Posts
by Danny Reible
The flooding of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina provides many lessons for the environmental and engineering communities and raises public policy questions about risk management. Although serious environmental and waste management issues were expected as a result of the flooding, extensive environmental sampling largely failed to substantiate them. The attention of those managing the emergency was diverted from critical issues to addressing this area of public apprehension. The potential environmental consequences were of concern because many chemical plants, petroleum facilities, and contaminated sites, including Superfund sites, in the area were covered by floodwaters. In addition, hundreds of commercial establishments, such as service stations, pest control businesses, and dry cleaners, use potentially hazardous chemicals that may have been released into the environment. The potential sources of toxics and environmental contaminants include metal-contaminated soils typical of old urban areas. Compounding these concerns is the presence of hazardous chemicals commonly stored in households and the fuel and motor oil in approximately 350,000 flooded automobiles. Uncontrolled biological wastes from human and animal sources also contributed to the pollutant burden. By and large, however, the environmental problems in the city are not significantly different now from environmental conditions before Hurricane Katrina. This discussion focuses on successes and failures in responding to the environmental concerns and on lessons learned for future disasters.
12.29.2007
Hurricane Katrina: Environmental Hazards in the Disaster Area
Planning, Plans, and People: Professional Expertise, Local Knowledge, and Governmental Action in Post-Katrina New Orleans
by Marla Nelson, Renia Ehrenfeucht, and Shirley Laska
In rebuilding after the largest disaster in our nation’s history—Hurricane Katrina—New Orleans has faced two key challenges: (1) how to enable all residents, including those with the fewest resources, to return to the city without recreating pre-Hurricane Katrina vulnerabilities and the inequities they represent; and (2) how to prioritize limited redevelopment resources. A citywide recovery strategy was necessary to address these challenges.
The purpose of this article is to examine the planning processes and the difficulties the city has faced in developing its recovery blueprint. Two interrelated, yet distinct, tensions played out through these processes: (1) tension between the need for “speed and deliberation” (Olshansky, 2006) in formulating a recovery blueprint and (2) tension between the relative weight afforded professional and resident assessments and priorities in setting recovery agendas. These tensions, accompanied by unanticipated resident distrust of government and professionals and the failure of city officials to designate quickly a single agency with the authority to guide a comprehensive recovery planning process, slowed the development of a citywide rebuilding strategy.
Reconstruction of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: A research perspective
Four propositions drawn from 60 years of natural hazard and reconstruction research provide a comparative and historical perspective on the reconstruction of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Decisions taken over its 288-year history that have made New Orleans so vulnerable to Katrina reflect a long-term pattern of societal response to hazard events—reducing consequences to relatively frequent events, and increasing vulnerability to very large and rare events. Thus Katrina’s consequences for New Orleans were truly catastrophic—accounting for most of the estimated 1,570 deaths of Louisiana residents and $40–50 billion in monetary losses.
A comparative sequence and timing of recovery provides a calendar of historical experience against which to gauge progress in reconstruction. Using this calendar, the emergency postdisaster period appears to be longer in duration than that of any other studied disaster. The restoration period, the time taken to restore urban services for the smaller population, is in keeping with or ahead of historical experience. The effort to reconstruct the physical environment and urban infrastructure is likely to take 8–11 years. Conflicting policy goals for reconstruction of rapid recovery, safety, betterment, and equity are already evident. Actions taken demonstrate the rush to rebuild the familiar in contrast to planning efforts that emphasize betterment. Because disasters tend to accelerate existing economic, social, and political trends, the large losses in housing, population, and employment after Katrina are likely to persist and, at best, only partly recover. However, the possibility of breaking free of this gloomy trajectory is feasible and has some historical precedent.
11.10.2007
RFP: Strategic Planning Session
Connecticut NAHRO is soliciting proposals for development, coordination and presentation of a strategic planning session for its executive board. The proposal should include but not be limited to the following topics:
1. Mission Statement
2. Goals 1year, 3year, 5year
3. Tasks As Related To Goals (Vice-Presidents And Their Committees)
4. Development Of A Work Plan And Budget For Goals And Tasks
5. Program Calendar Based On Goals And Tasks
6. Public Relations Program
7. Other Issues As Board And President See Fit
8. Final Written Strategic Plan (Within 30 Days Of Session)
The Strategic planning will take place in a one-day session 6-8 hours, depending on needs and time schedule of executive board members, at a mutually agreeable place and time during the first quarter of 2008.
Proposals should include the education and experience of the submitting/presenting party in the development of strategic plans as well as their knowledge and experience of affordable and public housing and the redevelopment industry.
PRICING: The proposal response should include a flat fee for services in the development and presentation of the plan. The final written Strategic Plan is to be presented to the Executive Board at the second regular board meeting after the session.
Connecticut NAHRO reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals as they see fit in the best interest of the organization.
Please send proposal, by November 30, 2007, to:
Carol Barlow, Executive Assistant
CONN-NAHRO
P. O. Box 822
Canton, CT 06019
Veto Threat Clouds HUD Funding Proposal
BY BARRY G. JACOBS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FINANCE • NOVEMBER 2007
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), like the rest of the federal government, has started fiscal 2008 without a regular appropriations bill in place and an uncertain funding outlook as a Democratic majority in Congress seeking more money for domestic programs confronts a Republican White House determined to hold the line on spending.
Both houses have approved HUD funding bills with increases in major programs, but President Bush has threatened to veto the final measure—one of several such warnings. In the meantime, the government is operating under a continuing resolution that generally keeps funding at fiscal 2007 levels.
The Senate passed its version of the HUD appropriations bill (H.R. 3074) in September, approving $16.599 billion for Sec. 8 vouchers, including $14.936 billion for renewals, and $5.813 billion for Sec. 8 project-based assistance, including $5.523 billion for contract renewals.
The comparable House figures are $16.33 billion and $14.745 billion for vouchers and $6.48 billion and $6.239 billion for project-based Sec. 8.
Other funding provisions include: public housing operating fund, $4.2 billion in both bills; public housing capital fund, $2.5 billion in the Senate bill, $2.439 billion in the House bill; HOME, $1.97 billion in the Senate, $1.64 billion in the House; homeless assistance, $1.585 billion in the Senate, $1.561 billion in the House; Community Development Block Grants, $3.705 billion in the Senate, $3.929 billion in the House; Sec. 202, $735 million in both bills; and Sec. 811, $237 million in both bills.
The Senate version of the bill, which also includes funding for the Transportation Department and other agencies, calls for about $3 billion more than the president’s budget request, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a statement of administration policy warning that the measure faces a veto.
“In combination with the other FY 2008 appropriations bills,” OMB said, “it includes an irresponsible and excessive level of spending and includes other objectionable provisions.”
The administration message objected specifically to the appropriations levels for Community Development Block Grants and public housing, along with continued funding for the HOPE VI program, which it has been trying to kill.
Congress, administration actto address mortgage crisis The subprime mortgage crisis has become the dominant housing issue in Washington, with Congress and the administration moving to provide relief to homeowners facing foreclosure because of sharp increases in mortgage payments.
The crisis was the impetus for House passage of Federal Housing Administration (FHA) modernization legislation (H.R. 1852), with an amendment to make FHA refinancing available to borrowers in default.
The amendment would allow homeowners to refinance if their current loans have adverse terms or rates, or if they lack access to mortgages with reasonable terms and rates because of adverse market conditions. FHA could insure refinancing loans for borrowers in default or at imminent risk of default, provided that the loans meet reasonable underwriting standards.
