PRESIDENT SIGNS HOUSING TRUST FUND INTO LAW!!!

A Message from the National Housing Trust Fund Campaign:

July 30, 2008 / Today, President George W. Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Among the bill’s numerous provisions is the establishment of a national Housing Trust Fund. This is a major victory for low income housing advocates and the lowest income people in our country with the most serious needs.

The Housing Trust Fund’s most important features are:

• It is a permanent program with a dedicated source of funding not subject to the annual appropriations process.

• At least 90% of the funds must be used for the production, preservation, rehabilitation, or operation of rental housing. Up to 10% can be used for the following homeownership activities for first-time homebuyers: production, preservation, and rehabilitation; down payment assistance, closing cost assistance, and assistance for interest rate buy-downs.

• At least 75% of the funds for rental housing must benefit extremely low income households and all funds must benefit very low income households.

This is the first new federal housing production program since the HOME program was created in 1990 and the first new production program specifically targeted to extremely low income households since the Section 8 program was created in 1974.

Funds for the Housing Trust Fund will come from annual contributions made by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The amount will be based on a percentage of each company’s annual new business. Using the formula in the bill, the amount in 2007 would have been $557 million. Because their new business is increasing, the amount in 2008 is expected to be higher. However, 25% of the funds each year must first go to a reserve fund at the Treasury to offset scoring problems.

The remaining 75% of the funds will be divided between the Housing Trust Fund, which gets 65%, and a new Capital Magnet Fund that gets 35%. For the first three years, a percentage of the funds (100% in FY09, 50% in FY10, and 25% in FY11) will be diverted to a reserve fund to cover losses that the FHA might incur refinancing troubled mortgages through the new HOPE for Homeowners program (see article below). Based on the projected amount the formula will produce in calendar year 2008, approximately $300 million would have been available for the housing trust fund this year had it been in place with no diversions for the HOPE for Homeowners reserve fund. Funds not needed to cover FHA losses eventually will revert to the Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund.

Given the recent instability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, concerns have been raised about whether any funds will be available for new programs. The new regulator has the authority to suspend contributions under certain circumstances related the fiscal distress of the GSEs. However, no money will be available for the Housing Trust Fund until FY10, by which time Freddie Mac’s and Fannie Mae’s fiscal conditions are expected to be much improved.

Now that it has achieved this important and long-sought milestone, the National Housing Trust Fund Campaign will turn its attention to the next two steps towards achieving its goal of 1.5 million homes in 10 years. The first is implementation of the program—working with HUD to create an effective and timely fund distribution system. The second is to identify and advocate for additional sources of dedicated revenue. The bill specifically provides that Congress may “transfer, appropriate, or credit” other funds to the Housing Trust Fund.

More details about the Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund provisions follow:

Housing Trust Fund

• For the purposes of federal civil rights laws, the Housing Trust Fund is considered federal financial assistance. All activities carried out must comply with federal laws on tenant protection and tenant participation, laws requiring public participation, and fair housing and laws related to accessibility for people with disabilities.

• It will be administered by HUD, which will provide grants to states, which will designate a state housing finance agency, housing and community development entity, a tribal designated housing entity, or any other qualified agency to receive the grants.

• The HUD Secretary is to establish a distribution formula to the states within 12 months of enactment of the bill. The formula should include the following factors:

  • the ratio of the shortage of affordable and available rental units to extremely low income renter households in the state to the aggregate shortage of affordable and available rental units to extremely low income renter households in all the states (this factor is to be given “priority emphasis”);

  • the ratio of the shortage of affordable and available rental units to very low income renter households in the state to the aggregate shortage of affordable and available rental units to very low income renter households in all the states;

  • the ratio of extremely low income renter households in the state living with either incomplete kitchens or plumbing facilities, more than one person per room, or paying more than 50% of their income for housing costs to the aggregate number of extremely low income renter households living with either incomplete kitchens or plumbing facilities, more than one person per room, or paying more than 50% of income for housing costs in all the states;

  • the ratio of very low income renter households in the state paying more than 50% of income on rent compared to the aggregate number of very low income renter households paying more than 50% of income on rent in all the states.

  • The sum of those factors will be multiplied by the approximate cost of construction in the state to determine the final amount of funding allocated to each state. However, the minimum state allocation will be at least $3 million annually.

