A New Day for Public Housing?
As expected, the City Council is set tonight to approve a $5.6 million bridge loan to free ARHA from HUD's threatened foreclosure on the mortgage at Glebe Park. (ARHA is current with the mortgage, but HUD was prepared to foreclose because so many of the units were uninhabitable due to mold.) Also on the docket are the final approvals for the site plans for the Arlandria properties that constitute the Glebe Park project.
But in return for the bailout the City has now extracted what appear to be significant concessions from ARHA in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding outlining new roles and responsibilities. According to an October 19 memo from City Manager Jim Hartmann to Mayor and Council, the MOU:
"... seeks to create a new partnership between the City and ARHA by borrowing from 'best practices' in many organizational areas such as budgeting, capital planning, organizational management, performance management. The MOU also represents an effort to improve the communication and working relationship between ARHA and the City by creating a new, more interactive and close partnership. It sets forth a process for better planning, coordinating and communicating in order to help develop a coordinated affordable housing strategy for Alexandria that includes the goal of sustaining and improving public and publicly-assisted housing within the City of Alexandria. The MOU is intended to provide a vehicle for the City and ARHA to work as partners to jointly undertake short and longterm land use and capital planning, including preparation of a comprehensive Strategic Plan. It will also help to monitor program performance and achieve a better long-term financial condition for ARHA, with the goal of improving the living environment for ARHA's residents."
What does this mean for our neighborhood? Potentially, we may see a better managed and more efficient ARHA. That's not to let the politicians off the hook about Fair Share and public housing dispersal, but we can only hope that with greater City oversight and control there may be the possibility of meaningful change and improvement in public housing operations that will benefit everyone.
ARHA's board was scheduled to approve the MOU yesterday evening, while many of us were at the third and last pre-HOPE VI application public meeting.
In another, smaller communications breakthrough, ARHA has finally launched its Web site. Kudos to acting ARHA CEO Roy Priest and staff for finally making this happen.
posted by The Growler @ 12:27 PM
26 comments
26 Comments:
Cannot help but be struck by this line:
"A second ARHA requested
Glebe Park City bridge loan of $7.6 million is not being considered by the City. It is
contemplated to be provided by non-City sources."
WHO? Is this the HUD or VHDA applications? If so, thats not money they have been awarded yet. They basically "hope" (no pun intended" they get it. So what happens if HUD and VHDA say no; after all, the only change I read is 2 more market rate units at Glebe. HUD and VHDA will still want to know if this promotes dispersal.
"In the worst case scenario, if
there are no funds forthcoming from land sales at James Bland to offset the cost of redeveloping
Glebe Park, full repayment of the proposed Glebe Park loan may not occur for 35 to 40 years, or
longer, and the City loan to ARHA would need to be extended and become a longer term loan.
I recommend that the proceeds from ARHA's repayment of the $5.6 million loan be
reprogrammed by applying those repaid loan proceeds towards the financing of the other public
housing on-site or off-site replacement units."
This seems to read like the City is loaning ARHA money, and then as ARHA repays it, the money gets reused to buy other units for dispersal. So basically, the City just committed 5.6 million to public housing dispersal.
"As with the pending Quaker Hill loan, the recommended Glebe Park loan would provide that, if
the tax credit ownership is structured to meet applicable legal requirements, then the tax credit
financed properties would be exempt from City real estate taxes."
Another brilliant solution. We rebuild Resolution 830 units, but we cant tax them or the market rate units. So we gain no revenue from the deal whatsoever.
Who wants to bet we are back here 3 years from now dealing with some new ARHA property crisis?
And your solution is .... ?
From the City's minutes of the October 20 "educational workshop:"
"David Dixon spoke of the consultants’ appreciation for participants’ interest and
dedication to this process. He repeated the importance of the charrette as a chance to begin to work on cultural change. He perceives a bit of an “us” and
“them” attitude by the community as to the City government. The charrette will be a chance to begin good communication back and forth, not only amongparticipants but also between the community and the City. The charrette gives the community an opportunity to tell the City what it wants, so the City can negotiate for it on its behalf."
Solution?
End this Resolution 830 nonsense and focus on helping the most amount of people ARHA reasonably can help WITHOUT having to come to the City for financial help.
Sell the Adkins and Bland properties and rebuild based on what the community needs and can support. Why cant we focus on rebuilding only 75% of the units at Adkins and Bland, or 50%? Prpvide vouchers to the rest of the residents. (thats not from the City cash supply)
Why do we need to rebuild EVERY SINGLE UNIT? Resolution 830 says so
.
