The Growler has just seen the future of public housing in our neighborhood, and it looks like ... more public housing!
Tonight the ole Curmudgeon ambled down to the Ladrey Highrise for the monthly ARHA Board meeting, and thus was present when developer EYA laid out what should have been a very exciting proposal for the redevelopment of Glebe Park.
If you remember, Glebe Park is the crumbling ARHA property on Glebe Road with 65 shuttered units, a mold problem beyond remediation, a $6 million mortgage, and an annual operating loss of $500,000, with nary a penny forthcoming from HUD to fix this mess.
Earlier this year, ARHA invited bids for the redevelopment of Glebe Park and as a sweetener offered any other ARHA properties that might take a developer's fancy.
EYA, which built Chatham Square as well as the Braddock Lofts and other major projects in Alexandria, responded with a bold proposal. Let us redevelop Glebe Park, they said, but throw in Andrew Adkins as well as James Bland and James Bland Addition. All three will be redeveloped by EYA as mixed public housing-market unit projects like Chatham Square while meeting the City's mandate that public housing units can be replaced but not reduced.
Right about now, the Growler would be swooning with rapture at the prospect of EYA redeveloping Andrew Adkins and other nearby ARHA sites.
But then the numbers were laid out, and the Cranky One got even crankier.
EYA proposes replacing 90 public housing units at Andrew Adkins with 153 public housing units and 45 market units (all of which would face Braddock Lofts). EYA officials told the Growler that the Adkins units would be one or two-bedroom units, not three and four-bedroom units, which is the current configuration. But this means an absolute increase in the number of low income households shoehorned into Adkins -- some 58% more households in public housing units on the same land.
This proposal also seems out of synch with the Braddock Road Small Area Plan and whatever economic development that the City wants to achieve at the Metro station. We all know that the major reason Braddock Road never took off commercially was the menacing presence of poorly designed and policed public housing. What chance does it have with even more low-income residents thrown into the mix?
By contrast, the neighbors of the James Bland projects will walk away the big winners if EYA's proposal is accepted by ARHA. James Bland and James Bland Addition currently have 194 public housing units, but under EYA's proposal this concentration will be diluted to 65 public housing units, 186 market units and 20 affordable housing units.
Why does Bland get this favorable treatment?
EYA's proposal is still a paper plan and subject to change as negotiations begin with ARHA and the City. The Growler can only hope that EYA and the politicians rethink the mix at Braddock Road Metro, which EYA officials themselves described as the "premier site" of the three locations for redevelopment.
29 comments:
This is wonderful news. Even though I agree that it would be far more preferable to disperse public housing throughout the entire City, I couldn't be more pleased that the City is finally moving on redevelopment.
Ack! 198 units crammed into the current Adkins space? I don't care if they're public housing, affordable housing or market value -- that's way, way too many people and cars of any kind. This is particularly true if the Madison comes to fruition (fingers crossed) and the intended office space/condos planned for the 600 block of N. Fayette (across from the P.O. -- currently a warehouse) are built as well.
As a Lofts resident, I am all for rebuilding of the area and I don't mind public housing being part of the mix at all -- I think a broad economic mix gives the area character and keeps it "real." But that EYA deviated so far away from what the current Braddock Road redesign is looking to do is a huge cause for concern. I'll be paying close attention to the "next steps."
Here is the money quote from the draft Metro Area Plan:
Of the
total number of housing units in the Braddock
area, 7.5% owned by the Alexandria
Redevelopment and Housing Authority (ARHA)
as public housing.
Lovely, 7.5 % of all of Parker Gray is owned by ARHA. When you factor in the fact that 20% of the Parker Gray area is below the poverty line, this EYA proposal has disaster written all over it. It would almost be better to keep the existing units as they area, build around them, and then wait for some City official to actually think of a better way once the flood of complaints becomes too much for ARHA, Council, and the police to bear.
I wonder who over at ICCA got to EYA to think up this idea....
Since Bland would be nearer to where ICCA members live, this would be a blessing for them.
Of course, this would be a disaster for the Irmers, as this would squeeze even more public housing residents right near them...
