By Marlene Naanes, amNewYork Staff Writer - MNaanes@am-ny.com - May 12, 2008
Decrepit apartments and cramping are a common trend among the city's immigrant families struggling to afford housing, particularly in gentrifying neighborhoods.
In a city that is losing about 60,000 affordable units a year, everyone in New York is feeling the pinch, but immigrant communities can be a little more vulnerable, affordable housing advocates said.
"In some immigrant communities, tenants are more vulnerable to being pushed out illegally because they may fear being reported to the authorities or they may be unfamiliar with the rules," said Tom Waters, Housing Policy Analyst, for the Community Service Society, a anti-poverty group.
Landlords have been known to charge exorbitant fees or allow units to rot to force out low-income immigrant tenants so they can boost the rent for new tenants, advocates said.
Neighborhood groups are on the front lines in the battle to retain affordable housing, tackling the threats in New York's historically immigrant neighborhoods by buying up buildings, confronting corporate landlords and educating tenants about their rights.
Here's a look at how three neighborhoods are dealing with the problem.
El Barrio
Filiberto Hernandez, 34, has had to wait months for his leaky bathroom ceiling to be repaired. He said he fights his landlord, but some of his neighbors do not know their rights and end up moving out.
"The landlords are rich, multi-millionaires, and then there are many poor people in El Barrio without resources," Hernandez said.
Landlords in East Harlem have been trying to force their low income, immigrant tenants out by letting apartments fall apart and later charging higher rents in the gentrifying neighborhood, advocates said.
For the past four years, Movement for Justice in El Barrio has fought one particular landlord, forcing him to repair hundreds of units in 47 East Harlem buildings before he sold the properties last year. Now the group, comprised of about 400 tenants, is battling the units' new owner, Dawnay, Day Group.
Movement for Justice recently sued Dawnay for charging tenants for repairs or appliances they were never given. Dawnay did not return calls seeking comment.ChinatownChinatown recently saw the price of buildings with five or more units skyrocket higher than any other neighborhood in the city, boosting the cost of these properties by 42 percent from 2005 to 2006, according to an NYU survey released last month. As luxury condos are increasing, affordable rent buildings are being demolished, advocates said.
"We're bleeding existing affordable housing everyday," said Thomas Yu with Asian Americans for Equality, which began an affordable housing program to combat the problem.
The group buys up apartment buildings, refurbishes units and rents them to lower-income residents for $1,000 a month or less. So far, the program has preserved 90 affordable units with grants funding and financing through long-term mortgages. Yu's group hopes to purchase another 70 apartments. Asian Americans for Equality is fundraising to defray repair costs, which can reach up to $50,000 a unit. The group hopes that their efforts also will work to combat severe overcrowding that can be prevalent in the immigrant community.
BushwickResidents in the neighborhood, like Gladys Puglla, say they often have to fight landlords to repair anything.
The native-Ecuadorian, who has lived in her apartment for 10 years, has gone without electricity in half of her apartment for more than three months until the city forced her landlord to fix it. She's now fighting her landlord for charging more than allowed for her rent-controlled apartment. Meanwhile, she fears another rent increase."Can you imagine? I'm going to move my son and my daughter together, and I'm going to rent my room," she said.
Puglla said that like many immigrant residents in Bushwick, she did not know her rights until she began attending meetings held by Make the Road New York, a group that lobbies for better rent laws and helps tenants wade through the process of fighting a landlord. The group also holds meetings in Spanish.
"These people are fed up and ... realize they have to stand up because otherwise we're going to lose Bushwick," said Irene Tung, director of organizing for the group.
Copyright © 2008, AM New York
Monday, May 12, 2008
Santa Clara Earmarks $3 Million for Affordable Housing
Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal
The County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors will allocate about $3 million in federal funding for several housing-related programs and community service programs.
Recipients include the Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership Act, and American Dream Downpayment Initiative programs.
"Providing decent housing for all residents is one of the county's highest priorities," said Supervisor Don Gage, District 1. "The federal funds that the county is allocating will provide much-needed housing options for the families in this valley."
The Community Development Block Grant Program was created by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The county has been working with the cities of Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill and Saratoga, as well as the unincorporated areas of the county.