The bill would also allow FHA to insure no-downpayment mortgages and adjust mortgage insurance premiums to reflect the risk of individual loans.
In addition, the bill would raise FHA mortgage limits, in part to help FHA regain some of its lost market share and in part to address the impact of the market disruptions on the jumbo mortgage sector, where rates have risen sharply.
As reported out of the Financial Services Committee, the bill would have raised the basic one-family mortgage limit from 95 percent to 100 percent of the area median house price and increased the floor and ceiling limits, which are now 48 percent and 87 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit, to 65 percent and 100 percent of the Freddie Mac limit.
However, the bill was amended on the floor to provide even higher limits—the lesser of 125 percent of the area median house price or 175 percent of the conforming loan limit, with HUD authorized to raise the limits by as much as an additional $100,000.
On the administrative side, HUD announced an initiative, called FHASecure, to allow for FHA refinancing of non-FHA adjustable-rate mortgages that have gone into default after the rates have reset because the borrowers can’t make the higher payments. The arrearages under the old loan could be included in the FHA mortgage.
Many subprime mortgage borrowers, especially those with so-called “2- 28” loans, where a low teaser rate is increased after two years, face the loss of their homes because they can’t afford the sharp payment increases when the rates adjust.
Financial services committee reports out housing billsThe House Financial Services Committee has reported out two public housing bills, including a reauthorization of the HOPE VI program for the revitalization of severely distressed public housing, and a bill to revise the policies and procedures for the construction and refinancing of Sec. 202 elderly housing projects.
The HOPE VI bill (H.R. 3524) includes a one-for-one replacement requirement for all public housing units demolished or disposed of under a revitalization plan, either on the old public housing site or within the jurisdiction of the public housing authority (PHA).
The replacement housing would include on-site mixed housing in which at least one-third of the units are public housing units, unless HUD determines that such on-site replacement is infeasible. Other replacement housing could be provided in other parts of the PHA’s jurisdiction through acquisition or development of additional public housing units or other housing subject to comparable eligibility, rent, and affordability restrictions. All replacement housing would have to be provided in ways that promote the deconcentration of poverty.
Public housing residents displaced by the HOPE VI plan would be entitled to a replacement housing unit. In addition, they would have to be provided relocation assistance that meets the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act.
A revitalization plan would also have to provide opportunities for public housing residents to participate in the planning process.
A separate bill (H.R. 3521) would allow PHAs that own or operate less than 500 public housing units to exempt themselves from the asset management requirements imposed by HUD for the public housing operating fund program.
The bill would also prohibit HUD from imposing any restriction on management and related fees for a public housing project if the fee is determined to be reasonable by the PHA, unless the restriction is established through a negotiated rulemaking process that begins no earlier than April 1, 2009. The restriction could not go into effect before Jan. 1, 2011.
The Sec. 202 bill (H.R. 2930) provides for the delegation of processing to state and local housing agencies when projects receive Sec. 202 capital advances and funding from other sources. HUD would retain the authority to approve rents and development costs.
The bill would also allow Sec. 202 owners to establish a tenant selection preference for homeless elderly persons, if supportive services will be available.
The current provisions on the use of rental assistance savings from the refinancing of Sec. 202 loans would be revised to include the reduction or reconfiguration of obsolete units, the payment of a developer’s fee, and the payment of equity to the owner, sponsor, or seller. The 15 percent limit on the portion of the cost of increased supportive services that could be paid from rental assistance savings would be eliminated.
To prevent displacement of elderly residents when a project is refinanced or recapitalized, the bill would provide project- based rental assistance under a senior preservation rental assistance contract for a term of at least 20 years, subject to annual appropriations.
Banking committee OKs consolidation of homeless programsThe Senate Banking Committee has approved legislation (S. 1518) to consolidate the competitive homeless assistance programs under the McKinney-Vento Act, a move long favored by the administration and homeless advocates.
The move would affect the supportive housing program, Shelter Plus Care, and Sec. 8 moderate rehabilitation single-room occupancy programs.
The bill would also expand the eligible uses of homeless assistance funds to include aid for certain doubled-up households who can’t afford their own housing, and for families and individuals at risk of becoming homeless.
Barry G. Jacobs is editor of Housing and Development Reporter, the nation’s premier source for in-depth, factual coverage of all aspects of affordable housing and community development. The two-part publication includes informed reports and insightful analyses in “HDR Current Developments,” and an always up-todate compilation of essential documents in the “HDR Reference Files.” Jacobs is also the author of the annually updated HDR Handbook of Housing and Development Law.
Rousting the Cops
by M. Chris Fabricant
On a hot August night last summer in the South Bronx, David M. was walking toward the front door of his friend Dee's high-rise public-housing building. As he approached the door, he saw an NYPD paddy wagon stationed on the corner and a police officer starting to climb out. So David thought better of it and decided not to visit Dee, to just keep walking.
Then he heard footsteps behind him. Soon his face was pressed against the wall of Dee's building, with his jeans pulled down to his ankles and his T-shirt pushed into his armpits as gloved hands ran over his body. The police officer kept shouting at him to give up the stash, and David kept insisting he didn't have anything.
Twenty minutes later, David was shirtless, chained to a few other people in the back of the paddy wagon, and charged with trespassing. He spent the next four hours in the back of the sweltering NYPD meat wagon as police rounded up other young men for trespassing.
David eventually became my client, but there is nothing unusual about his story. Every attorney in my office has had dozens of similar cases. David's story is unique in one way: He is fighting it. Unlike virtually all of my clients, he wasn't worn down by the methodical torture of Bronx Criminal Justice and taking a guilty plea.
Before coming to the Bronx Defenders (where I am a staff attorney), I had never had a misdemeanor case, and rare was the client I was certain was innocent. In the Bronx, well over half of my cases are misdemeanors, and I have had a disgraceful number of innocent clients, many of whom plead guilty to a trespassing charge, either in a "Clean Halls" building or a New York City Public Housing building. "Operation Clean Halls" allows the NYPD to stop, search, question, and arrest anyone in or even near the building in an action called a "vertical." Clean Halls has been touted as a tool for keeping drugs and drug dealing out of low-income housing, but once a landlord signs a Clean Halls affidavit, no one can leave their home without their papers.
Trespassing arrests are up a staggering 25 percent since 2002—and this is no crime wave, no trespassing epidemic. The Clean Halls program is a major component of "Operation Impact," which was launched by the NYPD in 2003 and targets neighborhoods like the one David grew up in by flooding them with rookie police officers trying to make as many arrests as possible. In the 28-month period following the launch of the operation, 72,000 arrests were made in the targeted areas. More HERE
RFP: Physical Needs Assessment Services
RFP-07-284
The Housing Authority of the City of Winston-Salem, NC (hereinafter called "HAWS") is soliciting Request for Proposals (RFP's) and will receive proposal packages from organizations or individuals interested in providing PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT SERVICES.
Proposals must be received by HAWS no later than December 6, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. local time at the following address: Housing Authority of the City of Winston-Salem, Procurement Department (Ground Floor), 500 W. 4th Street, Suite 300, Winston-Salem, NC 27101. NO BIDS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER THIS DEADLINE.
A Pre-bid conference will be held November 12, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. local time, at the HAWS Central Office-3rd Floor Conference Room located at 500 W. 4th Street, Suite 300. Interested bidders are strongly encouraged to attend.