Honestly, does anyone think that ARHA would agree to redo Adkins when as been mentioned many times before, the other ARHA developments are older and much smaller. Adkins units are fairly spacious as far as public housing goes. Do you think the momentum for redevelopment at Braddock is enough to make it happen?
Once again Route 1 functions as the Great Divide. Reads like the ARHA plan lets Old Town expand, team with Northeast, and dump all over what's left of the inner city. The Adkins proposal stinks! If this is what results from the ICCA President's discussions with developers, foul language follows.
And the acronym EYA is who? Eakin something? They need to hear from us before the Adkins plan takes life.
ARHA does not have much of a choice. Adkins is the premiere location that any developer would want and ARHA is under extreme financial stress. Plus its the housing project right in front of the Metro. I knew EYA would want that one and there is not much ARHA can do; EYA is not going to want any of the other locations....
"I knew EYA would want that one and there is not much ARHA can do"
Would anonymous please expand? How did you know and how do you know that "there is not much ARHA can do?"
ARHA's "financial stress" is no secret but the number of proposed units additional units in a location criminally under seige is mind blowing.
Why does the City have a "mandate" that public housing units can be replaced but not reduced?
Would the City consider letting EYA replace public housing units with workforce units, say for City employees, firefighters, cops, teachers, etc? If not, would the City consider letting EYA build some public housing units elsewhere, in the West End, Del Ray, etc?
Increased density at the metro makes sense, but it shouldn't be concentrated public housing. That inarguably will cause problems, as it has in the past in many cities, not just Alexandria.
"Would anonymous please expand? How did you know and how do you know that "there is not much ARHA can do?"
This is obvious. Adkins is far and away the best plot of land available because it sits in front of a Metro, supports higher density, and has an area around it that is being revitalized.
Bland is not a geat site and neither is Madden Uptown because they dont support higher density and even if you redevelop there, its still fairly dysfunctional around where you redevelop.
Thus ARHA can get a lot of money for the Adkins site and EYA can concentrate density and build the replacement units. I would think the final proposal would scrap Bland and just rebuild Adkins with market rate and public housing. No one is going to want to live in or near Bland in its current state.
Now the concentration is a whole another matter, but thats the City Council's fault; they are the ones who think Resolution 837 is a great idea.
The mandate is the core problem; its not a HUD requirement but a City requirement.
EYA cant replace with workforce units. They have to build brand new units for public housing residents. Its difficult to build elsewhere because who is going to want public housing residents moved to their neighborhood. Look at how Gunston Hall reacted when even the thought of Section 8 housing was broached.
I am sure the City is aware of the dangers of high density public housing, especially by a MEtro, but they put themselves in this predicament. DC and Arlington dont have this rule. Its one of the main reasons why its so difficult to redevelop public housing in Alexandria; its hard to find a developer willing to build brand new units and public housing units on the same plot of land, and if you want to move out the public housing units at a 1-1 rate, no one wants them moved to their neighborhood.
The good thing is that there still is interest by developers to start new projects here with the market being the way it is. Granted, they probably figure that any project discussed now won't get started for years when the market might be better, but still, in a current market where there is so much oversupply -- and in an area of Old Town continually igorned by the city -- I am glad that developers haven't just thrown in the towel. But even with the allure of living in Old Town, I wonder how many new units this area can support. Look at the slow sales in Potomac Greens, another EYA property. I don't know how sold out the Monarch is, but we still have the Madison and the other new buildings planned. Even though I don't like the proposed plan to add public housing units, here's hoping that EYA will continue their redevelopment of Alexandria. At least they have the vision and are pushing the city to reach it.
The proposed concentration of public housing units at Braddock Metro doesn't seem like the best use of the land. Braddock retail has never really developed mostly because of the crime problem maybe nearby residential customer base. Bland is where ICCA officers live and I suspect officers' self interest has influenced this proposal. Would this news have broken if left to the ICCA to tell? The density issue differs from the notion of unit occupant type. If this proposal has teeth then let's to talk about dispersing public housing occupants throughout the city. Politics be damned! Finally, if public housing maintenance security is as bad as bloggers previously described then how do we deal with the concentration once the buildings' security cameras fail? How long before crime statistics changes become available for Chatham Square?