Activities funded by the county and the participating cities since 1975 include the development of new affordable housing units, rehabilitation of affordable housing units, construction of neighborhood centers, removal of architectural barriers for the elderly and persons with disabilities, fair housing services, shelters for the homeless and victims of domestic violence, and other housing-related public services.
The HOME funds are used primarily to help finance housing construction projects. The goals of the HOME program include expanding the supply of decent and permanently affordable housing for lower income families, with an emphasis on rental housing for very low income families.
The American Dream Downpayment Initiative Program provides down payment assistance to low-income families who are first-time homebuyers towards the purchase of single family houses. The Initiative is a component under the HOME Program.
The County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors will allocate about $3 million in federal funding for several housing-related programs and community service programs.
Recipients include the Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership Act, and American Dream Downpayment Initiative programs.
"Providing decent housing for all residents is one of the county's highest priorities," said Supervisor Don Gage, District 1. "The federal funds that the county is allocating will provide much-needed housing options for the families in this valley."
The Community Development Block Grant Program was created by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The county has been working with the cities of Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill and Saratoga, as well as the unincorporated areas of the county.
Activities funded by the county and the participating cities since 1975 include the development of new affordable housing units, rehabilitation of affordable housing units, construction of neighborhood centers, removal of architectural barriers for the elderly and persons with disabilities, fair housing services, shelters for the homeless and victims of domestic violence, and other housing-related public services.
The HOME funds are used primarily to help finance housing construction projects. The goals of the HOME program include expanding the supply of decent and permanently affordable housing for lower income families, with an emphasis on rental housing for very low income families.
The American Dream Downpayment Initiative Program provides down payment assistance to low-income families who are first-time homebuyers towards the purchase of single family houses. The Initiative is a component under the HOME Program.
California Proposition 98 Will Abolish Rent Control and Have Major Impact on Accessible and Affordable Housing
By Marty D. OmotoDirector/Organizer California Disability Community Action Network
A little known initiative on the June 3 California primary election ballot would prohibit new rent control measures and eventually abolish existing rent controls in the State that advocates say will have a major impact on accessible and affordable housing for tens of thousands of low income people with disabilities, seniors, low income workers who provide supports and services, including those in communities of color.
The ballot measure, Proposition 98 is titled "Eminent Domain: Limits on Government Authority" and would amend the State Constitution.No statewide polls have been conducted measuring the support of two propositions on the June ballot - but extremely low voter turn-out could favor passage of Proposition 98. If it passes, the measure would impact all areas in California currently under rent controls and prohibit any area from enacting any new rent controls, including rent controls in mobile home parks.
The issue would impact persons under the federal housing programs, such as "Section 8" because in those areas where rent controls are in place, rents could increase and the control on that unit would end when tenants change, if Proposition 98 passes. The independent and non-partisan Legislative Analyst says that about 1 million California households - which includes low income seniors, people with disabilities, low income workers who provide supports and services and others - live in housing or mobile home parks under some form of rent control, which Proposition 98 would abolish.
Some Opponents of Proposition 98 Backing Proposition 99
Some of the groups opposing Proposition 98 on the June 3rd ballot, have sponsored and support passage of Proposition 99 instead, which deals with the issue of local government taking owner occupied homes and transferring it to a private party or business. It makes no mention of rent control. If both ballot initiatives passed, a provision in Proposition 99 would prohibit Proposition 98 from taking effect if Proposition 99 received more votes.
Accessible and Affordable Housing Seen As Critical To Disability and Senior Rights
Accessible and affordable housing is considered by many advocates and policymakers as a major foundation of the rights of people with disabilities, mental health needs, seniors and others under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the subsequent landmark 1999 US Supreme Court Olmstead Decision. That decision requires the states to take steps to avoid the unjustified or unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities, mental health needs and seniors. Accessible and affordable housing costs have been one of the barriers identified by advocates and some policymakers in keeping people with disabilities and seniors in community-based settings or moving people out of institutional facilities.
The Schwarzenegger Administration has identified housing as a critical need for persons with disabilities, with the Department of Developmental Services, which oversees the operations of 21 non-profit regional centers that coordinate community-based services and funding for over 230,000 children and adults with developmental disabilities, identifying housing as a key priority - especially in addressing the crisis of persons with autism spectrum disorders. In the Legislature, two bills related specifically to people with disabilities and affordable and accessible housing are pending, including SB 1175 by Sen. Darrell Steinberg (Democrat - Sacramento, 6th District) dealing with regional centers and creation of non-profit housing foundations. Other affordable housing bills are also pending.
