Yesterday afternoon the Mayor and City Council held another cat-and-mouse work session with ARHA on the 16 James Bland housing units that are slated to be off-sited from our neighborhood.And in the midst of the muddled meeting -- "Do staff really know what's going on here?" the Mayor at one point snapped at P&Z Director Faroll Hamer -- the Growler was able to put a finger on the real problems with these discussions as well as the drifting Braddock East Advisory Group deliberations.
1. The City has hamstrung ARHA by upholding Resolution 830 but is balking when it comes to putting ARHA on a sound financial basis for the long-term. Apparently the City realizes this could be a huge drain on its limited resources, and the Growler surmises this would be unpopular politically as well.
Yesterday staff attempted to thrust the burden back on ARHA itself by suggesting that the housing authority could once again assume indebtedness. Since this is what got the authority into trouble over Glebe Park in the first place (remember, HUD backed the $6 million mortgage and was preparing to foreclose), ARHA understandably rejected this option.
2. The issue of public housing unit ownership was a major point of contention in the discussions yesterday, with ARHA insisting on fee simple ownership while the City suggested 20-year ground leases and other non-ownership options in non-ARHA multi-family rental buildings that could be secured by long-term covenants. ARHA, however, fears that a sudden change in private building ownership will leave the authority without protected Resolution 830 units.
While the City Attorney and ARHA Vice Chair Connie Ring squared off on the legal issues regarding covenants and their enforceability, ARHA Chairman Melvin Miller pointed out that land ownership is the only asset ARHA has. Then ARHA board member Peter Lawson (son of former City Manager Vola Lawson) further nailed the housing authority's dilemma by noting that with each project like Chatham Square or Bland ARHA sells off its land assets and has fewer resources with which to leverage future redevelopment.
Do we smell a long-term crisis in the making? A sort of Ponzi scheme in which each looming ARHA financial crisis that is driven by deferred maintenance results in the authority selling off more land? That may solve the immediate problems but ultimately leaves ARHA with no further cushion to fall back on. ARHA representatives stated that the value of ARHA units at projects like Chatham Square aren't sufficient to leverage future redevelopment. Once the low-hanging fruit like the valuable Bland and Adkins properties are gone, what then?
3. Roy Priest, ARHA's CEO, noted that HUD formerly covered 100% of operating costs for public housing units but now only funds 80%. The remainder has to be made up by the local housing authority. If HUD funds continue to dry up, how will the authority sustain itself under Resolution 830 without help from the City?
4. Even more troubling, ARHA is moving into a new construct of public housing which involves home owner association (HOA) fees and special assessments. It's one thing to let maintenance slip on a complex that is 100% public housing. It's another to let ARHA's properties decay in a mixed-income project with high-end market-rate units.
If ARHA is cash-strapped in the future they won't be able to easily defer these payments without the prospect of the HOA going after them in court. At the same time, a failure to contribute to maintenance may cause market-rate units in these developments to lose value, dragging whole neighborhoods down.
Is the Council even remotely aware of the implications of condo ownership? Is the Quaker Hill model working and if so what if all of ARHA's properties eventually go this route? Where's the detailed financial analysis and modeling that will answer these questions? It should be part of a long-term strategic plan for ARHA, but that hasn't even gotten off the ground yet.
5. Finally, all of the planning under discussion is short-term. There appears to be no-one with the courage, sense of responsibility or vision to articulate and shape the debate about the long-term future of ARHA, although the Growler must give credit to Councilman Paul Smedberg for continuing to ask quietly but persistently about ARHA's "sustainability" and to Councilman Rob Krupicka for at least challenging some of the orthodoxies about how Resolution 830's requirements can be met.
Clearly the politicians are dodging the core issues because they anticipate being retired or elevated to higher elected office by the time all of this comes to crisis again. In the meantime, the average age of current ARHA Board members is in the 60 to 70 year range and several are stuck in a 1960s Great Society time-warp. But not all the blame should be placed on their shoulders. As Melvin Miller noted yesterday, the City created ARHA. Who does it ultimately belong to? And the Growler is going to give credit to the scrappy Mr. Miller for continuing to lob the ball back into the City's court.
So all that's under discussion right now is the 16 units for Bland, and in the Braddock East process the rezoning that the project will require. The Growler doubts there will even be a broader deconcentration plan or target numbers for off-siting in the final Braddock East document. That would require peering too far into the future for these blinkered individuals.
68 comments:
Those of you involved in the Braddock East process do need to be watchful because the outcomes were likely determined long ago. It is unfortunate that more units will not be offsited. I agree with those who say the decision to offsite is more a political than financial one. I feel we are caught in a longterm squeeze. One of the reasons ARHA's land is not more valuable is because Mr. Miller, Mrs. Lyles, the city and others fought to depress property values here.
"HUD formerly covered 100% of operating costs for public housing units but now only funds 80%. The remainder has to be made up by the local housing authority."
What about the rent payments? Shouldn't they cover at least some of the O&M costs? I thought that Public Housing required tenants to pay 30% of their income as rent.