The Chatham Square residents have already complained directly to the Mayor, in rather angry terms, so I would assume that the statistics out of there are not good.
As for the ICCA, that would appear to be the motive.
If you want to contact EYA, call Al Johnson, he is the development manager for this proposal. Tell him what you think.
Good question with the units. My guess would be they try to build apartments just as much as they do townhomes or condominiums.
Same problem though; how many people want to rent apartments in a building that could potentially be a den of crime and dysfunction?
As for scattering public housing sites, good luck with that idea. City leaders talk about the greatness of Resolution 837 but if it came to actually moving sites around to other parts of the city that probably would elicit extremely strong reactions. Its hard just to get Section 8 housing discussed, let alone the building of new standard public housing units.
Didn't residents get dispersed elsewhere when Chatham Square was built? How was that done? And what is the text of Resolution 837? I am not the insider others seem to be.
My bad on the number.. its actually Resolution 830.
Here is the City's 1996 annual report which briefly touches on what it says.
http://www.ci.alexandria.va.us/city/annual_reports/report96/houshum.html
As for Chatham Square, 52 of the units were moved offsite somewhere else. Of course, that took 15 YEARS!
http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?archive=true&article=29793&paper=59&cat=104
The Resolution is basically a Council/ARHA agreement that you must replace every one of the city's 1150 public hosuing units with another unit, whether onsite or offsite. This is not mandated by HUD, and you cant replace it with a workforce or even a Section 8 unit. It must be traditional public housing units (fully subsidized units)
If we neighbors start now maybe we can get those units relocated by the time the Adkins project is ripe. I am not as enamored of EYA as others. It is one thing to win a design award from liberal types celebrating mostly what is a change in class mix. It's another thing to live daily with for example open space dominated by dealers, whores and thugs. To pay a mil to live with them in Chatham Square is not my want. I can hear it now the cops telling them they have rights, right? The city should rethink its housing policy smaller more dispersed clusters. Yeah Growler I know not everybody in public housing is a dealer, whore or thug. What's wrong with Gunston Hall getting a few of the Adkins units?
Gunston Hall residents wrote a letter to the Gazette already clearly stating that Section 8 housing was not coming there, as a way of convincing people other residents there that the area was not being redeveloped with any public housing. Made it sound like they would freak out if ARHA tried to move any units there, traditional or Section 8. So much for Alexandria's supposed liberalism.
If everyone says never then how does the neighborhood change the mix?
WELCOME TO PARKER GRAY!
Its no joke that we are considered the dumping ground for the rest of the city's problems, along with Arlandria.
The neighborhood has such great potential but it gets wasted because the City leadership doesnt care.
Gazette has the story....
ARHA Approves Glebe Park Concept
Annual budget revised upward by $1.2 million.
By Chuck Hagee/Gazette Packet
September 27, 2006
Alexandria Redevelopment & Housing Authority took the first step Monday night to extricate itself from a financial catch 22 that has plagued it for years. Its Board of Commissioners voted to approve an agreement with Eakin Youngentob Associates to form a development partnership for the revitalization of Glebe Park.
This Pre-Development Agreement also brings into play three additional ARHA properties. “EYA has determined that it will be necessary to redevelop other ARHA owned and operated properties in conjunction with the redevelopment of Glebe Park in order to make redevelopment of Glebe Park economically feasible,” ARHA Executive Director William M. Dearman explained to the Board in his cover memorandum recommending approval of the arrangement.
The three phased operation, estimated to take from five to 10 years to complete will incorporate ARHA properties Andrew Adkins, James Bland and James Bland Addition. If the EYA’s “concept” succeeds as outlined each of the projects will be transformed into “new modern communities” of public housing and market rate units similar to Chatham Square.
“This is a concept only. I don’t want anyone to think that tonight’s action is a decision. After tonight’s meeting we will be sitting down with residents, neighbors, the Planning Commission, City Council, and anyone else impacted,” said ARHA Chair A. Melvin Miller to the overflow crowd crammed into the meeting room at Ladrey High-Rise.