• Each year that the state receives a grant, it must establish a plan to distribute the funds and allow public comments on the plan. The plan must detail the eligible uses including the required income targeting.

• Eligible recipients of grants from the states are organizations and agencies (for-profit and non-profit) that demonstrate 1) the experience and capacity to produce the kind of housing the program calls for, 2) the financial capacity to undertake the eligible activity, and 3) familiarity with federal, state, and local housing programs.

• Prohibited uses are political activities, lobbying, counseling, traveling and administrative

• expenses, or endorsements of a particular candidate or party.

Recipients must conduct and submit periodic financial and project reports, and conform to audit and record retention requirements. If a recipient misuses the funds allocated to it, it must reimburse their grant to the state within 12 months after their misuse is known. Either the Secretary of HUD or the state can determine if a grant is being misused.

• States must submit an annual report describing the activities for which they used the funding. If the Secretary determines that the state is blatantly not complying with the requirements, the Secretary can reduce the amount of the grant to the state, limit the availability of assistance, or require the state to reimburse the Secretary.

• States must spend the allotted amount in two years or the funds are returned to HUD.

• If another affordable housing trust fund is established by law, the funds meant for the trust fund created in this bill will be transferred to the new affordable housing trust fund.

Capital Magnet Fund

• Establishes a Capital Magnet Fund (CMF), which will be an account within the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund at the Department of Treasury, which is also allowed to receive additional funding from other sources.

• Eligible recipients are Treasury-certified Community Development Financial Institution or non-profits that have at least one of their purposes the development or management of affordable housing.

• Eligible recipients can apply for a competitive grant through the Treasury to help develop, preserve, purchase, and rehabilitate affordable housing for mostly extremely low, very low, and low income families. Grant funds may also be used for economic development or community service facilities in conjunction with affordable housing to help stabilize a low-income or rural area.

• The CMF may also be used to provide loan loss reserves, to capitalize a revolving loan fund or an affordable housing fund, or for risk-sharing loans.

• Applications for the competitive grants are required to include a detailed description of the types of affordable housing, economic, and community revitalization projects the institution would use the grant for, and the anticipated time frame they intend to use it.

• No institution can be awarded more than 15% of all Capital Magnet funds available for grants in that year.

• The Secretary is encouraged to fund activities in rural or underserved metropolitan areas.

• Among the criteria in determining which areas should be served are:

o the percentage of low income families or the extent of poverty

o the rate of unemployment or underemployment

o the extent of blight and disinvestment

o projects targeting extremely low, very low , and low income families in an area of economic distress

o or any other criteria chosen by the Secretary

• Institutions receiving grants must spend the funds within two years from the date of receiving

them.

• Prohibited uses are political activities, advocacy, lobbying, counseling services, travel expenses, and endorsements of a particular candidate or party.

• Each grantee must track its funds by issuing periodic financial and project reporting, and audit requirements. If the Secretary is not satisfied with the compliance, the grantee may receive fewer funds, have to pay the Treasury back, or have their grant terminated.

• The Secretary must submit a periodic report to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the House Committee on Financial Services describing the activities these funds are being used for.

• For more information, go to www.nhtf.org.

U.N. Weighs in Against Demolishing Public Housing

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.)

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.

HUD Reviewing Resident & APN Concerns

From: The Atlanta Progressive News / By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor

(APN) ATLANTA – The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) responded to the city-wide Resident Advisory Board for public housing residents, in a May 13, 2008, letter obtained exclusively by Atlanta Progressive News, acknowledging residents’ concerns and promising to analyze the issues raised both by residents as well as by APN.

"Thank you for your letter of April 28, 2008, raising your concerns about the proposed demolition of seven developments by the Atlanta Housing Authority (AHA)," Ainars Rodins, Director of HUD’s Special Applications Center in Chicago, which reviews demolition applications, wrote.

"The Special Applications Center (SAC) is aware of the 82 questions raised by the Atlanta Progressive News (APN) and has incorporated their analysis in its review, along with other issues raised by interested parties received via Email and other means," Rodins wrote.

"A final decision will not be rendered until all of the issues raised by concerned individuals have been analyzed, but we cannot commit to putting off a final decision for a specific amount of time as you request in your correspondence," Rodins wrote.