That is what the boss of the DC Housing Authority wrote in an Op-Ed column in the WashPost last week.
Not all public housing tenants pay rent. They also do not pay utilities (although in the new redevelopments they may be required to do so). And with energy costs rising, the public housing authorities are being squeezed.
Here's a 2006 article from the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities explaining this topic very well.
http://tinyurl.com/5cqdck
http://tinyurl.com/5cqdck
From HUD's Web Site:
HOW IS RENT DETERMINED?
Your rent, which is referred to as the Total Tenant Payment (TTP) in this program, would be based on your family's anticipated gross annual income less deductions, if any. HUD regulations allow HAs to exclude from annual income the following allowances: $480 for each dependent; $400 for any elderly family, or a person with a disability; and some medical deductions for families headed by an elderly person or a person with disabilities. Based on your application, the HA representative will determine if any of the allowable deductions should be subtracted from your annual income. Annual income is the anticipated total income from all sources received from the family head and spouse, and each additional member of the family 18 years of age or older.
The formula used in determining the TTP is the highest of the following, rounded to the nearest dollar:
(1) 30 percent of the monthly adjusted income. (Monthly Adjusted Income is annual income less deductions allowed by the regulations);
(2) 10 percent of monthly income;
(3) welfare rent, if applicable; or
(4) a $25 minimum rent or higher amount (up to $50) set by an HA.
"I thought that Public Housing required tenants to pay 30% of their income as rent."
Not exactly. There is a complex formula used to determine what each tenant pays. And not all income counts.
Additionally, there are income limits for public housing. Needless to say, with those income limits, the rent paid by the tenants will not cover the operating costs. Moreover, there is no requireent that the tenants work - thus, if a tenant is not working, he or she effectively pays no rent.
The sustainability question is paramount. Finally, someone is talking about it. As much as we bitch here, I think we've made enormous progress. A decade ago, the subject of public housing was politicallly taboo. At least now, people are making their opinions known regarding the wisdom of brick and mortar public housing, conentrated public housing, its effect on the local school and the crime rate, and the economic reality of sustaining such a scheme.
Growler - your reporting is excellent. It's a disgrace that neither the Times nor the Gazette covers this neighborhood and its issues with as much care.
From eNews: THE PLANNING COMM. AND THE PARKER-GRAY BAR WILL HOLD A JOINT WORK SESSION ON JUNE 3, 2008 AT 6:00PM IN CITY HALL TO DISCUSS THE JAMES BLAND DEV. & THE BRADDOCK EAST PLAN.
This should be interesting. Has the PG BAR commented previously on either the development or the Braddock East Plan?
"It's a disgrace that neither the Times nor the Gazette covers this neighborhood and its issues with as much care."
Well they do in a way, its just called the "Police Report"
Congratulations. Not content to zap people due to race and socio-economic status, you now are going after people 60 and older as though they are just too addlepated to know anything. You just go from strength to strength. The "Great Society" brought us universal suffrage, Head Start and nutrition programs for children,legal aid, and a host of programs to help people across all races, ages, and socio-economic groups. These programs were necessary because of the mind set you all have returned to. This blog site is totally lacking in the ability to see any merit in any view but its own and dedicated to self interest. One would ask "have you no shame" but I think we all know the answer.
When the development comes to your area, look out. Council is going to serve you all up for lunch to the developers. You will have no open spaces to speak of, no trees anywhere, no parking, and no sunlight. The traffic will be unbelieveable as will the filty air. You will find the new Braddock area far unfriendlier than what you have today.
Remember the Chinese curse: be careful what you wish for.
The problems of 2008 cannot be successfully addressed by the solutions of 1968, but it appears the rhetoric is still alive.
I totally disagree.
Growler, I appreciate the time and energy you spend keeping all of us informed. No one is looking to displace an elderly or disabled individual that truly benefits from the social programs we have made available in this country. However, many taxpaying residents do object to the density of public housing and the lack of desire or interest to make some changes. Changes that would benefit both residents of Bland and those living in the surrounding neighborhoods.
Growler, I thank you again.
Nowhere in the post could I find anything that looked like "going after people 60 and older."
Perhaps this is a rhetorical device: create a victim, extol the benefits of some loosely linked program from the past, go even further back and rehash the Red Scare, and then, when the reader is thoroughly confused, go in for the kill with a completely disconnected thought about development.
You may very well have a point. But it is lost in the vitriol. The Growler produced a well-researched and reasoned post. There is room for disagreement on this site, but it helps to operate from a position of mutual respect and to incorporate, where possible, fact-based analyses.
"Remember the Chinese curse: be careful what you wish for."
Someone should post that saying outside this man/woman's Delray house. I am sick and tired of listening to Delrayites complain about PG residents not caring...how the %&$&#% do you guys care?
Hope you are enjoying your 4 dollar a gallon gas.....
Indeed, the Great Society brought many worthwile programs. However, arguing that we should keep ALL great society programs, whether successful or a demonstrable failure, is ridiculous.