Request for Proposal packages may be obtained by those qualified by contacting Tangela Moses-Malloy, Director of Procurement, Housing Authority of the City of Winston-Salem, 500 W.4th Street, Suite 300, Winston-Salem, NC 27101. (Fax 336-748-3388, e-mail tmalloy@haws.org or tangelamalloy@yahoo.com)
Additional requirements pertaining to the submission package are detailed in the RFP. All questions regarding the request for proposal should be submitted in writing to Tangela Moses-Malloy, Director of Procurement, Housing Authority of the City of Winston-Salem, 500 W. 4th Street, Suite 300, Winston-Salem, NC 27101.
HAWS reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids, to waive informalities, and to award the contract to other than the low bidder, should it be deemed in its best interest.
No oral interpretations will be given to any offer or as to the meaning or intent of the Contract Documents or be effective to modify any of the provisions of the documents.
No bid shall be withdrawn for a period of sixty (60) days subsequent to the submission of offers, without the prior written consent of HAWS.
The successful candidate shall be required to possess all applicable licenses and certifications.
HAWS prohibits discrimination in any manner on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, or disability and will pursue an affirmative policy of fostering, promoting and conducting business with minority owned enterprises.
***SECTION 3/MWBE CONSULTING FIRMS ARE ENCOURAGED TO BID***
10.08.2007
Sample Return Requirements HOPE VI
Requirements to Return. Residence at Capitol Park will be limited to elderly, disabled and working families. Qualifying residents of the former Halifax Court who have a good tenant history with RHA will be given the first opportunity to return to the new development. To qualify as a working family, the resident must be engaged in full-time employment for at least 35 hours per week. Should there be insufficient applicants for Capitol Park with full-time employment, RHA will look to applicants with a combination of training, employment and education totaling at least 35 hours per week. Elderly and disabled families will be exempt from the working requirement. Former Halifax Court residents will be given an exclusive 90-day application period in which to apply for housing in the new development. It is anticipated that after the 90-day period, applications will be opened to the general public.
Source: rhaonline.com/hopeVI
Reauthorization of the HOPE VI Program - HUD Testimony
STATEMENT OF ORLANDO J. CABRERA
Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Hearing before the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity United States House of Representatives
"Reauthorization of the HOPE VI Program"
June 21, 2007
Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Biggert, and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Orlando Cabrera and I am the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing at HUD. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the HOPE VI program. Since the creation of this program in 1992, we have learned many things about public housing revitalization. I will share our progress in implementing HOPE VI over the last 15 years and address a number of issues that are often raised by members of Congress and housing advocates as possible changes to the program.
Demolition, Construction and Completed Developments
The HOPE VI program has proven to be a slow vehicle for revitalizing distressed public housing. Of the 237 HOPE VI Revitalization grants awarded by HUD, only 72 (30%) sites are complete (100% of total unit construction and rehabilitation completed), with another 30 nearing completion (80% or more of total unit construction and rehabilitation completed). While progress continues to be slow, the number of completed sites has increased by 176% since 2003 when only 26 sites were completed. Additionally, 183 (77%) sites have completed tenant relocation and 197 (83%) sites have achieved 100% of planned demolition.
As of the second quarter of FY 2006 (the most recent quarter that data is available), 78,115 public housing units have been demolished under HOPE VI Revitalization grants, with an additional 10,354 planned for demolition. Grantees plan to construct 103,637 public housing, low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC), and market rate units to replace demolished public housing units. In addition, 56,524 tenant based housing vouchers have or will be provided under the HOPE VI Revitalization and HOPE VI Demolition-only grant programs as replacement housing. When combining all housing types, including vouchers, 160,061 housing units will be provided as a replacement to the 88,469 units that have been or will be demolished under the HOPE VI Revitalization grant program, plus additional units demolished under the HOPE VI Demolition-only grant program. This is a net gain of 71,592 housing units, most of which target public housing eligible families.
The HOPE VI program has annual productivity goals in four areas: household relocation, units demolished, units completed (new construction and rehabilitation) and units occupied. In FY 2006, the Department exceeded its goals for each of these areas, with the exception of Units Demolished due to partial data. Grantees relocated 2,962 families (205% of the goal), demolished 2,305 units (89% of the goal), constructed 7,085 (109% of the goal) and occupied 8,081 completed units (128% of the goal). These figures are based on partial year data and the Department expects to exceed all annual productivity goals after the remaining data is collected for FY 2006.
The HOPE VI program office continues to emphasize timelines and accountability in the implementation of HOPE VI grants in order to achieve its goals. The Department stresses vigilant management and monitoring of grants by grant managers, PHA accountability across deadlines and program schedules, and risk assessments.
Relocation and Community and Supportive Services
Under the HOPE VI Revitalization grant, housing authorities are required to provide eligible residents with relocation benefits and community and supportive services. Since 1992, HOPE VI grantees have provided relocation services to 63,885 households, and offered community and supportive services to 87,235 adult residents and their children. In particular, over 62,000 residents have participated in employment preparation and placement programs, and over 11,600 have enrolled in homeownership counseling programs, including 2,559 residents who have purchased a home. In addition to these efforts, HOPE VI grantees are also required to track residents throughout the life of the grant and to provide them with information on reoccupancy of the HOPE VI site and services that are available to them.
In terms of relocation outcomes, studies by the Urban Institute over the last 10 years show that most relocated residents live in better, safer neighborhoods after relocation. These studies also found that very few families became homeless as part of this process. A 2007 Urban Institute study on relocation outcomes at five HOPE VI sites found that only 1% of 715 relocatees experienced homelessness over the duration of the grants.
Amount and Type of Financial Assistance Provided
As of June 9, 2007, HUD has awarded $5.8 billion in HOPE VI Revitalization funds, and housing authorities have expended $4.4 billion (76%) of these funds. This is an increase of 28% in the ratio of expended to appropriated funds from 2003, when only 48% of all appropriated funds were expended. The amount expended across all other funding sources as of March 31, 2006 is $5.8 billion, including the following sources:
- $906,622,231 in other public housing funds;
- $539,073,672 in other federal funds;
- $4,005,174,373 in non-federal funds (including equity from tax credits); and
- $395,323,275 in HOPE VI Demolition-only funds.
The total amount of funds expended, including both HOPE VI funds and other sources, across all 237 HOPE VI grants is $10.3 billion. Funds expended means the actual amount of funds expended as of June 9, 2007 for HOPE VI funds and the second quarter of FY 2006 for other sources. Therefore, these figures do not necessarily reflect all resources that are committed to the projects.
Programmatic Issues
Over the last several years, a number of programmatic changes for the HOPE VI program have been debated in Congress and among industry advocates. I would like to take this opportunity to comment on several of these issues, including elements in a Senate bill (S. 829) to reauthorize the HOPE VI program.
HOPE VI and School Reform Efforts
The quality of schools in HOPE VI neighborhoods has long been considered an unaddressed collateral issue that undermines the outcomes for children living in HOPE VI developments. In addition, as the program emphasized mixed-income neighborhoods, including market rate tenants, poor neighborhood schools became a liability in attracting these tenants to the new development and surrounding neighborhood. Today, many believe that good schools in HOPE VI neighborhoods are central to the success of a revitalization effort because they are a critical variable in creating opportunities for low-income children, attracting market rate residents with children to the community and in supporting both the short and long-term outcomes for HOPE VI families. Following from these assertions, Senate Bill 829 stipulates that school reform efforts should be a required component of the HOPE VI Revitalization grant, and that housing authorities and HUD should implement this component in targeted neighborhoods.
HUD agrees that the quality of neighborhood schools can be an important factor in the success of a HOPE VI revitalization process and improved outcomes for HOPE VI children and families. However, it may not be possible for many housing authorities to develop school reform plans as part of the HOPE VI application process. Potential grantees may need planning grants to fund the development of these strategies, ensuring that they have adequate resources for developing these plans (which could take several years) and that they are ready to implement effective plans at the start of the HOPE VI revitalization process.