Ms. Eleanor Rayton, President of Palmer House senior high rise, and RAB Board members had previously sent a letter and resolution, respectively, requesting a 60 to 90 day extension on HUD’s review of the applications where residents and resident leaders were not provided the chance to review or respond to applications before they were submitted to HUD.

Meanwhile, in Wright’s April 28, 2008, letter, she requested a meeting with Mr. Rodins and others at HUD in Chicago, to discuss her concerns about the applications.

Residents from Hollywood Courts, Palmer House, and the RAB Board wanted also to attend a meeting in Chicago.

"I feel a meeting here in Chicago would add little to the process since our analysis is still underway. We have spoken several times on the phone, and I am aware of your constituents’ concerns," Rodins wrote.

It is unclear why analysis being underway would stand in the way of a meeting. After all, if Rodins met with residents after the analysis was done, it would defeat the purpose of the meeting.

As previously reported by APN, Ms. Rayton says she has spoken twice with Mr. Rodins and he told her he could not give her a date and a time for such a meeting.

Rodins attempted to assure the residents, however, that his office would review their concerns.
"The SAC reviewers have a compiled a list of the concerns that have been raised with us and will use it as their guide to get their questions answered, in addition to those they pose as part of their usual review process," Rodins wrote.

So far, multiple parties including Atlanta Progressive News, Georgia State University Assistant Professor of Sociology Deirdre Oakley, the RAB Board, and the resident associations of Hollywood Courts and Palmer House have sent certified packages including various letters, reports, documents, and resolutions to HUD’s Chicago Office.

APN also collected comments sent from readers after encouraging readers to email their concerns about the demolition applications to demolitioninput@gmail.com. APN sent in five comments from readers. If readers want to continue to send comments in, they should send them to directly to ainars.rodins@hud.gov and copy APN.

Previously, AHA promised City Council that they would respond to APN’s 82 questions, but their eventual written response was merely to thank APN for the questions and state they would consider them.

Resident leaders from the RAB Board and residents of Hollywood Courts signed a petition stating “WE WANT REAL ANSWERS!” to the 82 questions. This petition was sent in to HUD.
APN’s analysis of the demolition applications raised serious concerns about AHA’s apparent fraudulent claims regarding the physical conditions of some of the public housing buildings; AHA’s apparent fraudulent claims regarding residents’ preferences as to whether to move or stay; and the lack of evidence of available voucher-leasing opportunities for residents who would be displaced.

Recently, APN also exclusively reported that the Empire Board of Realtors is claiming that AHA only has 700 possible units identified for some 2000 families. This information was also sent to HUD.

This is the first time HUD has acknowledged Atlanta residents’ concerns in writing.

Wright told Atlanta Progressive News she was pleased to get some written response from HUD but still wants a meeting.

"I think it was very nice of him to send it, but I do have some problems with it. I just really want to know, why is it they can't meet with us?" Wright said.

"I'm really trying to figure out, they can just throw the residents out on the street and no one from HUD wants to talk with the residents about it?" Wright said.

"It should have been answered before now. We should've known what was going on. It's just like AHA is doing here, not wanting to talk to us, not wanting to meet with us like we're nobodies," Wright said.

At a meeting, "they'll be able to hear our concerns, not just put ‘em in an email and on paper. Maybe we could get better answers and find out what's really going on," Wright said.

"I think if they were going to answer the 82 questions, don't you think they would've analyzed them by now so people wouldn't be evicted?" Wright asked. Residents claim that AHA is already evicting many residents living in public housing on lease violations and criminal background, in order to empty out the communities before an application is approved.

"I just think they're holding something back," Wright said.

Resources Scarce, Homelessness Persists in New Orleans

By SHAILA DEWAN - The New York Times - Published: May 28, 2008

NEW ORLEANS — Mayor C. Ray Nagin recently suggested a way to reduce this city’s post-Katrina homeless population: give them one-way bus tickets out of town.

Patrick Pugh and Clara Gomez outside their tent at a homeless encampment under a highway overpass in New Orleans.

Mr. Nagin later insisted the off-the-cuff proposal was just a joke. But he has portrayed the dozens of people camped in a tent city under a freeway overpass near Canal Street as recalcitrant drug and alcohol abusers who refuse shelter, give passers-by the finger and, worst of all, hail from somewhere else.