Even great liberal cities such as Chicago have acknowledged research showing that concentrated, high-rise, dedicated brick and mortar public housing is harmful. We need to do the same, rather than slavishly following outmoded 1960's ideas. I agree with The Growler on this.
"Not content to zap people due to race and socio-economic status, you now are going after people 60 and older as though they are just too addlepated to know anything. "
One of the largest groups of people angry about the current overconcentration of public housing in PG are the elderly.
Why don't you ask Otis Weeks what he thinks of the City's current public housing policy? You can find him down at Ladrey once you get thorugh the bedbug infestation.....
"One would ask "have you no shame" but I think we all know the answer. "
I wonder (and we know its you Lenny Harris)....do you have any shame? Does Melvin Miller have any shame? Does anyone on the City Council have any shame?
The Great Society as you see it was not what Martin Luther King or Charles Houston wanted ; a segregated poor community kept afloat to feed the wallets of the housing advocates and used as a crutch against anyone who resists.
MLK demanded integration; you seek continued segregation, and worse, you want the City taxpayers to fund it.
The only shame that exists should be yours ; shame that you are defending a policy that essentially sends hundreds of residents every year to the social and economic grave so you can maintain a quota.
If the Growler were truly doing his/her homework, he/she would ankle over to the nearest library and look at the monthly ARHA docket. In the treasurer's report he/she would discover that, with the exception of Glebe Park, every single ARHA property produces a monthly profit. They are not black holes into which the City throws taxpayers' money.
Second, if the Growler had been spending any time over the course of the Parker Gray Growl's lifetime watching ARHA, he/she would find that ARHA is, in fact, moving away from high concentration public housing into the scattered site configuration. Growler's problem seems to be that he/she wants all public housing sites to disappear overnight. According to ARHA sources, the scattered site configuration is ARHA's long range plan.
"You will have no open spaces to speak of, no trees anywhere, no parking, and no sunlight. The traffic will be unbelieveable as will the filty air."
Um, we dont really have any of that now anyways.....
"You will find the new Braddock area far unfriendlier than what you have today."
I believe an area where people are afraid to walk to the Metro at night and one that has hotspots that always hits Top 10 lists at the police station is probably not that friendly to begin with.
"In the treasurer's report he/she would discover that, with the exception of Glebe Park, every single ARHA property produces a monthly profit. They are not black holes into which the City throws taxpayers' money"
Considering the City just had to sign a formal agreement prior to their last loan demanding ARHA insititute better financial and management controls, I am not sure the treasurers report amounts to a hill of beans. I wont even get into the HUD investigation of ARHA misuse of Section 8 funds.
"he/she would find that ARHA is, in fact, moving away from high concentration public housing into the scattered site configuration."
So where is this scattered site evidence? And how can you reconcile scattered site against the constant NIMBYISM of Alexandria and the current Bland plan, which "scatters" 60 units over to Glebe Park, which is another ARHA site, and 16 to lala land.
"Congratulations. Not content to zap people due to race and socio-economic status"
YAWN...the same tired excuse when you run out of facts or logic....pull out the old standard race and class cards.
The sad thing is this person would be afraid to say it to your face Growler. They hide behind a blog entry to throw their race cards.
Growler, thank you for providing a forum where we can speak our minds.
"... a segregated poor community kept afloat to feed the wallets of the housing advocates and used as a crutch against anyone who resists."
The "affordable housing" industry is an amazing racket - politicians are propped up with developer money and so-called nonprofits shill for developers and get tax breaks in the process. Where would these professions be if they could no longer ware- house the poor?
I feel we are caught in a longterm squeeze. One of the reasons ARHA's land is not more valuable is because Mr. Miller, Mrs. Lyles, the city and others fought to depress property values here.
Dunno about Mr. Miller or Mrs. Lyles, but have always thought PG wound up with its own BAR to allow for greater "discretion" in the BAR decisions, even though in writing, the standards are the same as Old Town Historic Dist.
Although I am very thankful our area now has a Code Enforcement officer who takes care of business. She's terrific!
"In the treasurer's report he/she would discover that, with the exception of Glebe Park, every single ARHA property produces a monthly profit."
OMG. Surely, you joke. Their "profit" counts on massive taxpayer subsidies from HUD. And although none of the money FOR RENT comes from the City, it certainly doesn't count the significant sums City taxpayers shell out for social services, police, ambulances, schools, etc.
Bottom line: although people can disagree about whether warehousing the poor in concentrated public housing is good public policy, NOBODY thinks ARHA is a profit making entity. Let's put that notion to rest.
"Dunno about Mr. Miller or Mrs. Lyles, but have always thought PG wound up with its own BAR to allow for greater "discretion" in the BAR decisions, even though in writing, the standards are the same as Old Town Historic Dist."
Why do you think greater discretion was wanted if the standards as written are the same?
"The "Great Society" brought us universal suffrage, Head Start and nutrition programs for children,legal aid, and a host of programs to help people across all races, ages, and socio-economic groups. These programs were necessary because of the mind set you all have returned to."