The problem with this loan is it gets the City and ARHA moving no closer to transitioning to vouchers, which we all know is what has to happen. This loan is basically being given out in a panic to prevent a Resolution 830 violation from occurring. Essentially a city policy is driving the City to make a mistake, and no one wants to look at the City policy causing the problem.
But go ahead, they can loan them the cash. Also prepare appropriate explanations to City taxpayers about why this needs to be done.
The City is committed to providing 1100+ units of public housing. Whether or not that's a realistic or good policy, given the size of our City, it seems like we can't change that.
But I'll be damned if I can understand this slavish Res 830 devotion to bricks and mortar public housing, particularly when the feds want local jurisdictions to move to vouchers. WE-DON'T-HAVE-ENOUGH-MONEY-TO-DO-THIS bricks and mortar stuff.
I know there is a concern that people can't find apartments in the City to rent with choice vouchers. But why not use the affordable housing trust fund to exempt private landlords from property taxes in the City. This would encourage them to do so. Personally, I'm a landlord and would definitely consider a Section 8 tenant if the City exempted me from property tax. My property tax is about $1600 per year. This seems like it would be so much cheaper than loaning ARHA money for 40 years to build public housing which, in 40 years, is going to need rehabbing again.
"significant concessions from ARHA"
I am not sure how you can draw significance from these concessions.
Most of them appear to state "run your business better". I read many of the points as being things I would already expect from a government agency.
As for the joint task forces and meetings, its the same players with new titles and the same stale ideas. Not very helpful.
I'm not exactly sure what this MOU means for our neighborhood. But it appears the City will no longer be able to claim that it's hands are tied when it comes to ARHA and its properties. Looks like they have more control now and we can hold the Council accountable.
" My property tax is about $1600 per year."
So you can afford to have a rental unit. May I say that you own and live in the city as well? Writing property off on your taxes should be covering you for this.
I read the new ARHA website. I'm glad it's finally up. The one thing I wondered is how many of those ARHA Board Members live in or across from ARHA properties. If they did live across from Bland or Adkins, as I do, I wonder if things would be different at ARHA? I feel sure that if any of the Council members lived across from ARHA properties, this would have happened LONG ago.
Here's what worries me about this City-ARHA partnership. Reading the MOU, the press release, etc., I am struck by how much the City touts Chatham Square as a success ("award winning" this and "innovative" that).
But is it really? The discussion on another post about how one truly doesn't understand how bad ARHA projects are until you've lived across from one is eye opening.
I'd like to hear from Chatham Square residents. Is it all good where you live? Why or why not? Do you think the percentage of market rate vs. public makes a difference? It's planned to be a lower percentage at Bland and Glebe. Will this matter? Percentages aside, what about the density? Will too many public housing residents concentrated in one project, regardless of the number of market rate units, make it destined to be a failure? Will it matter that the real estate market was much better when Chatham Square was being sold? If you knew then what you know now, would you have bought there?
Please, any Chatham Square readers out there, please help us here in PG by telling us your experiences.
"I feel sure that if any of the Council members lived across from ARHA properties, this would have happened LONG ago."
Perhaps you should talk with Councilman Gaines, who lives on Quaker Hill where there is public housing.
"Please, any Chatham Square readers out there, please help us here in PG by telling us your experiences."
This one is simple, my ex-boyfriend bought, heard gunshots, looked out the window and saw police running after juveniles (who constantly loiter on the intersection of Royal and Princess), then sold.
Took a pretty big loss too being that the house sat forever.
Last I heard is there are a lot of vacant houses in the 400 blk of North Royal, but I haven't been around that area in a while to confirm that.
He wasn't happy when I kept telling him "I told you so". At the same time he bought, he could have had a decent house on Bashford for about the same price. Little smaller, but at least it had a yard.
"Perhaps you should talk with Councilman Gaines, who lives on Quaker Hill where there is public housing."
Yeah, but does he have 70% of the cities units in a 3 mile area?
Not so much.
"The City is committed to providing 1100+ units of public housing. Whether or not that's a realistic or good policy, given the size of our City, it seems like we can't change that. "
When compared to other local jurisdictions and their populations, its completely unrealistic. San Diego has 1800 units in a city oif 1.4 million. Fairfax has 1100 in a county of 1 million. We have 1150 in a city of 130,000. Find a city of that population size with that many brick and mortar units.
But the real problem is the size of the City itself. The City itself does not cover much overall space, so you have a lot of units per square mile (I think Growler said it was something like 76 per sq mile) Find another City or county like that. I think the only one you can find is NYC.
And that in essence is why you get megadensity; the only way to guarantee 1150 units is to build densely packed market rate units right next to public housing.