After the plan is established, the Department also recognizes the difficulty many housing authorities might have in implementing this vision as part of the HOPE VI revitalization process, given the challenges that some housing authorities have in staying on schedule under the current program. As such, timelines and closeout dates established by HUD would likely need to be flexible and open for extension. Another option would be disentangling the timelines for school reform (which may not include HOPE VI funds) and the HOPE VI revitalization process, setting each to an individual schedule and planned completion date.
On another level, HUD lacks the expertise to devise and administer a program to improve local schools. This falls under the mission of the Department of Education (DoED), which provides federal assistance for school reform for Title I schools. The subcommittee should seek DoED's expertise on defining how best to address this issue.
Mandatory site visits as part of application process
Senate Bill 829 also stipulates that site visits should be a mandatory component in the review of HOPE VI funding applications. This would be a significant departure from the current competition process. Site visits as part of the competition process would clearly improve the quality and quantity of information available to HUD staff in making funding decisions, and may increase the readiness of housing authorities and revitalization plans. However, it would also add to the time from submission to approval, increase costs associated with the review process and reduce the amount of time HOPE VI grant managers have to work on their active projects.
The Department receives approximately 30 HOPE VI grant applications under current funding levels, and in the past received over 100 grant applications when funding levels were $500 Million or more. The process for receiving, reviewing and awarding HOPE VI funds takes up to three months at the current funding level. Adding mandatory site visits to this process would triple the amount of time required to select and award HOPE VI grants. Applicants would have to wait up to nine months for notification and award of funding.
Even if these activities were coordinated with local field offices, the time required to conduct site visits with over 30 applicants would slow the award process significantly. The staffing and travel costs associated with these visits would also be significant. Although HOPE VI receives set aside money for travel (it does not come out of the general HUD Salaries and Expense funds), there would still be increased costs that would reduce the amount available for grants.
In addition, the time commitment from HOPE VI grant managers for this process would be such that work on existing grants might be interrupted, delaying approvals and undermining the timely completion of projects. Given these realities, HUD would only be able to conduct site visits with a small sub-set of applicants scoring in the top tier in any grant cycle.
Performance benchmarks
The Department currently requires grantees to establish milestones and production checkpoints to track and monitor performance for development activities, relocation and community and supportive services. These performance measures are tracked by staff through a reporting system. HUD monitors housing authority progress in meeting their performance milestones and develops corrective action plans for those that miss these milestones. In cases where corrective actions are not taken, housing authorities have been subject to a range of punitive actions including suspension of funds, fines, default letters, and in extreme cases alternative administration of the HOPE VI program.
Although the Department now uses its own discretion in imposing a range of possible sanctions, Senate Bill 829 stipulates that the Secretary should be required to impose a range of sanctions for grantees that fail to meet their performance milestones. This reduces the amount of flexibility afforded the Secretary in situations where circumstances outside the control of a grantee precluded them from meeting grant milestones. The Department feels strongly that the Secretary should have discretion in deciding whether to levy sanctions in such situations, rather than creating statutory requirements that force the Department to impose a sanction regardless of the situation.
HOPE VI and the LIHTC Program
The Low-income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program represents a major resource to affordable housing developers. Between 1987 and 2004, the most recent date that data is available, nearly 25,500 tax credit projects were developed and placed in service, representing more than 1 million affordable housing units. These credits are an important development resource for low-income housing programs in the Department, particularly public housing and supportive housing for the elderly (Section 202).
Public housing authorities are eligible to apply for LIHTCs, and the program requirements for this funding source are consistent with the mission of these agencies. Housing authorities can use LIHTCs to both increase the supply of affordable housing in their community and to revitalize existing developments that are obsolescent or distressed. Moreover, when combined with public housing resources, such as capital funds, HOPE VI funds and rental subsidies, LIHTCs can be used by housing authorities to serve very low-income families at or below 30% of AMI.
Across these projects, LIHTCs are an especially important form of leverage for HOPE VI developments. Since the inception of the HOPE VI program, 127 housing authorities have received 237 HOPE VI Revitalization grants. HOPE VI proposals are rated on their leveraging, with LIHTCs providing one of the major sources.
By 2005, 649 rental phases of development were planned across HOPE VI developments. Most (76%) of these phases included LIHTCs. HOPE VI developments account for 64% of all LIHTC projects managed by housing authorities. It should be clear from these statistics that LIHTCs are a nearly indispensable resource for the HOPE VI program. In fact, the phase closing schedules for most HOPE VI projects are built around the allocation timetables for LIHTCs.
Some have argued that the Secretary should accept proposed LIHTC allocations as if they were already awarded during the HOPE VI application process. In other words applicants would not be required to have their LIHTC funding in place prior to grant award. This runs contrary to competition requirements instituted by the Department that increase grantee readiness and speed project completion.
Grantees with funding in place generally start construction sooner and have replacement units available earlier than grantees that lack solid funding commitments. Although the Secretary could rescind funding if LIHTC allocations that were claimed in the application are not received after grant award, the likelihood is low that Congress and the Department would reclaim these funds post-award. The Department would then be left with a low-performing, under funded grantee, that may take years to complete the first phases of construction.
One-for-One Replacement
Public housing advocates have long argued for one-for-one replacement requirements under the HOPE VI program, either on the footprint of the development or in adjacent neighborhoods. However, this would be unfeasible in many communities and would likely increase the cost and time to complete a HOPE VI development.
The footprint of the development is often not large enough to accommodate one-for-one replacement without reconcentrating poverty and undermining the mixed-income model. Moreover, available land and site control are significant barriers to in-fill development in surrounding or adjacent neighborhoods, which would cause delays and increase cost. In many cases, it would be impossible for a public housing authority to provide replacement housing in surrounding or adjacent neighborhoods because of these issues.
Others have added that a one-for-one replacement model should include requirements to complete the replacement units within a year of demolition. This timeline would be particularly unrealistic for many grantees, given the time it takes to construct a HOPE VI unit and the recommendations to build these units in areas proximate to the original development and not reconcentrate poverty.
It is difficult to quantify the total amount of additional funding that would be required in order to purchase land to accommodate a one-for-one replacement strategy that does not reconcentrate poverty. However, averages from the HOPE VI program can be extrapolated to provide an example of how a one-for-one replacement strategy could impact the amount of federal funding needed for construction as part of a public housing revitalization effort. A conservative estimate is that HOPE VI funding would have to increase by at least 33% to accommodate a one-for-one replacement model.
Across all HOPE VI program years and units (public housing, affordable, market rate and homeownership), the estimated average cost of completed units, including hard construction costs, demolition, planning/professional services and site improvements, is $153,441. On average, HOPE VI funds paid for less than half of the development costs ($63,114 per unit). The balance of the costs is covered by other federal, state, local and private sector funds in the form of debt and equity.
HOPE VI grantees plan to demolish 88,469 public housing units (88% of these units have already been demolished). They plan to replace this with 103,637 units across all housing types, including public housing, affordable, market rate and homeownership. Of the original 88,469 public housing units, grantees plan to build back 57,131 public housing rental or replacement homeownership units. This amounts to 65% of what was demolished. The total amount of HOPE VI funds awarded to support these activities is $5.8 billion. An additional $12 billion in other federal, state, local and private sector funds in the form of debt and equity are planned to cover the balance of the costs. The total amount budgeted across all sources is $17.6 billion.