Opponents Say Proposition 98 Will End Rent Control and Laws Protecting Renters
Opponents say Proposition 98 on the June 3rd ballot is a "bait and switch" that talks first about private property rights, but is meant to eliminate rent control saying that "landlords could raise rents as high as they want" and would wipe "out basic protections for all renters" including they say, laws requiring fair return of rental deposits and laws protecting renters from unfair evictions.
The measure is opposed by many advocacy groups including AARP, League of Women Voters of California, League of California Homeowners, California Disability Community Action Network, California Police Chiefs Association and others.
SUMMARY OF JUNE 3rd PROPOSITION 98
The constitutional amendment would do several things related to limiting state and local government from transferring or taking private property for public use, Proposition 98 on the ballot for June 3 would:
RENT CONTROL
• * Would impact and eventually abolish all existing rent control measures now in place and prevent new controls from being enacted. Over a dozen cities in California have some form of rent control laws including cities of Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, and Santa Monica. Over 100 cities and counties have laws limiting or controlling the rents that mobilehome park owners can charge people who lease space.
• Local governments would be prohibited from enacting any new rent control measures
• Any rent control measure that was enacted AFTER January 1, 2007 would end (upon passage of this ballot initiative)
• Other rent control measures enacted BEFORE January 1, 2007 would be phased out on a unit by unit basis after an apartment unit or mobile home park space is vacated. Once a tenant vacates an apartment or mobile home space, property owners can charge higher rents (market rate rents) for the next person - and that housing would not be subject to rent control again.
OTHER HOUSING MEASURES
Legislative Analyst Office believes, while wording in the proposed constitutional amendment is not clear, it appears that other affordable housing laws could be prohibited, such as local mandatory "inclusionary" housing laws (ordinances) that require developers to construct affordable housing on part of their land or contribute funds for such housing.
TRANSFERRING PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• Proposition 98 on the ballot June 3rd, would prohibit local government from taking ownership of private property and transfer it to a private party (such as a non-profit organization, business or person. This includes when local government seeks to reduce high crime or urban decay in a certain area by transferring substandard apartments to a non-profit organization to renovate and manage for affordable housing for low income people and families (that include people with disabilities and seniors).
• Would prohibit local government from taking a private property and transferring it for use that was "substantially similar" to how the original private owner used it.
• None of these restrictions apply if local government was addressing a public nuisance or criminal activity or as part of a "state of emergency" declared by the Governor.Proposition 99 Similar To 98 But Does Not End Rent Controls
• One other proposition, Proposition 99, is also on the June 3rd primary ballot and is similar to Proposition 98, but does not contain any provisions dealing with rent controls. It was placed on the ballot by some of the groups in strong opposition to Proposition 98.
• Proposition 99 has a clause that if both Proposition 98 and 99 were approved by voters, and if Proposition 99 received more votes than 98, then the provisions of Proposition would not take effect.
• Proposition 99, like Proposition 98, is a constitutional amendment would prohibit state and local government from using their power (called "eminent domain") to acquire an owner-occupied home and transfer it to another private person or business entity. It creates an exception for public works or improvements, public health and safety protection and crime prevention.
• It is similar to Proposition 98 in that it would prevent local government from transferring a substandard apartment building, for instance, to a non-profit organization to renovate and manage affordable housing. Proposition 99 is supported by the California Alliance for Retired Americans, the League of Women Voters of California, the League of California Homeowners and the California Police Chiefs Association among other groups who say that Proposition 99 "is real eminent domain reform" with "no hidden agenda" of eliminating rent controls. Many voters may be confused about the upcoming primary electionEarlier on February 5th, California held its presidential primary election which did not include any state races, except one special Assembly election to fill a vacancy.
The June 3rd primary election is for all 80 Assembly seats and 20 (seats from odd numbered districts) of the 40 State Senate seats. In addition all 53 California congressional seats are up for election.
In the Assembly, 24 members are termed out. In the State Senate, 10 members of the 20 seats up for election.