While many of the homeless do have addiction problems or mental illness, a survey by advocacy groups in February showed that 86 percent were from the New Orleans area. Sixty percent said they were homeless because of Hurricane Katrina, and about 30 percent said they had received rental assistance at one time from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Not far from the French Quarter, flanking Canal Street on Claiborne Avenue, they are living inside a long corridor formed not of walls and a roof but of the thick stench of human waste and sweat tinged with alcohol, crack and desperation.

The inhabitants are natives like Ronald Gardner, 54, an H.I.V.-positive man who said he had never before slept on the streets until Katrina. Or Ronald Berry, 57, who despite being a paranoid schizophrenic said he had lived on his own, in a rented house in the Lower Ninth Ward, for a dozen years before the storm. Both men receive disability checks of $637 a month, not nearly enough to cover post-hurricane rents.

“If I could just get a warm room,” Mr. Gardner said, sitting on the cot under which all his belongings are stored, “I could take it from there.”

Lurlene Newell, 54, said the Federal Emergency Management Agency had paid her rent in Texas after the storm, but when she moved back to New Orleans, she could not find a place to live.

By one very rough estimate, the number of homeless people in New Orleans has doubled since Katrina struck in 2005. Homelessness has also become a much more visible problem — late last year, Unity of Greater New Orleans, a network of agencies that help the homeless, cleared an encampment of 300 people that had sprung up in Duncan Plaza, in full view of City Hall. About 280 of those people are now in apartments, but others have flocked to fill several blocks of Claiborne Avenue at Canal, near enough to the French Quarter to regularly encounter tourists.
Unity workers are hoping that Congress will include $76 million in the supplemental appropriation for Iraq to pay for vouchers that would give rent subsidies and services to 3,000 disabled homeless people.

On Thursday, the Senate passed a version of the bill that included the vouchers; the current House version, not yet approved, does not include them. Without the vouchers, said Martha J. Kegel, Unity’s executive director, even those people already in apartments will be in jeopardy. Their current vouchers, issued under a “rapid rehousing” program, expire at the end of 2008.

New Orleans had 2,800 beds for the homeless before the storm; now it has 2,000, Ms. Kegel said. Those beds are full, but even if they were not, many of the people living on Canal Street are not the sort who can stay in a group shelter. According to the survey, which was conducted before dawn one morning so that only those who actually sleep in the camp would be counted, 80 percent have at least one physical disability, 58 percent have had some kind of addiction, 40 percent are mentally ill, and 19 percent were “tri-morbid” — they had a disability, an addiction and mental illness.

For these difficult cases, permanent housing with supportive services, like counseling, has become a preferred method. But it takes time, patience, money and one thing New Orleans is short of: apartments. Many apartment developers who applied for tax credits after Hurricane Katrina were required to set aside 5 percent of their units for supportive housing, but because of high construction costs and other factors, far fewer units than expected are in the pipeline. And without the vouchers, even those units will not be affordable.

Unity has already moved 60 of the most vulnerable people from the camp to hotel rooms, paid for with a city health department grant, including a woman who is eight months pregnant and a paranoid schizophrenic who is diabetic and a double amputee. In the filth of the camp, the amputee’s stumps had become infected.

Outreach workers have found clients with cancer and colostomy bags, and one so disabled that he was unable to talk. On average, people have stayed in hotels for six weeks before Unity finds an apartment and cobbles together the necessary funds.

Mike Miller, the director of supportive housing placement at Unity, said the camp had become a public health hazard since the city removed some portable toilets in February.

“Two outreach workers have tested positive for tuberculosis,” Mr. Miller said. “There’s hepatitis C, there’s AIDS, there’s H.I.V. Everyone out there’s had an eye infection of some sort. I got one.”
On Thursday, Herman Moore Jr. was hanging out with a friend in the camp. Mr. Moore had lived in a Federal Emergency Management Agency trailer, then a FEMA-financed hotel room, but had not realized that he was eligible for further assistance after the 30-day hotel stay ended last fall. Tipped off by his brother, Mr. Moore had only recently rented a house under the emergency management agency’s program, but had yet to pay the deposit or turn on the utilities because he had no money.

“If I had a TV and some electricity, you all wouldn’t even see me,” he said.

Clara Gomez, 45, told an outreach worker that she had just discovered she was pregnant. Like about 14 percent of the homeless people under the bridge, Ms. Gomez had come to New Orleans to work as a builder, but acknowledged that she had problems with drug and alcohol abuse.