The dictionary defines suffrage as the right to vote in political elections. The black male secured his voting rights long before the white female. The race card does not always play well.
The 1968 Civil Rights Act did address housing laws but once the Act passed Melvin Miller bailed. He wanted upscale housing in another neighborhood and left the other socioeconomic groups behind. The fact that the city's more recent Fair Share policy is not on your radar speaks volumes about your politics.
Mind set? Public housing is sited where it is because of the city's segregationist past. What is it about community integration that disturbs you so?
If Head Start and children's education was really the social goal then Jefferson Houston School would never have taken the form that it has. Again and again and again.
"... with the exception of Glebe Park, every single ARHA property produces a monthly profit. They are not black holes into which the City throws taxpayers' money.:
You paint a rosy picture of ARHA finances. But why, if ARHA is on such sound financial footing, is it still having difficulties with maintenance according to a March 2008 article in the Alexandria Times.
“'We haven’t had hot water in three weeks,' added single mother [Crystal Coleman] who used to live in the James Bland neighborhood, a potentially affected area of the Braddock Plan.
"[Radford Street resident Lekesha] Terry, too, has had maintenance issues. Flooding broke her TV and damaged her couch, she said, while a damaged mildew-producing sprinkler has gone unfixed despite calls to the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority (ARHA). ARHA officials did not return a reporter’s repeated calls."
http://tinyurl.com/4zlzep
Why also did Melvin Miller tell participants on the Mayor's March 2008 Walk that ARHA couldn't afford the $200 in fencing to shield the dumpster at Jefferson-Village, something that would have created good will with the surrounding community?
And speaking of donations, the Growler understands that faith-based organizations have had to step in and undertake some of ARHA's maintenance themselves, including painting at Ladrey. Why would this be necessary if ARHA is financially viable as an on-going concern?
The fact is that ARHA has an aging stock of properties that need serious maintenance and even redevelopment. Even after the redevelopment of Glebe Park, it is unclear if they will ever have the reserves to undertake major renovations or rebuilding without substantial loans and grants from the City.
What's interesting is that none of the individuals who are so passionately committed to the concept of public housing seem worried about this deferred maintenance and the degradation of quality of life for its residents. They are strangely silent when it comes to demanding reform of ARHA management and a complete accounting of its financial position so that it can be put on an even keel to preserve the units it already has.
"you now are going after people 60 and older as though they are just too addlepated to know anything."
What do the actions of Miller and Ring suggest to you? they are right to be attacked because they offer no vision or a way out of this mess. Furthermore, they show no sympathy towards their neighbors. A private landlord who ran housing in the slumlike way ARHA does would have been fined by another city, not given millions in bailout money.
"What's interesting is that none of the individuals who are so passionately committed to the concept of public housing seem worried about this deferred maintenance and the degradation of quality of life for its residents. "
Nor do they seem at all concerned about the social and economic disintegration of the entire northern part of the PG community.
Putting your head in the sand about JH, or the crime problems at Mcdonalds and 7-11, or ignoring the sirens at Adkins or Bland, or forgetting Jones and Carter and Suggs and Watson don't make all these problems go away.
You think people who visit or observe PG havent already put 2 and 2 together. the more you resist logic, the harder it becomes to appear compassionate. Most visitors to our community wonder why this mess is allowed to go on....and thats a fact everyone knows....
Anyone have any thoughts on the most effective way to formally ask all City Council members to go on the record regarding the ARHA issues discussed here and how they relate to ongoing redevelopment planning? I think very careful wording is required and I'm too pissed to be diplomatic.
I realize many/all of us don't expect anyone on the Council to take a public position on the very difficult issues recently discussed here. If that proves to be the case, at least we can use their refusal to engage on the issue against them when the results of their inaction is more evident to more people.
Anyone have any thoughts on getting our elected leaders to show some stones?
Does anyone have an in with the local TV news media?
Have one of the Loft residents (one thats not trying to sell) who lives on N. Fayette Street video tape the same block week after week with massive police responses through out the summer.
Make sure the time and date are recording with each one and make a collage and send it to the media.
The current council loves this type of media obviously. If they didn't they would have fixed these issues years ago.
"Anyone have any thoughts on the most effective way to formally ask all City Council members to go on the record regarding the ARHA issues discussed here and how they relate to ongoing redevelopment planning?"
The ICCA should send them each a letter asking for responses to very specific questions about public housing, i.e. "do you think concentrated public housing is good public policy and, if not, what immediate, concrete steps would you take to rectify the problem in PG." "Do you agree with the findings of the Fair Share Task Force and if so, what immediate steps will you take to implement the recommendations." Etc etc.
AND/OR
ICCA should invite each member of council to speak at the next meeting, exclusively on the topic of public housing concentration and fair share.