“We are running into some very serious situations as to keeping our public housing. We have received continuous [financial] cuts from HUD [U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development]. We have selected EYA to be our development partner for Glebe Park and they have come up with this concept,” Miller said.
“It is necessary for ARHA and EYA to enter into a pre-development agreement in order to set out the pre-development work required to be performed by the parties with the redevelopment of Glebe Park and, ultimately, the redevelopment of the additional properties,” Dearman explained in his memo.
Under the agreement “ARHA shall have no obligation to commit any of its funds toward the payment of any costs associated with the development and construction of the project. The Pre-Development Agreement also provides that, if the parties are unable to obtain the necessary approvals for Glebe Park from the city or if the parties are unable to mutually agree upon the terms of a Development/Purchase and Sale Agreement, ARHA shall be reimbursed for its documented out of pocket costs up to $100,000,” according to Dearman.
IN PRESENTING the concept, Brian Jackson, development executive, EYA, told the Board and audience, comprised of many Glebe Park residents, “Glebe Park presently has 65 vacant units and is losing approximately $500,000 per year. Glebe Park can not support its own renovation. That is why we have to bring other properties into the equation.”
Unlike when “The Berg,” Samuel Madden Homes Downtown, was transformed into Chatham Square in a public/private partnership with EYA, Glebe Park is saddled with a $6 million mortgage coupled with decaying units that are causing an ever increasing drain on ARHA’s overall budgetary capabilities. HUD has also terminated its HOPE VI Program which formed the financial foundation for Chatham Square.
“We are primarily a market rate developer. We specialize in in-fill development and we have a track record we can bring to bear on this concept,” Jackson said in making EYA’s powerpoint presentation.
In addition to Chatham Square, EYA has been involved with a variety of projects in Alexandria that have involved both public housing and private developments. “The market rate units in our mixed projects are what make the concept viable,” Jackson explained.
“We are trying to stop ARHA’s financial loses. We need to do all this with no money from HUD,” he said. Overall there will be 324 units of public housing effected by the concept spread throughout the three project sites — Glebe Park 106; Adkins 153; and James Bland/JB Addition 65. “There is no net displacement of residents,” Jackson emphasized.
“Our proposal is to invest in all the sites while this is going on at Glebe Park. However, Glebe Park is the initial priority due to applying for tax credits,” he said.
“Our target is to apply for tax credits in March. You can only do this once a year. We should know if we have been successful in receiving them by June or July,” Miller explained.
“Because of the tax credits, the decisions affecting Glebe Park have to be made much sooner. If we do not resolve the problems at Glebe Park we will probably lose it. It will be foreclosed because we do not have the money to deal with it. Since we can’t look to HUD for help we have to figure out a way to do it ourselves,” Miller said.
Commissioner Peter Lawson asked Jackson and Le Roy “Terry” Eakin, III, chairman and CEO, EYA, if the company had ever been involved with a project that involved 100 percent public housing. “We are not affordable housing developers. But we have had plenty of experience with public/private partnerships,” Eakin said.
“However, the detailed economic side of this was not presented tonight because it is a delicate one. We think Adkins is the premier site in this package because of its proximity to Metro. We are looking for ways to redevelop Glebe Park,” he said.
“At some point we are going to need an in-depth discussion into the financial plans for this,” said ARHA vice chairman Carlyle “Connie” Ring, Jr.
The concept calls for a three phase approach with Glebe Park being the initial phase. It has five primary objectives as outlined by Jackson and Eakin:
1. A one for one replacement of all old units at the sites.
2. Assure quality public housing for residents.
3. Solve ARHA’s major problems with Glebe Park
4. Provided for continued maintenance and support of units at each site.
5. Enhance the long term financial viability of ARHA
“We will be setting up meetings with Glebe Park residents as we proceed,” Miller assured. He also announced a work session with City Council and Alexandria Planning Commission Oct. 10 to explain and discuss the EYA concept.
ARHA’S CONTINUING financial dilemma was further spotlighted Monday night by an agenda item calling for a resolution to revise the current fiscal year budget upward by approximately $1.2 million “to close an existing financial gap.” The revised budget is now $27,545,000 after a unanimous vote of approval.