Alexandria City Council Approves Formal Partnership Agreement
With Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority
Tonight, the Alexandria City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding that establishes a partnership agreement with the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority (ARHA). The City Council also authorized a $5.6 million bridge loan to ARHA for the redevelopment of the Glebe Park properties. The ARHA Board approved this agreement at its meeting last night.
“This agreement signals a new era between the City and ARHA,” stated Mayor William D. Euille. In order to improve the living conditions for the tenants of ARHA’s 1,150 public and subsidized housing units, the City and ARHA will work together to develop a strategic plan for the future of ARHA’s properties.”
“We look forward to this partnership,” said ARHA Chairman Melvin Miller. “As the federal government redirects more of its long-term historic obligation for funding housing authorities across the United States to agencies such as ARHA and their local governments, local entities will need to work more closely as partners to ensure that the housing ARHA provides is well maintained, safe and affordable for those least able to pay market rents.”
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) borrows from the best practices in many organizational areas such as budgeting, capital planning, organizational management, and performance management. It sets forth a process for better planning, coordination, and communication. The MOU includes City review of ARHA’s budget, the preparation of a multi-year ARHA capital budget, and the mutual sharing of information between the City and ARHA.
In conjunction with the MOU, City Council also approved the development site plan as the first step in the redevelopment of the 152-unit Glebe Park complex into a 102-unit mixed income community. The $5.6 million bridge loan will be used by ARHA to pay the existing HUD/FHA insured mortgage. Other elements of financing sought by ARHA include federal low-income tax credit financing and federal HOPE VI grant funds. ARHA has selected EYA as the developer of the Glebe Park and James Bland sites. ARHA, EYA and the City previously collaborated in the redevelopment of two blocks of public housing into the mixed-income, award-winning community, Chatham Square, in Old Town.
I love how they always have to take a shot at the Feds. How can they get away with lies like this; the Feds have changed their "obligation" to vouchers and no one at ARHA seems to care.
Question: There is a public hearing notice on the Forex building. I was driving when I noticed it. Does anyone know what it refers to?
The Growler believes the Forex building would be part of the Jaguar project. It's not scheduled for Planning Commission in November or December (yet).
The Growler also saw the notice at the Madison on Sunday, but no date was set. It was more an informational plaque explaining what was being proposed for the site (number of units, etc.)
"Last I heard is there are a lot of vacant houses in the 400 blk of North Royal, but I haven't been around that area in a while to confirm that. "
I had a friend who looked at one of thoese homes to potentially buy. The people were asking for more than it was worth, but what turned him off was a chat he had with some of the neighbors on Euille St. He was advised to come at night and view the property in that context.
Suffice to say, once he got a look at what goes on at Hopkins Tancil and the Royal Market, he chose to live elsewhere (elsewhere as in outside of Alexandria). He chose Shirlington.
"The Growler also saw the notice at the Madison on Sunday, but no date was set. It was more an informational plaque explaining what was being proposed for the site (number of units, etc.)
"
They actually changed the old plaque that was there (when Harris Teeter was supposedly coming). Supposedly it comes up for review this winter, but at this point, after 3 years + of promises, it gets to the point where people would be schocked if anything is done there before 2010.
"This one is simple, my ex-boyfriend bought, heard gunshots, looked out the window and saw police running after juveniles (who constantly loiter on the intersection of Royal and Princess), then sold."
Wait till the new neighbors at 600 Payne and the Madison and the new 800 Washington St townhomes get to experience this times 10. Its always been my puzzlement at the "Plan"; moving more people into an area where the people that already are there have a boatload of problems with public hosuing residents. It would seem to imply the problems will only get worse and to a much larger level.
"If you knew then what you know now, would you have bought there?
"
I have a friend there that was told by the realtor that the City was planning to fix the mess at Hopkins Tancil within a few years after Chatham Square. I also have a friend in the Lofts who stated the same thing reagrding Adkins in 2002.
Sounds like either the realtors are lying or the City is.
"Wait till the new neighbors at 600 Payne and the Madison and the new 800 Washington St townhomes get to experience this times 10."
I can't wait. I am really looking forward to our new neighbors joining us in pressuring the City to FINALLY fix Adkins and Bland. The more of us who can constantly pound Fair Share, the better.
"I have a friend there that was told by the realtor that the City was planning to fix the mess at Hopkins Tancil within a few years after Chatham Square. I also have a friend in the Lofts who stated the same thing reagrding Adkins in 2002."
Yeah, the realtor told us that Sarge's was closing within two years of our purchase. He didn't, the Spa Court flourised, and it took a fire to quiet the street. My heart goes out to the man as a fire is an awful way to end an career. Suffice it to say realtors are in the business of selling just not always truthfully.