Proposition 98 on the ballot for June 3, is also the same number of a more famous 1988 state constitutional amendment with the same number that imposed a public school funding guarantee. Deadline to Register for June 3rd Primary Coming Up
Voter registration must be postmarked no later than May 19, 2008
FOR MORE INFORMATION
For additional assistance with voter registration, please contact your county registrar of voters or the California Secretary of State's office at the following toll-free numbers:
English: 1-800-345-VOTE
Chinese: 1-800-339-2857
Japanese: 1-800-339-2865
Korean: 1-866-575-1558
Spanish: 1-800-232-VOTA
Tagalog: 1-800-339-2957
Vietnamese: 1-800-339-8163
The California Disability Community Action Network, is a non-partisan link to thousands of Californians with developmental and other disabilities, people with traumatic brain injuries, the Blind, the Deaf, their families, community organizations and providers, direct care, homecare and other workers, and other advocates to provide information on state (and eventually federal), local public policy issues.
A little known initiative on the June 3 California primary election ballot would prohibit new rent control measures and eventually abolish existing rent controls in the State that advocates say will have a major impact on accessible and affordable housing for tens of thousands of low income people with disabilities, seniors, low income workers who provide supports and services, including those in communities of color.
The ballot measure, Proposition 98 is titled "Eminent Domain: Limits on Government Authority" and would amend the State Constitution.No statewide polls have been conducted measuring the support of two propositions on the June ballot - but extremely low voter turn-out could favor passage of Proposition 98. If it passes, the measure would impact all areas in California currently under rent controls and prohibit any area from enacting any new rent controls, including rent controls in mobile home parks.
The issue would impact persons under the federal housing programs, such as "Section 8" because in those areas where rent controls are in place, rents could increase and the control on that unit would end when tenants change, if Proposition 98 passes. The independent and non-partisan Legislative Analyst says that about 1 million California households - which includes low income seniors, people with disabilities, low income workers who provide supports and services and others - live in housing or mobile home parks under some form of rent control, which Proposition 98 would abolish.
Some Opponents of Proposition 98 Backing Proposition 99
Some of the groups opposing Proposition 98 on the June 3rd ballot, have sponsored and support passage of Proposition 99 instead, which deals with the issue of local government taking owner occupied homes and transferring it to a private party or business. It makes no mention of rent control. If both ballot initiatives passed, a provision in Proposition 99 would prohibit Proposition 98 from taking effect if Proposition 99 received more votes.
Accessible and Affordable Housing Seen As Critical To Disability and Senior Rights
Accessible and affordable housing is considered by many advocates and policymakers as a major foundation of the rights of people with disabilities, mental health needs, seniors and others under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the subsequent landmark 1999 US Supreme Court Olmstead Decision. That decision requires the states to take steps to avoid the unjustified or unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities, mental health needs and seniors. Accessible and affordable housing costs have been one of the barriers identified by advocates and some policymakers in keeping people with disabilities and seniors in community-based settings or moving people out of institutional facilities.
The Schwarzenegger Administration has identified housing as a critical need for persons with disabilities, with the Department of Developmental Services, which oversees the operations of 21 non-profit regional centers that coordinate community-based services and funding for over 230,000 children and adults with developmental disabilities, identifying housing as a key priority - especially in addressing the crisis of persons with autism spectrum disorders. In the Legislature, two bills related specifically to people with disabilities and affordable and accessible housing are pending, including SB 1175 by Sen. Darrell Steinberg (Democrat - Sacramento, 6th District) dealing with regional centers and creation of non-profit housing foundations. Other affordable housing bills are also pending.
Opponents Say Proposition 98 Will End Rent Control and Laws Protecting Renters
Opponents say Proposition 98 on the June 3rd ballot is a "bait and switch" that talks first about private property rights, but is meant to eliminate rent control saying that "landlords could raise rents as high as they want" and would wipe "out basic protections for all renters" including they say, laws requiring fair return of rental deposits and laws protecting renters from unfair evictions.
The measure is opposed by many advocacy groups including AARP, League of Women Voters of California, League of California Homeowners, California Disability Community Action Network, California Police Chiefs Association and others.