Under a one-for-one replacement model, all of the 88,469 public housing units demolished under the HOPE VI program would have to be rebuilt. This would require the construction of an additional 31,338 public housing units. Using the cost per unit average of $153,441, this would require an additional $4.8 billion across all sources. Assuming that HOPE VI funds would only pay for an average of $63,114 per unit, constructing these units would require $1.9 billion in new HOPE VI funding and $2.9 billion in outside funding. This represents a 33% increase in HOPE VI funding. These calculations assume that no other housing types would be constructed. If one-for-one replacement is combined with a mixed-income model involving market rate units or other housing types, this would increase the number of units that are constructed, as well as the amount of additional funding from other sources (but not the HOPE VI contribution - which can only be used for the construction of public housing units).
Elimination of Demolition-only grants
Since 1996, the HOPE VI program has awarded 285 Demolition-only grants to 127 housing authorities for the demolition of severely distressed public housing units. The grants have provided housing authorities with resources to raze distressed developments and relocate impacted families. The result is a cleared site that more readily attracts federal or private resources for the revitalization of the property.
Some have argued that these grants should be eliminated. However, Demolition-only grants are an especially important resource for housing agencies that do not have a HOPE VI revitalization grant, but have access to other funding sources such as LIHTCs. Without funding for demolition, a housing authority's ability to use LIHTCs combined with its Public Housing Capital Funds becomes limited.
Green Community and LEED Compliance
Green Community and LEED requirements in residential and non-residential construction are important variables that impact both time and cost estimates for a development. HUD recognizes the importance of these requirements, but some have recommended that HOPE VI grantees comply with both mandatory and non-mandatory elements of the Green Community and LEED criteria. This would increase the cost per unit for constructing public housing under the HOPE VI program. HUD works closely with housing agencies to keep total development costs (TDC) for public housing units in-line with federal standards, and these requirements could put many developments over TDC thresholds.
Notices of Intent and Resident right of return
HUD requires housing agencies to involve residents in the grant application process, development efforts, relocation, and community and supportive services. Under additional requirements in the Uniform Relocation Act (URA), which all HOPE VI grantees are obligated to follow, a housing agency must issue a notice of intention to redevelop a site and the right of residents to relocation benefits, among other notices related to the development of the property.
Some have suggested that separate requirements, beyond the URA, be established in HUD regulations to require housing authorities to submit a "notice of intent" to apply for a HOPE VI grant to residents 12 months prior to submission of the HOPE VI application. However, this may be a needless addition to current requirements given existing regulations under the URA. Moreover, most housing agencies do not decide to apply for a HOPE VI grant more than 12 months prior to the application deadline. The "notice of intent" requirement would thus make these housing authorities ineligible for funding.
In terms of reoccupancy, HUD currently requires that all HOPE VI grantees provide original residents first right of return to the revitalized site. However, first right of return is only open to residents that remain in good standing with the housing authority. In many cases, residents are in bad standing with the agency because of criminal activity on the site, lease violations or other issues that undermine public safety and community stability. Across most HOPE VI developments, resident leaders are in support of these screening efforts and request very strict return criteria to address these issues in the hope of establishing new standards for their community.
Some argue that screening and return criteria ought to be eliminated, and that all original residents, regardless of their standing with the housing authority should be allowed to return to the completed development. However, this would limit resident and housing authority efforts to screen tenants and define the standards of their community consistent with local concerns.
Number of distressed units remaining in the inventory
The number of units that require treatment under the HOPE VI program is open for debate. The totals often cited in Senate Bill 829 are estimates that were reported in an Urban Institute study released in 2004. In that study the authors estimated that there were between 46,900 and 81,900 units that might be "likely candidates for designation as severely distressed" based on adjusted Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) scores. The authors further asserted, "that these indicators are not put forward as a true or complete definition of severely distressed public housing." In other words, the authors did not say that there are between 46,900 and 81,900 distressed units, instead they stressed that these units were only candidates for possible designation.
While the total number of units that require immediate treatment is debated, the estimates provided by the Urban Institute and the existing capital backlog in the public housing inventory ($18,000,000,000, with a $2,000,000,000 annual accrual) support the claim that some number of public housing units are severely distressed. The Department recognizes the importance of addressing distressed units and the capital backlog within the public housing inventory. However, HOPE VI is not the only program or funding vehicle for addressing these problems. In most cases this need can also be met through other modernization programs operated by the department e.g., the Capital Fund Financing, Section 30, and Mixed-Finance development. The Department will continue to encourage housing authorities in need of this assistance to also submit project proposals to these programs.
Conclusion
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, the Department has made great strides in increasing HOPE VI production and the number of completed developments over the last five years. Despite these efforts, the program remains a slow vehicle for public housing revitalization with a high cost per unit.
The mission of the HOPE VI program, as originated in 1992, was to bring down 100,000 non-viable public housing units and replace them with less dense, well constructed mixed-income units. That mission has been completed, at least in terms of funding, in FY 2003. Since then, the Administration has proposed to terminate the program. Congress has decreased annual funding from $500-600 million to roughly $100 million per year. If the program were terminated tomorrow, HUD's management of the program would continue over several years as the large unspent balances ($1.4 billion as of June 9, 2007) would be slowly drawn down as these projects are built and finally completed.
I have addressed a number of proposed changes that have been suggested by housing advocates and Congress over the last several years. Many of these suggestions are unrealistic, or would further slow the construction of public housing units under the HOPE VI program, and undermine efforts to complete existing developments. Having said this, the Department is open to suggestions on how to redefine public housing revitalization in a manner that is both cost effective and efficient in terms of producing units.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
Source: hud.gov
HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson under investigation
U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson under investigation
U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson said Thursday he will cooperate with investigators after questions arose about how one of his friends got nearly half a million dollars for work at the Housing Authority of New Orleans, which currently is under the oversight of the federal government.
Jackson, who testified before Congress this year that he doesn't intervene in awarding contracts, acknowledged he may be under investigation in a case that involves just that.
Others connected to the case say HUD's inspector general and the FBI have seized HANO equipment and have asked questions about Jackson's possible role in HANO's hiring of Jackson's friend, South Carolina construction contractor William Hairston. Hairston's construction company was hired by HANO in January 2006 and subsequently won a no-bid "emergency" contract awarded to Hairston's construction company in July 2006. More HERE
10.05.2007
Sample MOU - The Charlotte Housing Authority
Sample MOU between Housing Authority and Resident Organization from the Charlotte Housing Authority. The Charlotte Housing Authority Residents Advisory Council (RAC) serves as the advisory body for all residents living in assisted (low income) housing and is composed of all presidents from resident organizations in CHA communities. This group encourages residents to participate in all phases of community life and serves in an advisory capacity to CHA staff and Commissioners by keeping them aware of problems, needs and interests of residents. The cooperation between CHA staff and RAC is outlined in a memorandum of understanding.