After getting fired from one job, she wound up under the bridge, where she met Patrick Pugh, 36, a New Orleanian who said he had been in drug rehabilitation, turning his life around, when the storm hit. Their IDs had been stolen, they said, making it difficult to get jobs or food stamps.
Seated on a mattress, Ms. Gomez shifted nervously, changing positions every few seconds, all the while keeping her arms anchored around Mr. Pugh’s neck.

“We’re ready,” she said. “We’re ready to get out of here.”

Chicago's City of (homeless) Children

May 27, 2008

Heated discourse on the Children's Museum, pro and con, has occupied many pages of the Chicago Tribune recently. Expressions of passion and concern for our city's poor children have emerged as part of that discourse, even a suggestion by the mayor to call this the "City of Children."

So, too, has willingness emerged to spend substantial money for the museum - $100 million and the whatever-it-takes cost of legal fees to be paid by Chicago.Chicago Coalition for the Homeless lauds expression of concern for our children by the mayor and other leaders, but we invite attention to be turned fully to the children's greatest concern, a lack of stable, affordable, decent housing.

This year alone there have been 10,349 homeless students identified in the Chicago Public Schools. On any scale, such a thing can only be termed a disaster.

What happens to children when they are homeless? You won't like the answer: they are more likely to be exposed to violence and food deprivation, suffer increased anxiety and depression, have greater rates of developmental delays and behavioral disturbances, experience more untreated or undertreated asthma, have fewer supports to recover from trauma, more hospitalizations and emergency room visits, experience repeated disruption in relationships and social settings, require more special education services and generally have a worse overall health status.

With more than 10,000 of Chicago's children undergoing homelessness, a hefty figure repeated for at least two years, shouldn't housing be our pre-eminent concern for children?We recognize the considerable power of a bully pulpit acting to change the lives of homeless children. And museums are important.

If, for the sake of children we are willing to spend $100 million and more on the museum, then, at least, we ought to be willing to spend the same amount of money and passion to fund and build affordable housing for Chicago's families and their children.

Laurene Heybach - Chicago Coalition for the Homeless

Northampton, MA Gets $500,000 to Help Homeless Veterans with Housing

By NANCY H. GONTER ngonter@repub.com - The Republican Newsroom - May 13, 2008

NORTHAMPTON, MA - Federal and local officials announced today that nearly $500,000 has been awarded to Northampton to provide subsidized housing vouchers for 70 homeless veterans.

"This fits exactly into what we are trying to do in terms of homelessness in this city," Mayor Mary Clare Higgins said at a press conference at the Northampton Senior Center on Conz Street. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Regional Director Taylor Caswell presented Higgins, Northampton Housing Authority Director Jonathan A. Hite and Veterans Affairs Medical Center Director Mary A. Dowling with a check for $487,402.

"This funding will serve a vital need of providing homes and support to those who sacrificed so much while serving our country," Caswell said. Caswell praised the cooperation between the city of Northampton, the Housing Authority and the Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Part of new HUD housing program

The money is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's new Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program, passed by Congress at the end of last year, which will provide $2.5 million statewide and assist 245 homeless veterans across the state. In Northampton, the Housing Authority will award the vouchers, with the process starting as soon as next week, and veterans will receive the services they need through the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Leeds.

They may be used in any community in Western Massachusetts to rent privately-owned housing. "We want to go back and say 'Here's how it's done in Western Massachusetts. Let's use this as a model,'" Caswell said. Steven E. Como, executive vice president of Soldier On, which operates homeless shelters for veterans at the Medical Center, said there are 145 homeless veterans now at the shelters, some of whom may be referred to this program.

Unlike traditional "Section 8" housing vouchers which set income limits and bar anyone who has had a substance abuse or criminal history, these vouchers will be more flexible, taking in the needs of veterans who are homeless, Como said. 'A tremendous gift' John F. Downing, president of Soldier On which is also building 39 units of housing for veterans in Pittsfield, said these vouchers are a "tremendous gift" to veterans.

"In a capitalistic society, if you have a place to call your own, you feel you can change and you feel you can build a future," Downing said.

Downing said that as a group, veterans are three times more likely than others to be homeless.

"This is a moment of great home for our work and a moment of great dignity for the people we serve," Downing said.