SUMMARY OF JUNE 3rd PROPOSITION 98
The constitutional amendment would do several things related to limiting state and local government from transferring or taking private property for public use, Proposition 98 on the ballot for June 3 would:
RENT CONTROL
• * Would impact and eventually abolish all existing rent control measures now in place and prevent new controls from being enacted. Over a dozen cities in California have some form of rent control laws including cities of Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, and Santa Monica. Over 100 cities and counties have laws limiting or controlling the rents that mobilehome park owners can charge people who lease space.
• Local governments would be prohibited from enacting any new rent control measures
• Any rent control measure that was enacted AFTER January 1, 2007 would end (upon passage of this ballot initiative)
• Other rent control measures enacted BEFORE January 1, 2007 would be phased out on a unit by unit basis after an apartment unit or mobile home park space is vacated. Once a tenant vacates an apartment or mobile home space, property owners can charge higher rents (market rate rents) for the next person - and that housing would not be subject to rent control again.
OTHER HOUSING MEASURES
Legislative Analyst Office believes, while wording in the proposed constitutional amendment is not clear, it appears that other affordable housing laws could be prohibited, such as local mandatory "inclusionary" housing laws (ordinances) that require developers to construct affordable housing on part of their land or contribute funds for such housing.
TRANSFERRING PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• Proposition 98 on the ballot June 3rd, would prohibit local government from taking ownership of private property and transfer it to a private party (such as a non-profit organization, business or person. This includes when local government seeks to reduce high crime or urban decay in a certain area by transferring substandard apartments to a non-profit organization to renovate and manage for affordable housing for low income people and families (that include people with disabilities and seniors).
• Would prohibit local government from taking a private property and transferring it for use that was "substantially similar" to how the original private owner used it.
• None of these restrictions apply if local government was addressing a public nuisance or criminal activity or as part of a "state of emergency" declared by the Governor.Proposition 99 Similar To 98 But Does Not End Rent Controls
• One other proposition, Proposition 99, is also on the June 3rd primary ballot and is similar to Proposition 98, but does not contain any provisions dealing with rent controls. It was placed on the ballot by some of the groups in strong opposition to Proposition 98.
• Proposition 99 has a clause that if both Proposition 98 and 99 were approved by voters, and if Proposition 99 received more votes than 98, then the provisions of Proposition would not take effect.
• Proposition 99, like Proposition 98, is a constitutional amendment would prohibit state and local government from using their power (called "eminent domain") to acquire an owner-occupied home and transfer it to another private person or business entity. It creates an exception for public works or improvements, public health and safety protection and crime prevention.
• It is similar to Proposition 98 in that it would prevent local government from transferring a substandard apartment building, for instance, to a non-profit organization to renovate and manage affordable housing. Proposition 99 is supported by the California Alliance for Retired Americans, the League of Women Voters of California, the League of California Homeowners and the California Police Chiefs Association among other groups who say that Proposition 99 "is real eminent domain reform" with "no hidden agenda" of eliminating rent controls. Many voters may be confused about the upcoming primary electionEarlier on February 5th, California held its presidential primary election which did not include any state races, except one special Assembly election to fill a vacancy.
The June 3rd primary election is for all 80 Assembly seats and 20 (seats from odd numbered districts) of the 40 State Senate seats. In addition all 53 California congressional seats are up for election.
In the Assembly, 24 members are termed out. In the State Senate, 10 members of the 20 seats up for election.
Proposition 98 on the ballot for June 3, is also the same number of a more famous 1988 state constitutional amendment with the same number that imposed a public school funding guarantee. Deadline to Register for June 3rd Primary Coming Up
Voter registration must be postmarked no later than May 19, 2008
FOR MORE INFORMATION
For additional assistance with voter registration, please contact your county registrar of voters or the California Secretary of State's office at the following toll-free numbers:
English: 1-800-345-VOTE
Chinese: 1-800-339-2857
Japanese: 1-800-339-2865
Korean: 1-866-575-1558
Spanish: 1-800-232-VOTA
Tagalog: 1-800-339-2957
Vietnamese: 1-800-339-8163
The California Disability Community Action Network, is a non-partisan link to thousands of Californians with developmental and other disabilities, people with traumatic brain injuries, the Blind, the Deaf, their families, community organizations and providers, direct care, homecare and other workers, and other advocates to provide information on state (and eventually federal), local public policy issues.