If they refuse to respond, the ICCA (and NECA and North Old Town, etc) can write a joint letter to the Post, Gazette, Examiner, Tiems, etc. publicizing their cowardice. AND, we could call the local news stations and take them on a Saturday evening tour of Adkins and fill them in on the current redevelopment opportunities, the City's Fair Share Task Force findings, the poor performance of J-H and the segregation of Alexandria's schools, and the back door dealings of Euille, ARHA, and the affordable housing developers.
OK - so maybe I'm a little angry, too....
"One of the reasons ARHA's land is not more valuable is because Mr. Miller, Mrs. Lyles, the city and others fought to depress property values here."
Another great point that often is forgotten. Concentrated public housing depresses property values which are the primary drivers of the tax revenue needed to "sustain" ARHA's financial condition. Apologists can talk all they want about ARHA properties making a "profit" but they pay no city taxes, so what does the City get out of concentrated public housing? Its already well established that Adkins, Bland and the like have depressed property values in Parker Gray for a long time and continue to do so.
"I thought that Public Housing required tenants to pay 30% of their income as rent."
While that is true, if you have no income, you have no rent. And this concept serves as the main deterrent to getting out of public housing; the more you make, the more rent you pay.
This is one of the main reasons that public housing projects are no longer built and vouchers are used much more
Whew. All these "ICCA should" people are welcome to do these things by actively working through their civic associations. It's a City-wide issue, after all.
C'mon, NECA, OTCA, Del Ray, let's see what you do about implementing Fair Share, and improving one of your own elementary schools (JH) - and many, many kudos to those of you who are!
"The "Great Society" brought us universal suffrage, Head Start and nutrition programs for children,legal aid, and a host of programs to help people across all races, ages, and socio-economic groups."
Whats telling in Mr Lenny Harris Lite's argument is that all of the programs he listed are under attack by no one here in PG. The Great Society also brought Medicare and Medicaid. Growler is not ranting against those; didnt see an argument from Growler to cut school lunches at JH or take away the vote from Mr. Crack.
And every one of those programs is still funded fairly fully. Only 1 major one is not; bricks and mortar public housing, which started long before the Great Society (back with FDR) but reached its zenith under LBJ.
So before you go off on a rant about the Great Society, understand that in 1972 Nixon stopped the building of any future public housing projects. Neither Carter nor Clinton ever reversed this policy (nor Reagan, Ford, or the Bushes).
Federal public housing policy has clearly moved towards the use of vouchers as a replacement for bricks and mortar public housing policy. Voucher funding has grown at almost 6% a year for almost a decade now.
Parker Gray residents arent mad about the Great Society. They are mad that our City is pursuing a policy that no longer makes social or economic sense, in maintaining brick and mortar public housing, in large concentrations in a few areas, and in believing that even if it is scattered, it is sustainable.
Its common fact by now, even in regional legislative leaders minds, that brick and mortar public housing is not sustainable because those subsidies arent coming back and will likely worsen.
Every City in the region is moving from a policy of maintaining units to maintaining vouchers.
Only Alexandria resists this. WHY?
"In the treasurer's report he/she would discover that, with the exception of Glebe Park, every single ARHA property produces a monthly profit. They are not black holes into which the City throws taxpayers' money."
Then why did the City loan them money? Why was it necessary to drain the Housing Trust Fund? I went down to the library (Beatley) and asked for what you profess exists. they had no idea what I was talking about; ARHA financials are non-existent in the library's mind.
"Growler's problem seems to be that he/she wants all public housing sites to disappear overnight. According to ARHA sources, the scattered site configuration is ARHA's long range plan."
Funny, I could use the same argument for Mirant, Norfolk Southern, Virginia Paving, etc.. when a limousine liberal demands removal of businesses operating legally, they want it done immediately.
Asking for a decrease in public housing overconcentration in PG or asking for an examination of Resolution 830 is treated like wearing a kaffiyeh in a Jewish deli --- its sacrilege to even ask for example, where is the ARHA long range plan and why hasnt someone written it down.
"Have one of the Loft residents (one thats not trying to sell) who lives on N. Fayette Street video tape the same block week after week with massive police responses through out the summer. "
I provided pictures to the Braddock Road Metro plan, as requested by the consultants, with time stamps. Also, the issue of massive police response is constantly brought up with the police department, and they state that they report these activities to the City Council and the Mayor. Its already well-known what is going on, so I am not sure how a COPS like video would help.
Just like with Code Enforcement - every Lofts resident knows that they constantly get complaints from neighbors regarding violations but there is little code enforcement can do to get compliance, other than getting street lights changed quickly. Ask to get trash picked up and it takes a week, even if its broken glass, since we have to wait for the once a week ARHA maintenance crew to clean it all up.
Oh and one other thing---Hamer herself has seen it since she came to the Lofts annual meeting in April, late in the evening. Whats a better picture than that.....
Send your pictures or video files to the Growler, and they will be posted here.
"They are mad that our City is pursuing a policy that no longer makes social or economic sense, in maintaining brick and mortar public housing, in large concentrations in a few areas, and in believing that even if it is scattered, it is sustainable."