RAC's goals are:
- To increase the number of resident organizations in CHA communities
- To increase resident involvement in community activities
- To enhance organization's relationship with the CHA staff and Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department
- To create a more family-oriented atmosphere in CHA communities
- To create better relationships among residents
- To host events and programs that will assist residents in becoming more self-sufficient
The Charlotte Housing Authority's RAC members have been instrumental in the development of special initiatives directed at the needs of youth and community-wide celebrations. Members have also been involved in developing grant proposals. The officers have attended numerous workshops and seminars on leadership and building community based organizations.
| Resident Advisory Council Site Presidents | |
| › | Resident Advisory Council Memorandum of Understanding |
MOU
Desire Area Resident Council 3309 Desire Parkway New Orleans, LA
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTMLThe M.O.U. Agreement between the Housing Authority of New Orleans and Resident Council
Catherine Austin Fitts on HUD
Catherine Austin Fitts: The Real Deal On Andrew Cuomo - In 2000, three and a half years after Andrew Cuomo became Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), I met with a senior staff assistant to the Chairman of one of the appropriations committees for HUD. When I asked what was going on at HUD, the staff assistant said, "HUD is being run as a criminal enterprise." I replied, "I don't disagree." See... Real Deal: Unanswered Questions About Andrew Cuomo
9.30.2007
Job Opportunity: Director of Housing Operations
Director of Housing Operations:
The Housing Authority of the City of Huntsville, Alabama, is seeking a qualified candidate for the position of Director of Housing Operations. The Authority manages 1,765 units of public housing and 1,199 Housing Choice Vouchers. The Director of Housing Operations performs a variety of complex and diverse managerial and administrative duties pertaining to the overall efficiency of the Authority in the areas of housing management: planning, organizing, staffing, Section 8, central maintenance, modernization, strategic planning, resident selection, and resident services.
Must have a bachelor's degree, a master's is preferred, from an accredited college or university, with major course work in business administration, public administration, or related field; and five years of extensive and progressively responsible housing or related experience, including a proven track record of innovative and effective implementation of having supervised a high quality public housing/housing management program. Successful candidate must have a PHM Certification or acquire it within one year. The Authority offers an excellent benefits program; salary is negotiable and commensurate with qualifications and experience.
For a complete position description and application, please visit our website at www.huntsvillehousing.org. Submit cover letter, application, resume, professional references, and salary requirements to: Human Resources Department, Huntsville Housing Authority, 200 Washington Street (35801), P. O. Box 486, Huntsville, Alabama 35804-0486. Position is open until filled.
Hundreds of families living in housing subsidized by Fairfax County taxpayers exceed income - some with six fiqure incomes
Some in Fairfax Public Housing Make Six Figures
Sunday, September 30, 2007; Page A01
Hundreds of families living in housing subsidized by Fairfax County taxpayers exceed income caps designed to ensure that only the neediest receive assistance, a review of county records shows.
In the most extreme cases, Fairfax is underwriting rents for families making well into six figures: One household getting help makes more than $216,000 a year; another, $184,000. Dozens of others -- making $60,000, $70,000, $90,000 -- exceed eligibility caps. And they do so with the tacit approval of county housing administrators, who do little to encourage occupants to move on when their fortunes improve.
These tenants live in housing intended for families at the bottom of the county's economic spectrum. They are in the federally subsidized public housing program, the Fairfax rental program and the county's senior housing program. The county's Department of Housing and Community Development will spend about $4.5 million this year running these programs.
The fact that higher-income families choose to remain in subsidized housing illustrates the critical lack of affordable housing in Fairfax, named the nation's most affluent county last month by the Census Bureau. The median new-home price in the region's largest jurisdiction is $960,000, and the average monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment is $1,306, according to county data.
The incomes also reflect, critics say, a disconnect between county practices and its housing policies, which aim in most cases to help families making less than half of Fairfax's median annual household income of $94,500 for a family of four. Fairfax leaders have long put affordable housing at the tops of their priority lists: Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerald E. Connolly (D) helped establish an initiative in 2005 to funnel more than $20 million a year toward the preservation of lower-cost housing.
But that mission should not include subsidizing the rents of families making more than $100,000 a year, Connolly said. More HERE
9.29.2007
Job Opportunity - Project Manager
POSITION SPECIFICATION
POSITION TITLE: Project Manager
DEPARTMENT: Project Management Division
REPORTING TO: Director
LOCATION: Washington, D.C
COMPANY: Quadel Consulting Corporation (www.quadel.com)
Since 1975, Quadel Consulting has grown to be an industry leader providing direct management, consulting, and training services to the affordable housing industry.
Quadel is a leading national expert in the public housing, housing choice voucher, HUD-subsidized multifamily, and tax credit programs. Quadel blends private-sector productivity, quality, and management principles with public and non-profit social welfare goals. We have a reputation for real-world practicality, hardworking thoroughness, and thoughtfully tailored solutions. Quadel has several thousand clients, including local public housing agencies, state agencies, federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, private owners, managers and developers of assisted housing.
SCOPE AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
Managers manage contract work by serving as monitors/consultants to the operational workforce. They work with other team members to ensure high-quality performance in, and timely completion of, all business area activities including technical assistance and consulting, direct program management, contract administration, training, marketing, research, and other projects.
- Manages contract work. Assembles teams and assigns tasks to ensure timely and quality performance. Coordinates completion of work with client. Oversees performance of staff on specific contract work.
- Provides oversight for discreet projects/activities as part of a larger client contract or business activity. This may include coordinating with team members, overseeing the work of subcontractors, consultants, and trainers, or working with vendors or other service providers.
- Uses technical knowledge and skills to coordinate and/or participate in data collection and analysis activities; file, document, and quality control reviews; administration of surveys; and development of reports, tracking systems, or other work products.
- Provides substantive, technical input in the preparation of contract deliverables or other business products, including assessment and other management reports, training materials, policies and procedures manuals, and funding applications. Responsible for the development, organization and editing of work products.
- Serves as a technical resource to clients, staff, team members, and other Quadel staff
- Ensures that work products comply with changes in rules, regulations, etc.
SKILLS / COMPETENCY REQUIREMENTS:
- Ability to work in a fast-paced, demanding environment.
- Ability to think creatively.
- Superb analytical and problem-solving skills.
- Excellent oral and written communication skills.
- Ability to work independently in a multi-vendor environment.
- Ability to direct, coordinate and monitor the work of others to insure timely delivery of quality products.
- Excellent organizational skills and ability to direct multiple projects and effectively manage resources.
- Ability to build and maintain effective client and employee relationships.
- Excellent computer skills especially Word and Excel.
- Flexible to travel up to 50% of the time
EDUCATION:
- Bachelor’s degree required. (Master’s degree preferred)
- Five years experience in the management or administration of public housing, rental assistance or other related programs.
- Significant experience in the design, development or provision of training and/or technical assistance, consulting, or direct management of affordable housing
- Knowledge in closely related public programs
- Skill in supervision of profession and technical staff.
INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD SUBMIT RESUME TOO: DCONLON@JOBPLEX.COM
The House Financial Service Committee recommends HOPE VI Increase to $800 Million Annually
Housing aid hike proposed
jo-ann.moriarty@newhouse.com
WASHINGTON - The House Financial Service Committee is recommending that the federal funding for the Hope VI program, which the Bush administration sought to kill, be increased from $99 million to $800 million annually, giving cities such as Holyoke greater chances to rebuild neighborhoods fallen to poverty into development that brings mixed incomes into the same section of the city.
But the language voted out of committee does not establish the actual funding for the program.
That task is done by the House Appropriations Committee, of which U.S. Rep. John W. Olver, D-Amherst, is a member and chairman of the subcommittee on transportation, housing and urban development.Olver was able to pull together an additional $21 million for the Hope VI program, started by the Clinton administration to tear down decaying housing projects and build developments that contained homeownership and rentals and families from different socio-economic strata.
"This is fantastic," Raymond P. Murphy Jr. said yesterday. He is the head of the Holyoke Housing Authority, who oversaw the upwards of $100 million in 2002 for the reconstruction of Jackson Parkway into a Hope VI project.
Holyoke is writing a grant application for $20 million to rebuild Lyman Terrace, which is a block from City Hall. Applications are due on Nov. 7.