1930s Design Gets Thumbs-Up as City-Owned Housing Project
ANDREAE DOWNS - From Boston.com - May 11, 2008
Brighton - A condominium project designed with a 1930s feel was the first pick of the Brighton Allston Improvement Association board for a highly visible, city-owned site. Three other proposals with fewer total condos, but more subsidized units for lower-income buyers, are still on the table as the city's Department of Neighborhood Development prepares a recommendation for 1501 Commonwealth Ave.
"We felt this was the better proposal," said Lorraine Bossi, a member of the association's board. The $18 million proposal that the board endorsed would offer 57 one-, two-, or three-bedroom condos spread out over four stories, and two stories of parking, said developer Merrill Diamond. Currently, a three-story former nursing home, now vacant, occupies the spot near the Brighton Marine Health Center and a wooded city park.
The runner-up preference at the association's meeting on May 1 was from the Allston-Brighton Community Development Corporation, which has built or rehabilitated more than 500 units of housing in the neighborhood.
Diamond, who noted his role in building housing in the former Waterworks buildings near the Chestnut Hill Reservoir, expressed his preference for designs other than what he called "squat, flat boxes" built on Comm. Ave. since the 1930s. He and several nearby residents said that the neighborhood has more than enough affordable units and needs more of the market-rate variety.
"Allston-Brighton has a lot of affordable housing," said mechanic Harry Nesdekidis. "It's bringing down our quality of life, while the taxes we pay are going up."
But Charlie Vasiliades, a development corporation board member, disagreed, saying that with Allston-Brighton at 13 percent, only West Roxbury, Hyde Park, and Back Bay have smaller percentages of affordable rental units.
The developers now await analysis from the Department of Neighborhood Development, which will accept community input for another week or two, according to spokeswoman Kerry O'Brien. In about a month, the department will send its recommendation to the Public Facilities Commission, which will tentatively designate a developer. Depending on the timing of the financing, shovels could be in the ground by next year, O'Brien said.
Comments may be sent to the Boston Department of Neighborhood Development at 26 Court St., Boston 02108.
Brighton - A condominium project designed with a 1930s feel was the first pick of the Brighton Allston Improvement Association board for a highly visible, city-owned site. Three other proposals with fewer total condos, but more subsidized units for lower-income buyers, are still on the table as the city's Department of Neighborhood Development prepares a recommendation for 1501 Commonwealth Ave.
"We felt this was the better proposal," said Lorraine Bossi, a member of the association's board. The $18 million proposal that the board endorsed would offer 57 one-, two-, or three-bedroom condos spread out over four stories, and two stories of parking, said developer Merrill Diamond. Currently, a three-story former nursing home, now vacant, occupies the spot near the Brighton Marine Health Center and a wooded city park.
The runner-up preference at the association's meeting on May 1 was from the Allston-Brighton Community Development Corporation, which has built or rehabilitated more than 500 units of housing in the neighborhood.
Diamond, who noted his role in building housing in the former Waterworks buildings near the Chestnut Hill Reservoir, expressed his preference for designs other than what he called "squat, flat boxes" built on Comm. Ave. since the 1930s. He and several nearby residents said that the neighborhood has more than enough affordable units and needs more of the market-rate variety.
"Allston-Brighton has a lot of affordable housing," said mechanic Harry Nesdekidis. "It's bringing down our quality of life, while the taxes we pay are going up."
But Charlie Vasiliades, a development corporation board member, disagreed, saying that with Allston-Brighton at 13 percent, only West Roxbury, Hyde Park, and Back Bay have smaller percentages of affordable rental units.
The developers now await analysis from the Department of Neighborhood Development, which will accept community input for another week or two, according to spokeswoman Kerry O'Brien. In about a month, the department will send its recommendation to the Public Facilities Commission, which will tentatively designate a developer. Depending on the timing of the financing, shovels could be in the ground by next year, O'Brien said.
Comments may be sent to the Boston Department of Neighborhood Development at 26 Court St., Boston 02108.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
National Low Income Housing Coalition Reports from the Capitol
Foreclosure Prevention Bill Passed by Financial Services Committee: On May 1, the House Committee on Financial Services, chaired by Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), approved H.R. 5830, the FHA Housing and Homeowner Retention Act. The legislation would allow the Federal Housing Administration to refinance at-risk borrowers into viable mortgages.