If ARHA wants to scatter bricks and mortar housing it's fine with us. We're willing to let ARHA promote b&m so long as the sites are scattered equitably. Smaller numbers of units that are well maintained. Maintenance must be included in ARHA's financial plan including the reserves necessary to do so.
"ICCA should invite each member of council to speak at the next meeting, exclusively on the topic of public housing concentration and fair share.
If they refuse to respond, the ICCA (and NECA and North Old Town, etc) can write a joint letter to the Post, Gazette, Examiner, Tiems, etc. publicizing their cowardice."
I've paid my ICCA dues this year and think this is an excellent idea. Let's get Council on the record about these issues...after all elections are next year.
If Growler did not mean to cast aspersions on people over the age of 60, why did she/he find it necessary to even mention the age of ARHA members? Why otherwise would the ages of ARHA members be germane to the issues at hand? She/he doesn't discuss the age range of City Council members. Any time a discussion brings up the various demographics of opposing viewpoints, the aura of discrimination and of ad hominem argument arises. Growler should stick to the issues themselves and avoid attacks on the people who beg to differ. Surely this City is big enough to listen to all sides of an argument.
"Surely this City is big enough to listen to all sides of an argument."
Sadly, the City Council, Planning and Zoning, and ARHA have repeatedly shown that they do not listen to all sides. The majority of this neighborhood has been speaking loudly and clearly about the need to distribute the 1150 public housing units equitably throughout the city, instead of leaving the bulk of them concentrated on one neighborhood. Note, we're not saying get rid of public housing we're just asking that the city take the opportunity the redevelopment of Bland present to actively enforce the Fair Share policy - and sending 60 units to Arlandria, which already has its fair share, and off-siting just 16 units to some other area of the city is hardly equitable. So, it seems to me that it's the public housing apologists, the Council and ARHA who aren't listing to the will of the taxpayers of this city.
"If Growler did not mean to cast aspersions on people over the age of 60, why did she/he find it necessary to even mention the age of ARHA members?"
Probably because we are all sick and tired of the ARHA Board of Commissioners using low-income African Americans as trophies/mascots for their failed public housing policy.
The problem with being a mascot is that you are a symbol of someone else's significance or virtue. The actual well-being of a mascot is not the point.
None of those ARHA Board of Commissioners seem to care about the well-being of their residents. If they did, the number of units would be less important than ensuring jobs and education were of pivotal importance to helping residents move on with their lives.
Age becomes a factor when you see how there is no dissent within the group. Using human beings as mascots is not idealism or liberalism. It is self-aggrandizement that is ugly in both its concept and its consequences. Growler (and plenty of others) are just calling it like it is. Your outrage suggests that the truth hurts.
"the aura of discrimination and of ad hominem argument arises"
The only aura in Parker Gray right now is the aura of social and economic destruction surrounding the public housing projects. You as an apologist are willing to destroy and entire generation to maintain a failed policy.
"Maintenance must be included in ARHA's financial plan including the reserves necessary to do so."
It would be nice, as a start, if the City could simply get ARHA to abide by its own terms in the MOU, such as providing statistics asked for by the City regarding the performance of the public housing projects.
Its hard to build a plan unless you have some facts, and the ARHA Board is notorious for not always putting all the facts on the table.
"If Growler did not mean to cast aspersions on people over the age of 60, why did she/he find it necessary to even mention the age of ARHA members? Why otherwise would the ages of ARHA members be germane to the issues at hand?"
I suspect the Growler equates age with outdated 60s political philosophies. Did Bobby Kennedy not suggest welfare reform when he ran for President in 1968? It's like asking me to embrace the internet now. I still prefer to pen a letter. Is ARHA's Chairman Miller not the same Mr. Miller who was hired by former school superintendent Herb Berg to sell the 1999 redistricting plan to black folks? Correct me if I'm wrong but I do his was a fee for service arrangement. If so given the former school board affiliations of many today's ARHA Board members can we honestly say all have aged wisely?
"Any time a discussion brings up the various demographics of opposing viewpoints, the aura of discrimination and of ad hominem argument arises."
Re "the various demographics of opposing viewpoints," did Mr. Miller not recently say that he wanted public housing to remain as located because the tenants have deep roots in the black community here? In 1999 did Mr. Miller also not argue on behalf of the school redistricting plan, standing opposite other black leaders including the Urban League's George Lambert? Mr. Ring lives in the George Mason School district, the same district School Board Chairman Claire Eberwein now represents does he not? The plot thickens as does "the aura of discrimination." If Mr. Miller also lives in the central school district then do we not have political ad hominem? And if the Mayor's school board tenure overlaps Mr. Miller and Mr. Ring's what exactly do you wish me to conclude? That so long as Jefferson Houston fails No Child Left Behind neighborhood parents can ante equally for George Mason Elementary School?
"and of ad hominem argument arises."
Do you wish me to believe that local politics are not personality driven? When was the last time city hall acted rationally? As for the aura of discrimination, read the recently approved Braddock Road Small Area plan. I do believe planning staff's references to gentrification are ad hominem. All we want is a fair shake at fair share.