Also included in the Hope VI bill is an amendment written by Olver that would require all federal housing projects be "green construction" or environmentally friendly to conserve energy by the technology used for heating and cooling as well as the materials used.
Movie star Brad Pitt is part of a consortium involved in a project to build 150 green homes on sites of houses destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
Linda M Couch, the executive direction of the National Low Income Housing Coaltion, said that Olver stands out as a member of Congress for advancing the nation's progress to build with technology that considers the environment. more HERE
9.28.2007
Sarasota Housing
State help for Sarasota housing
Tax credits will fund rebuilding of Janie Poe and other complexes
A state award of tax credits Friday to the Sarasota Housing Authority will generate about $11 million to tear down and rebuild 400 dilapidated public housing apartments.The tax credits from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation will be used to fund the first 86 units of housing that will eventually be an entirely revamped Janie Poe.
Janie Poe is one of four sites that will be razed and rebuilt by New Jersey-based Michaels Development Co. The two-story apartments, built in the 1970s, are wracked with problems.
For more than a decade, the Housing Authority has been trying to get the money to rebuild. But past efforts failed because of dwindling federal grants and poor management from a Housing Authority ultimately taken over by the federal government.
"Having been born and raised in Sarasota, having been raised as a teenager in public housing, having lived in public housing as a single mom, having gone through each of the HOPE VI (grant application) processes, I didn't think this day would ever come," said Carolyn Mason, a board member of Newtown Front Porch and former mayor of Sarasota. More HERE
The Easton Housing Authority HOPE VI - Moving Forward
The Easton Housing Authority will schedule meetings next month with Delaware Terrace residents to update the authority's HOPE VI revitalization project.
Authority Executive Director Gene Pambianchi said Tuesday that the details include deciding on the various types of homes for sale and rent, and environmental work on the 18-acre South Side property.
Demolition of the 250 units is estimated to begin in January, with construction of the 144 homes -- 96 for rent and 48 for sale -- beginning next summer. The authority is unsure if construction will be done all at once or in phases. More HERE
San Francisco's Mayor Gavin Newsom on HOPE VI
Recently San Francisco's Mayor Gavin Newsom took the wealthy on a tour of San Francisco's much needed public housing complexes in an effort to privatize and gentrify them. But, in a moment of brutal honesty Newsom and SFHA Director Gregg Fortner took a jab at HUD and the Hope VI program which ends up costing cities millions in lost housing funds to play the Hope VI demolition game, with no guarentees that a city will receive a Hope VI grant after demolishing their public housing units!
Newsom Jabs Hope VI program, As Oakland Embraces Hope VI
HUD's Larry Bush confirms that the Oakland Housing Authority is about to apply for a Hope VI grant for Tassafaronga Village public housing complex
By Lynda Carson
Mayor Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Housing Authority Director Gregg Fortner recently took a jab at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Hope VI program for costing cities millions in lost housing funds to play the Hope VI demolition game. Meanwhile the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) is spending millions in an attempt to hook a Hope VI grant by using much needed funds being grabbed from it's Section 8 and public housing funds.
On August 29, 2007 the Chronicle reports, "Newsom and Fortner both have said they'd rather spend the $200,000 it costs to prepare a (Hope VI) grant application on improving developments immediately. The mayor added that recent federal budget cuts have depleted the pot of money once available under Hope VI, which was begun under President Bill Clinton."
Meanwhile, the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) is moving full steam ahead and spending millions in much needed housing funds from local and federal sources in an effort to demolish and privatize it's Tassafaronga Village public housing complex.
Despite being turned down twice by HUD (Hope VI proposals) in their attempts to demolish Tassafaronga Village and privatize it, as recently as 1991 the OHA spent $7.4 million to remodel the 87 unit complex which then was enough money to buy a home for each of the families residing there according to a report.
According to a June 14, 1991 article in the Daily News of Los Angeles , "Money spent to remodel a housing project in Oakland could have bought a home for each family in the 87-unit structure, according to a published report that claims federal housing funds are "squandered" in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Tassafaronga Village housing complex that will reopen in a few weeks was completed nearly three years late and, at $7.4 million, was double the estimated cost."
As recent as February 15, 2007 the City of Oakland sued the OHA and accused it of being a slumlord, and according to City Attorney John Russo the OHA has been spending millions on buying land for it's Hope VI ventures rather than spending the money to maintain it's public housing properties.
According to City Attorney John Russo, "But the fact that the Authority continues to purchase new properties in a practice of “land banking” refutes their claim to have no money for the repairs and management of the existing sites. In fact, it is not a question of resources, but more a question of OHA priorities which clearly favors purchasing new properties with federal HOPE VI funds with non-profit developers over regular maintenance, management and repair of existing housing."
Further research and documentation shows that the Oakland Housing Authority is using local Section 8 Reserve Funds, and local Section 8 Administrative Reserve Funds as a huge slush fund, for it's notorious Hope Vl proposal for Tassafaronga Village.
Oakland continues to spend millions in attracting another Hope VI proposal for Tassafaronga Village, while it's low-income tenants suffer. Read More HERE
Three HOPE VI housing developments are set to open
Source: Frederick Newspost.com
Three HOPE VI housing developments are set to open within the next two months, with work to begin on a fourth by the end of the year and a fifth next spring.
Sixty apartments in the Hillcrest neighborhood and 23 senior apartments at Catoctin Manor on Motter Avenue should be available by mid-October, said Kevin Lollar, development director for the Housing Authority of the City of Frederick. Residents should be moving in by the start of November.
Friday morning, workers at Catoctin Manor were finishing the building's first floor, including the entryway and common areas.
Eight houses the authority is redeveloping in the Sagner neighborhood should be ready for occupants in mid-November, he said.
HOPE VI is a federal program to replace low-income housing projects with houses and apartments that people with varied incomes can afford.
In Frederick, the housing authority is replacing the Hanson-Taney complexes on North Bentz Street, which it demolished in 2006, with developments around the city.
When the authority tore down the old complexes it had to relocate slightly more than 100 families, said Teresa Justice, the authority's executive director. Roughly 75 of them might return to the new HOPE VI developments.
Half the Hillcrest apartments and 10 Catoctin Manor apartments have been leased, Lollar said.
As residents move in at Hillcrest and Catoctin Manor, work should start on laying new streets at the old Hanson-Taney site, he said. Grading on the site should start in November.
A street in the new development will be named for Lord Nickens, first president of Frederick's NAACP, Lollar said.
Plans call for 55 homes for purchase and 42 rental units at that site, with a mix of market-rate and affordable housing properties for sale, and affordable and public housing apartments.
The City of Frederick has begun demolition on the site of Rogers Homes at South Carroll and East South streets, Lollar said. Construction of that development should be under way by the spring.
Rogers Homes is slated for 32 rental apartments and four units to be purchased by residents.
9.24.2007
HOPE VI Application Consultant
Need assistance with the CSS portion of your HOPE VI Application? Contact The Rock Consulting Group. You can email them at: therockconsultinggroup@gmail
Visit their website at: The Rock Consulting Gro
9.14.2007
Job Opportunity: Executive Director
Executive Director:
The Franklin Housing Authority (TN) seeks an experienced housing professional to lead a progressive and active agency located in beautiful Williamson County which is close by the City of Nashville, TN.
The candidate is required to have five (5) years progressive administrative experience, (preferred executive or department head level) in the area of public or private housing. Experience in the development/redevelopment of affordable housing, a plus. Emphasis on ability to provide excellent resident services and relationships is important. A 4-year college degree, required. A combination of education and excellent experience acceptable. Expert community relations, staff leadership, communications with public officials and ability to relate to a capable board, required. The agency has 298 units of family and senior housing and a staff of eleven employees. Salary negotiable.