H.R. 5830 would provide a voluntary program to permit the FHA to provide up to $300 billion in outstanding loan guarantees to help refinance at-risk borrowers into viable mortgages. The program would require a participating lender to accept a substantial write-down of principal in exchange for a “short payment” (i.e., a payment for less than the outstanding balance as payment in full) from the proceeds of a new FHA-guaranteed mortgage. The new loan would have terms that the borrower can reasonably be expected to pay, and the borrower would agree to share future home appreciation with the federal government.
The program is available only to borrowers who occupy the residence subject to the refinancing and such borrowers cannot own any other homes. The existing loan must have been originated on or before December 31, 2007. The program would be overseen by a “Refinance Program Oversight Board,” consisting of the Secretary of Treasury, the Secretary of HUD, and Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
The bill would also authorize $210 million for foreclosure counseling, including counseling to veterans recently returning from active duty in the armed forces, with at least $30 million targeted to low income and minority homeowners and $35 million to assist with legal aid.
Floor Action on Foreclosure Crisis in House on May 7-8: The House is expected to spend at least one day and possibly two in the coming week to move major legislation to address the foreclosure crisis.
H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008, will be considered as a stand-alone bill. This bill, sponsored by Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA), chair of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, would establish a $15 billion loan and grant program for the purchase and rehabilitation of owner-vacated, foreclosed homes, with the goal of stabilizing and occupying them as soon as possible. Half of the grant funds would be required to support housing for very low income families (VLI, families at or below 50% of AMI) and half of that amount—25% of the total—would be for extremely low income families (ELI; families at or below 30% of AMI) (see Memo, 4/25). This bill has drawn a veto threat from the Administration due to its price tag.
H.R. 5830, the FHA Housing and Homeowner Retention Act, will also be considered, most likely as an amendment to H.R. 3221, the housing stimulus bill that passed the Senate passed on April 10 (see Memo, 4/11). (The Senate actually added its provisions as an amendment to a bill, H.R. 3221, that the House had already sent to the Senate. The Senate then sent it back to the House.)
Additional amendments to H.R. 3221 could include H.R. 5579, the Emergency Mortgage Loan Modification Act of 2008, which makes it easier for servicers to modify troubled mortgages without threat of liability to investors (see Memo,H.R. 5720, the Housing Assistance Tax Act of 2008, which makes several changes to the Low Income Housing Tax.
Credit and Housing Bond programs and provides a tax credit for first-time home buyers (see Memo, 4/11); H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007, which reforms the regulatory system for the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) and would provide funding for a National Housing Trust Fund (see Memo, 10/12/07); and H.R. 1852, the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007, which reforms the FHA program (see Memo, 9/21/07). 4/25);
By amending a Senate-passed bill, the House will set the stage for a conference between the House and Senate on the various initiatives and programs passed by the House. H.R. 1427 and H.R. 1852 previously passed the House; H.R. 5830, H.R. 5579 and H.R. 5720 have been reported out of committee, but have not been considered by the full House.
Senate Letter Supports Funding for Current and New Vouchers: Twenty-five senators, led by Senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and Susan Collins (R-ME), sent a letter to the chair and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies on April 28, urging “the highest fiscally responsible increase in funding for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program” in FY09.
“We ask that you include funding sufficient to renew existing vouchers as well as fund new vouchers in fiscal year 2009,” the letter to Subcommittee Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) and Ranking Member Christopher Bond (R-MO) said. The letter commends the Subcommittee for is support for the voucher program in FY07 and FY08.
Committee Consideration of Asset Management Bill Delayed: The House Committee on Financial Services this week postponed the scheduled mark up of H.R. 5829, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2008. This bill, which was introduced by Representative Albio Sires (D-NJ) April 17, is the second version of the asset management legislation. The first version faltered on February 26 on the House floor when an unexpected amendment threatened to send the bill back to the Financial Services Committee. (see Memo 4/18). A new markup date has not yet been scheduled.
National Housing Trust Fund / Senate Committee Postpones Consideration of GSE Bill: The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, chaired by Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT), has rescheduled a mark-up of pending legislation that would restructure Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSE). The mark- up was scheduled for Tuesday, May 6, and now is tentatively set for Thursday, May 8. The delay will allow additional time for Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL) to work out solutions to several areas of disagreement.