"I suspect the Growler equates age with outdated 60s political philosophies. "
there isnt one original thinker on the ARHA Board. The age question is a valid one; they all think alike. Name a time the ARHA Board has not voted unaminously on anything.
The reason the Councils age isnt mentioned is because people are more concerned that they are all Democrat and vote almost exactly the same on every issue: 7-0, 6-0-1, etc....When was the last significant 4-3 vote in our city?
As for the race card with the ARHA board, sir/maam, half the board is white.
In re Mr. Miller and Superintendent Berg, Mr. Miller left the School Board in 1992, Dr. Berg was appointed by the first elected School Board, a Board whose first priority was to resegregate the Alexandria public schools.
Great point on the ARHA MOU requirements. Maybe our resident apologist can tell us what happened to this document, published nearly 9 months ago.
http://www.parker-gray.com/pdfs/Miscellaneous/ARHA_City_Strategic_Plan_Info_Needs.pdf
From the city's 1999 Annual Report. Euille's bio states that he served on the school board from 1974-1984 also the Fair Share Task Force. Apparently the school board was first elected in 1996.
"New Elementary School Boundaries
Following two public hearings, seven public work sessions, and countless hours expended by the Alexandria City School Board, district staff, parents, and community members, the Board adopted a redistricting plan in June that shifts the elementary school boundaries, starting in September 2000. Redistricting was necessary for three reasons: a steady increase in the number of elementary students, especially in the west end of the city, construction of a new elementary school in Cameron Station and the negative educational effect of school overcrowding, particularly on the district’s most disadvantaged students.
The new redistricting plan brings uniformity to elementary schools as they will all be kindergarten through fifth grade, while creating two focus schools that will offer parents a traditional model (Lyles-Crouch Elementary School) and a concentration on the arts (Jefferson-Houston Elementary School)."
"n re Mr. Miller and Superintendent Berg, Mr. Miller left the School Board in 1992, Dr. Berg was appointed by the first elected School Board,"
Did Mr. Berg use Mr. Miller as a consultant paid or unpaid to promote acceptance of the 1999 school redistricting plan? Did Mr. Miller favor the redistricting plan?
"did Mr. Miller not recently say that he wanted public housing to remain as located because the tenants have deep roots in the black community here?"
If so, that's funny. Based on what does he say that?? I walk past Adkins every day on the way to the metro. And there are plenty of hispanic families apparently living there. Moreover, if I recall from a past Braddock East meeting, when asked, ARHA had absolutely no idea how many hispanics were living in its properties. Makes me think they just want to keep things as is. They don't really believe (or know or care) who lives in their properties and for how long, regardless of their race. They certainly don't have any accurate stats to prove it. So the argument that they need to keep the same number of units in any one location to maintain the black community is totally bogus.
"From the city's 1999 Annual Report. Euille's bio states that he served on the school board from 1974-1984 also the Fair Share Task Force"
And this is even funnier. On the mayor's walk through PG, the mayor professed to be unaware of what Fair Share was. He actually said he was only a part time mayor and therefore was unable to keep up on everything.
Either he is breathtakingly dumb, or he is a liar. In either case, I'm never voting for him....
"And this is even funnier. On the mayor's walk through PG, the mayor professed to be unaware of what Fair Share was. He actually said he was only a part time mayor and therefore was unable to keep up on everything."
Damnation! The Mayor is a liar because here is the link to his earlier city bio. He is listed as a member of the Fair Share Task Force.
http://www3.alexandriava.gov/city/annual_reports/report99/ar99_citycouncil.html
Now wait a minute. The Growler doesn't recall the Mayor making any statement that he didn't know what the Fair Share policy was. Who heard him and where did he make this statement on the neighborhood tour?
"Damnation! The Mayor is a liar because here is the link to his earlier city bio. He is listed as a member of the Fair Share Task Force.
"
I think the context of the question was not if he knew what it was, but if he knew that PG had the largest overconcentration of public housing Alexandria and is the "sharer" of public housing units. I could be wrong, though. I thought I heard the question couched in that way...I also remember Melvin Miller did not like this question at all.
I think the commenter is wrong if he thinks the Mayor doesnt know what it is; wasnt he the vice-chair of the Fair Share Task Force, for gods sake?
"The Growler doesn't recall the Mayor making any statement that he didn't know what the Fair Share policy was. "
What he said was that he didnt know that PG had the largest public housing concentration in Northern Virginia?
"I also remember Melvin Miller did not like this question at all."
I remember it Miller stood in the back and rolled his eyes the whole time when the neighbors described all the problems we've had with ARHA.
"ARHA is, in fact, moving away from high concentration public housing into the scattered site configuration. Growler's problem seems to be that he/she wants all public housing sites to disappear overnight."
Come off it; the reality is that the city is juggling all of its public housing into more friendly distributions in high-rises for statistical purposes that suggest an on-paper reduction of public housing density.