I'll speak to this: "Please, any Chatham Square readers out there please help us here in PG by telling us your experiences."
I live in Chatham Square and am not afraid to identify myself. I'd first like to address: "This one is simple, my ex-boyfriend bought... then sold."
Your boyfriend is a poltroon.
To purchase in Chatham Square, 1) you have to have some foresight to do what many of the market rate residents in Chatham Square did. 2) You have to have some education about people and habits. What they do and why they do. 3) Ultimately, you have to have some intestinal fortitude.
This was a brand new development. The deal was worked by city officials, ARHA and the developer. This was a "first" of sorts. Does EVERY prototype and "first" work out perfectly without any flaws? No. Therefore you have to have the foresight to know there are going to be problems. You have to know about people and their reactions to extreme change. Everyone's habits on Hopkins Place and Tancil Court were that "I can do what I want, when I want, how I want." Not so after "whitey" moved in. People who live in 700k houses have very different habits than those who live in ARHA housing. So, if you were to pick up a block of people and houses from Gresham, Nebraska and drop them into the middle of Manhattan, how do you think it would work out? Probably not the best at first, but I'm sure they would grow to understand and work together on things as well as get used to each other.
There were/are two types of Chatham Square market rate housing residents. 1) Whiners and criers who thought it'd be great to live in a new house in oldtown Alexandria, where they could determine the amenities and take advantage of a housing market that was short on supply. These are also the flippers/developers/real estate agents that got burned and are now angry they didn't get to flip at the top of the market. 2) The second are the folks who have an idea about how folks should be integrated in a community. That you should be able to leave your front door open, that it's ok to talk to people on the sidewalk. People who are happy to have a nice place to live, but also enjoy a variety in life, not the same cookie cutter suburb houses that infest the landscape outside (and sometimes inside) the beltway. These are the few that have put their money where their mouth is.
Most see the problems of Chatham Square the same way many of the posters on this blog see their neighborhood. We see an "inefficient" dinosaur named ARHA that we're linked up with. They often move slower than anyone could even imagine. More often, they don't move at all. They drop the ball. You can count on them to. They have been doing the "same-old, same-old" and "we've ALWAYS done it this way" for as long as Melvin Miller can remember. I can tell you stories of my personal dealings with them. Does this make us angry? Yes. What can we do about it? Be persistent in reporting of problems. Keep notes. Take pictures. Get organized. Well, this is where things start to level out. Until recently, there wasn't a playing field. Now we actually have some legs to stand on.
You see, we've grouped together and figured out that the same developer that formed our neighborhood is going to be trying to sell the same product elsewhere. Of course the city wishes to see this work out and especially in the housing market we're in, you can't just hang a sign in the window and expect 30 offers by sundown. We know that there has to be good press to sell houses. When we approached the mayor some time ago, he essentially said the same thing that was mentioned on this blog earlier "our hands are tied". We are not buying that anymore because if something DOESN'T change with ARHA and their dealings in Chatham Square, no one will be buying the units EYA puts out there as a "mixed community". There WILL be someone to tell every person who enters the new home trailer/building to purchase EXACTLY what they are getting into and how much of a headache ARHA will be giving them. I have read the MOU. It helps with many of the issues we have dealt with, but there are still plenty of loopholes.
My high school had a great saying overtop of the entrance: "Deeds, Not Words". We are going to be holding ARHA to task as well as the city leaders. As any good politician knows, "word on the street" becomes truth much too quick.
Now to address the other rumors. As Growler can tell you, there have not been ANY words/motions/head nods about Hopkins/Tancil being developed. This is completely false information. Who has spoke about this happening? Surprisingly it has often come from citizens who have recently spoken to the police. Would folks at Chatham Square like this to happen? As much as Garrett's Mill, Princess Royal, and Bulfinch Square liked having our blocks turn into Chatham Square. How do I like my immediate neighbors? Well, like I said earlier, most are very nice. Are there some who don't obey the rules? Yes, in both market rate as well as ARHA housing.
Overall, to have the dispersion of ARHA residents as we have in Chatham Square is a large plus. I completely agree with what Growler and many other in relation to thinning out the ARHA housing. Our problems come when large groups start to form. Things quickly get out of hand. If we didn't have Hopkins/Tancil beside us (and at the rate ARHA is going, it won't be too much longer), our community would be just about perfect.
Also, to cross promote, our website has been up and running for about a year: http://chathamsquare.net .
Thank you, Dinger!!!! I hope we can continue count on you to answer our questions in the future as the Braddock East study begins.
Does anyone know where I can find a single, comprehensive list of all of the public/subsidized housing in Alexandria? It's impossible to locate.
Post a Comment
<< Home