However, as Ring noted, “We can’t keep taking money from reserves to balance the budget.” In making the motion for approval, Ring pointed out the revised budget did not include staff merit increases and is based on HUD’s approval to authorize the use of reserve funds. It does include a three percent cost-of-living increase for ARHA staff.
Explaining the need for the fiscal revision, Dearman said in a cover memorandum, “In the event HUD does not permit the use of other Public Housing Funds, staff will request the Board authorize and approve the use of a line of credit.”
He also provided “a summary of the Authority’s current and past financial obligations which will continue to have a financial impact on our future budgets.” That list totaled $15,106,000 spread over 10 items.
In other actions, the board voted to:
v Start the process of converting electricity utility payments from ARHA to residents at James Bland and James Bland Addition.
v Approve ARHA’s annual Agency Plan to be submitted to HUD.
v Approve a change to Section 8 Housing to provide for Housing For People With AIDS (HOPWA).
v Approve the establishment of a second Family Resource Learning Center at Hopkins Tancil. This passed on a five to two vote with Lawson and Carter Flemming voting against for separate reasons. Commissioners Tucker and Blake were absent.
Doesnt this say it all about Parker Gray and families (in response to Growlers recent blog entry on children in Parker Gray)?
According to scores released by the Virginia Department of Education this week, 14 of Alexandria’s 16 public schools met the state requirements for accreditation this year. The two city schools that didn’t meet the benchmarks: Jefferson-Houston School for Arts and Academics failed in English and Math while George Washington Middle School failed in Math.
Parker Grays two schools....and the City wonders why Parker Gray residents flee once children arrive...
I get that pols don't care about the neighborhood. If IC has an excess of public housing can Del Ray not counter by saying that it has the highest concentration of group homes? Woodson and Krupicka both live in Del Ray and am I supposed to believe that they do/did not care about their neighborhood?
Growler, you like research. Does the IC not have the highest concentration of public housing units in the city? If so then let's get organized - bag the ICCA - and march on city hall. Just because Gunston Hall activists published a newspaper article stating no public housing types welcome doesn't mean they can't take some of IC's excess. Push back people! Do you really think EYA is going to object to more market units?
Finally I take exception to the IC:Arlandria comparison. With the release of the Braddock Road Small Area
Plan we hope that such comparisons are dated. But only if we make city hall listen. Aim for nothing and you'll reach it every time. Families opt out of Jefferson Houston School but surely not the neighborhood altogether.
Can we just look at the stats for a moment? How many public housing units already exist in the 'hood, Adkins and Bland specifically. When redistributed how many public housing units will EYA place west of US Route 1 that were not here before, i.e. what is the unit gain west of US Route 1? Add the resulting unit gain to the homeless population now at Carpenter's Shelter and I am beginning to feel sorry for my northern neighbors.
Group homes are different than public housing. I would love to live in the greatest concentration of Group Homes in Alexandria....drug dealers and hookers dont go there to run their business....
PG (specifically Uptown) does have the highest concentration...just look at the draft Braddock Metro plan. It shows 400 units out of a total of 1100 in the city. And many of the other units in other areas are senior citizen units.
EYA won't object to more market units but what can they do? Its not their choice to build more public hosuing units 1-1. You think Macdonald is going to listen if you say "put some units on Union Street? Do you think Gaines is going to like PG residents trying to push public housing out to Rosemont? The Council is the textbook difintion of limousine liberalism; they love to spout off about social engineering and blleding heart issues, as long as the effects of their actions are nowhere near where they live. You think Del Pepper wants public housing in the West End? You think the Planning Commission would stand up for PG and force other areas of the city to properly share in Alexandria's "diversity"? They would get shouted out of their meeting. And going down to City Hall and protesting would probably get you branded as racist or elitist, as that is ARHA's usual tactic when people complain.
Arlandria and Braddock Metro comparisons are not outdated until that "plan" goes into action. The Monarch is a start but there is still no other developments going north of Pendleton. The City had a plan in 1992 and look where that went. Most northerners are at the point where we believe it when we see it.
Who has heard of the Fair Share Task Force?
never heard of it...what do they do?
Post a Comment