The Committee will also at the same time take up legislation to use the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to prevent foreclosures. The GSE provisions and the FHA provisions are expected to be two titles of one bill.
The Senate’s GSE overhaul is expected to include provisions to establish an Affordable Housing Fund, modeled after S. 2391, the Government Sponsored Enterprise Mission Improvement Act of 2007, introduced by Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) on November 16 (see Memo, 11/19/07). The NHTF campaign is working to have S. 2523, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act, included in the overall bill. Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), the lead sponsors of S. 2523, sent a letter to Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Richard Shelby urging inclusion of S. 2523.
New Cosponsor of S. 2523 (National Housing Trust Fund): Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) cosponsored S. 2523, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2008, the week of April 28. There are now 18 cosponsors of the bill, in addition to Senator John Kerry (D-MA), who introduced the bill in December.
NLIHC Submits Comments on Proposed PIH Rent Study: In comments submitted to HUD on April 28, NLIHC raised two areas of concerns in a study of rents and rent flexibility being proposed by HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing.
According to the Federal Register notice (FR-1594-N-06), the stated purpose of the study is to “review possible reforms and alternative rent structures to the current income-based approach for calculating rental subsidies in [the Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher] programs.” The study is designed to survey housing authorities, households on waiting lists, and those admitted to public housing or the voucher program in the past year.
NLIHC’s first area of concern, as raised in the letter, is that the study’s sample for survey research appears to be too limited to achieve its purpose. Despite its stated broad purpose, HUD does not propose to collect information from either private landlords or longer-term residents. Not only are these two large constituencies likely to be affected by any reforms to the program, but they are also likely to provide valuable insight, particularly on past changes to rent policy and the impact of the existing alternative rent programs already in place at some housing authorities. NLIHC’s comments conclude that “omitting the perspectives of landlords and longer-term residents will make the sample unrepresentative for the purposes described and will seriously bias the results.”
The second concern raised in NLIHC’s comments is that HUD’s Paperwork Reduction Act submission states that there are no plans to publish the results of the $2 million study. NLIHC commented that a study of this magnitude should have a public purpose and inform the public debate.
NCH Report Calls For Action to Break the Foreclosures to Homelessness Cycle
Washington, DC – The National Coalition for the Homeless released a report today forecasting an increase in homelessness due to the foreclosure crisis. The report, Foreclosure to Homelessness: the Forgotten Victims of the Subprime Crisis, summarizes the findings of a national survey of state and local homeless coalitions conducted in winter 2008 to ascertain whether their communities were seeing an increase in homelessness due to the foreclosure crisis.
Among the survey findings:
61 percent of survey respondents reported an increase in homelessness in their communities since the foreclosure crisis began in 2007.
Respondents reported a variety of living arrangements among the newly homeless victims of the foreclosure crisis, including stays with family and friends, in emergency shelters, and on the streets.
The report criticizes state legislatures and Congress for their inattention to homelessness prevention initiatives in their response to the foreclosure crisis. “Nearly forgotten in the foreclosure crisis are the thousands of homeowners and renters who have become homeless once their equity is exhausted,” said Bob Erlenbusch, President of the National Coalition for the Homeless. ”We hope this report will sound an alarm and inspire policymakers to take proactive measures that prevent more Americans from falling from foreclosure to homelessness.”
Among the policy recommendations offered by NCH to break the foreclosure to homelessness cycle is an infusion of funds into the federal Emergency Food and Shelter Program, a highly effective program already in place to provide rental and mortgage assistance to persons at risk of homelessness. At the request of NCH and other organizations, Congress is now considering action on this recommendation as part of foreclosure relief measures.
Foreclosure to Homelessness: the Forgotten Victims of the Subprime Crisis, is available on the NCH web site here.
The National Coalition for the Homeless, is the oldest national organization advocating with and on behalf of persons experiencing homelessness. Our mission is to end homelessness. The National Coalition for the Homeless engages in public education, policy advocacy, and grassroots organizing. We focus our work in the areas of housing justice, economic justice, health care justice, and civil rights.
April 23, 2008 Contact: Michael Stoops
(202) 462-4822 x19 voice (202) 277-3782 mobile
mstoops@nationalhomeless.org
Tuesday, May 6, 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 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.
(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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)