said. But the Plan for Transformation, a national model in its scope and original ambition, is off schedule and in need of more money. The goals were to demolish obsolete buildings and to break up pockets of poverty by incorporating public housing into mixed-income communities.
Seven years into it, slightly less than 30 percent of the new housing for those residents in mixed-income developments has been built or rehabilitated, according to the authority’s 2007 annual plan. That represents about 2,270 new dwellings for people with permanent relocation rights on a waiting list of 15,000 families. (And beyond those who were displaced by the demolitions, there are more than 90,000 people from the general public on another waiting list for public housing.)
Under the transformation plan, the Housing Authority also set out to rehabilitate 5,000 units of public housing for families by 2010. So far, 1,733 units have been delivered, the annual plan said. The time frame for everything has been extended to 2015.
The authority has produced housing much more quickly for its older citizens, rehabilitating almost all of the 9,438 units it promised. It has also rehabilitated more than 2,500 units for families in so-called scattered sites around the city.
“What drives us is money,” said Sharon Gist Gilliam, the chief executive of the Housing Authority. “If I could get my hands on a quick $2 billion we could get this done in three or four years.”
There are signs of hope: Just across from what remains of Cabrini Green are new mixed-income communities that are thriving as models for the future. Many more are on the way but housing officials point to rising construction costs as their main obstacle to a faster delivery.
With so much of the project gone now, residents said the problems have not disappeared so much as been concentrated. Housing officials insist that the buildings are well maintained and that there is a constant police presence.
The place tells its own story.
Drug dealers form thickets in the lobbies so deep that it resembles a crowded market. The elevators are often out of service, forcing residents into stairwells that addicts have claimed for their own purposes.
And then there are the squatters.
“I want to be out of here so bad,” said Sierra Milton, who lives on the 14th floor of one of the last towers. “There are people hiding everywhere, in the hallways, around the corners. I want to go because I’m scared. I’ve been living here since 1998 and this is the worst I ever felt.”
Nikia Evans was born on the fifth floor of the Green Homes because an ambulance did not make it to her mother in time. She is still there, along with her aunt and grandmother, waiting for a time and place to move. The uncertainty is unsettling.
“I heard that we were getting vouchers,” said Ms. Evans, who works at a catalog call center and qualifies for a voucher. “But I’ve heard so many stories I don’t know what to believe.”
Two doors down, Ms. Evans’s aunt, Thelma Hicks, 67, sought to reassure the family.
“If I had a choice, I’d stay here because this is my roots,” she said. “But we know things change. And we always have to be open to new things. It’s hard to deal with this but they say things will change for the best. We’ll see.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)