Submit cover letter, resume to Leo Dauwer, Search Consultant, 20 Shady Lane, Needham, MA 02492. Attn: Franklin Search. Email: dowerassociates@comcast.net. No faxes, please. Position open until filled.
RFQ/RFP: Co-developer, Financial Advisor, Special Counsel
The Riviera Beach Housing Authority is seeking to engage the services of:
� Co-developer
� Financial Advisor
� Special Counsel
These professional services will provide the Riviera Beach Housing Authority with the required expertise to develop its conceptual site plan for 16.5 acres of mixed income, home-ownership town homes, elderly and multi-family affordable rental housing. Interested parties should request an RFQ Package in writing addressed to:
Philip O. Goombs, Executive Director
Riviera Beach Housing Authority
2014 West 17th Court
Riviera Beach, FL. 33404
or by emailing adminassist-rbha@earthlink.net,
All responses must be received at the above address by 4:00 p.m. e.s.t. on Friday, October 12th 2007, NO PHONE REQUEST FOR PACKAGES WILL BE HONORED
RFQ: Energy Services
The Housing Authority of Hopkinsville (PHA) is seeking proposals from interested Energy Services Companies (ESCOs) for Energy Performance Contracting for the PHA's housing complexes. Proposals will be received on September 27, 2007.
Interested firms are required to tour representative complexes of the PHA's inventory on September 7, 2007 at 10:00 a.m., c.d.t.
Proposal documents may be obtained by contacting:
Janice Powell, Director of Facilities
270-887-4275 ext 3117
e-mail jpowell@housingah.org
RFQ: Professional Consulting Services
The Public Housing Authority of Abilene (PHA) is soliciting responses from qualified firms to provide a comparative analysis evaluating the feasibility, operational and financial effects of a modification to the current relationship between the PHA and the City of Abilene. The City currently provides employees and services to the PHA under contract. The goal of this analysis will be to evaluate the potential operation of the PHA as a fully independent entity. Interested parties can call obtain a full copy of the RFQ by calling (325) 676- 6379 or sending an email to MaryAnn.Martell@abilenetx.com
Affordable Housing Needs
Affordable Housing Needs 2005: Report to Congress
May 2007, 99 pages
Source: HUD USER
In 1990, the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee directed HUD to "resume the annual compilation of a worst case housing needs survey of the United States... [to estimate] the number of families and individuals whose incomes fall 50 percent below an area's median income, who either pay 50 percent or more of their monthly income for rent, or who live in substandard housing."
Households with "worst case needs" are defined as unassisted renters with very low incomes who have one of two "priority problems" either paying more than half of their income for housing ("severe rent burden") or living in severely substandard housing. Renters are classified by income using three income limits: Low Income (LI) if their income does not exceed 80 percent of area median income (AMI), Very Low Income (VLI) if income is not more than 50 percent of AMI, and Extremely Low Income (ELI) if income is not more than 30 percent of AMI.
This report is the tenth in a series of Worst Case Needs reports to Congress. This 2005 report is organized into five basic sections Chapter 1 provides an introduction, including a discussion of terms and sources. Chapter 2 outlines the findings of worst case needs by various categories such as demographics and geography. Chapter 3 presents an analysis using data from the Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation to examine the duration of severe rent burdens. Chapter 4 assesses the supply of affordable rental housing. Chapter 5 presents new analysis of how worst case needs relate to neighborhood poverty rates.
Download the Worst Case Needs tables used in the Affordable Housing Needs 2005 report.An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI
Source: HUD User
HOPE VI, also known as the Urban Revitalization Demonstration, is designed to revitalize the Nation's most severely distressed public housing. Congress and HUD created the HOPE VI grant program in 1992 to provide a flexible source of support for investments in public housing developments and for their residents. An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI presents findings from the first phase of a planned long-term evaluation of HOPE VI sites.
Revitalizing severely distressed public housing -- even with HOPE VI funds -- will be no easy task, the investigation finds. Serious design flaws, such as high densities and inadequately sized units, plague most of the developments targeted for revitalization, with researchers rating the physical conditions of almost one-half of the developments as "poor" or "very poor." All 15 public housing authorities (PHAs) studied have experienced serious management problems -- nine had recently replaced their executive director, and two-thirds of grantees were on HUD's list of troubled PHAs as of March 1992. The majority of residents have extremely low incomes and are inadequately educated, and an average of 84 percent report income from public assistance. Conditions in the surrounding neighborhoods are almost as severe as those in the HOPE VI developments.
PHAs will pursue HOPE VI revitalization through a variety of approaches: development of mixed-income communities, demolition and/or renovation of current developments, deconcentration and dispersion, emphasis on family self-sufficiency, and resident management of properties. All but three sites reported planning to redevelop a public housing community for mixed-income families. Eight PHAs have approved physical plans, most using a townhouse design for their renovated or newly constructed developments. Of the 13 PHAs with approved management plans, 5 intend to place control of their HOPE VI developments under private management. Only six PHAs had developed clear community service plans at the time of their assessment.
Researchers divided the sites into four groups based on their prospects for success. The most promising PHAs are Baltimore, Cuyahoga Metro (Cleveland), and San Antonio. These sites showed effective collaboration with HUD and local government agencies and a capacity to manage a project of the magnitude of HOPE VI. Also key at these sites were strong support for HOPE VI by residents, institutions, and businesses in the surrounding neighborhoods, and the sites showed encouraging levels of involvement by tenant councils and residents. The four least promising sites had problems such as weak PHA leadership, poor management of capital improvements, and reputations for breaking promises to residents.
The first volume of this three-volume report synthesizes study findings and discusses their national implications. The second volume offers detailed case studies of the 15 sites. Case studies include an overview of the housing authority, a description of the developments and the surrounding neighborhoods, a review of the local HOPE VI planning process, and a summary of implementation progress. The third volume presents the study methodology and baseline data.
The insights from this early assessment of HOPE VI communities will inform national policymakers and local practitioners as they continue their attempts to revitalize severely distressed public housing. More HERE
8.19.2007
Daytona Beach HOPE VI residents begin moving back
|
DAYTONA BEACH -- Sweat beaded on David Ellis' forehead as he struggled under the late-afternoon sun, lugging heavy boxes into his brand-new home on International Speedway Boulevard.
The 57-year-old, who used to work on car lots, was the first person to move into the bright-colored brick- and stucco-adorned apartments late Friday afternoon.
"They used to call it the hood," Ellis said of The Villages at Halifax, where Halifax Park once stood.
The complex is the first of three communities to be completed by the city's public Housing Authority after old projects were demolished.
"Now that they're rebuilt, I don't know if they'll call it the hood anymore," he said. "I'm home. I'm not going to move again."
Halifax Park, Bethune Village and Martin Luther King Jr. Apartments were beacons of hope when they were built more than 50 years ago. For many of the early residents in those projects, it was their first home with running water.
Over the years, the projects became islands of despair where the city warehoused poor residents in increasingly deteriorating buildings. It was a fate common to public housing in many cities around the country. When the bulldozers started knocking down Daytona Beach's old projects in 2005, a resident's average income hovered around $10,000 a year, about half the metropolitan average and just above the poverty level.
Ellis, who never lived in public housing, remembered Halifax Park as looking "like a graveyard." He was stunned recently when he rode his bicycle past the new Villages at Halifax.
"It looked like a dream come true," he said.
The Villages at Halifax is the prototype for the future of public housing. Seed money for construction came from a federal program called HOPE VI. More HERE