Nevertheless, all of the juggling keeps all the balls as it were in the same place and out of not only existing neighborhoods throughout the city but new developments such as the future Potomac Yards projects, which is patently absurd if the city sees the level of public housing in Alexandria (with numbers comparable to cities 10 times our size) as essential to maintain in a strict brick-and-mortar manner in one specific part of the city.
So drop your manufactured condescension as the Growler and others deal with the reality of this inequity.
Mr. Miller was not a consultant, paid or unpaid, for Herb Berg. There are so many "urban legends" (a polite term) on this blog site that it boggles the mind.
The refusal to accept valid facts from any outside source is truly staggering. Apparently, only partial truths and "facts" that suit the mind set of a certain group of people are considered "truth".
"Mr. Miller was not a consultant, paid or unpaid, for Herb Berg. There are so many "urban legends" (a polite term) on this blog site that it boggles the mind. The refusal to accept valid facts from any outside source is truly staggering."
Sir/Madaam if anyone spreads urban legends it likely is you. Former school board members claim Mr. Miller indeed helped Mr. Berg to pass the 1999 redistricting plan. Yet you anonymously claim that yours are valid facts. Reveal yourself so that others may judge your reliability.
Someone mentioned getting some of the public housing action on film. I live at Chatham Square and am compiling video to hand over to the Washington Post. There is not one official in the City of Alexandria who cares about what is going on. I went to an HOA meeting last year to voice my concerns and the president told me to be a "good neighbor". So, when I walk out my front door and am cursed at by the thugs across the street, I respond with a cheery salutation. I'll keep you posted on how the "good nieghbor" thing works out. Oh, by the way, someone was shot in the street during that meeting. We watched the emergency response from the second floor (must not have been a good neighbor)
"There are so many "urban legends" (a polite term) on this blog site that it boggles the mind."
Please tell me what is urban legend? That black public housing was sited here mostly as a result of the city's early segregated policies? That Melvin Miller moved from the neighborhood in the early 70s? That the city instructed the developer to build to price not market (affordable housing)? That ADAM lead by two former city employees Artemel (Planning) and Levy (Housing) is a creature of political invention intended to sell diluted housing density around the metro? If you care about kids and I do concentrated public housing has to go! Is the Mayor a Confederate in disguise?
"that suit the mind set of a certain group of people are considered "truth"."
Hmmm! Are you branding those with the confidence to stand up to city hall?
"I live at Chatham Square and am compiling video to hand over to the Washington Post."
Hmm. Please keep us updated. I knew taxpayers were previously housing murderers there, but I didn't realize there were continuing problems at Chatham Square. You'd certainly not know it from the way the City crows about all the awards Chatham Square has won.
How many public housing units are in Chatham Square? Are there too many - is this what's contributing to the problems you are having? Or is it the public housing across the street as well?
It seems public housing is here to stay in Alexandria. Everyone (well, experts that is) seems to agree that concentrated public housing is bad public policy. But what does that mean? How many units constitutes concentrated? Can we convince the City with empirical data that the current number of units at Chatham Square is too high to achieve satisfactory results? If so, then certainly the number planned for the new Bland is too many, particularly in light of the existing concentration at Adkins, etc.
Please keep us updated, Chatham Sq. resident!
"How many public housing units are in Chatham Square? Are there too many - is this what's contributing to the problems you are having? Or is it the public housing across the street as well?"
I have to clarify...Chatham Square itself is a good community. We don't have a lot of problems. It's the public housing across the street in Hopkins-Tancil that is a nightmare. A lot of the thugs that hang out there will hang out here as well. There are a number of empty units on Royal St that have been empty for awhile because of what goes on there. I'm not sure what the exact number of market units to ARHA units is but I truly believe that the mix at Chatham Square is a good one. It would be great if they could build on HT what they built here.
I received an email of the City Council docket for June 10, 2008. One of the items is this:
27. Consideration of Principles for Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority
James Bland Replacement Units.
Can the ICCA forward the online petition to the Council members so that they know how this neighborhood feels when they are considering these "Principles for ARHA"?
On Chatham Square, I beleive there are 112 market rate townhomes and 152 ARHA apartments. (I will have to double check) It is still probably too much density from a non-revenue generating perspective, but in general the concept works. There are problem residents, and folks that are probably living in the housing without meeting ARHA requirements, but there is little we can do about that.
The thug problem referred to are these characters, many from Maryland and DC (if you are to believe their vehicle license plates) who hve been hanging in public housing areas for years, perhaps looking for sex, to buy or sell drugs. (in high school, thisw as the neighborhood kids came to for those sorts of things... which is very sad, because it exploits the hard working, honest folks) Many of the thugs, used to live here and no longer qualify because of criminal records, financial situations, etc. The Police refuse to disperse them under the loitering laws or cite them for noise violations, fearing repercussions, or possible civil law suits.
As to the video, anonymous, can you go to wwww.chathamsqaure.org and give us homeowners more details?
Chatham Square currently has 100 market rate homes and 52 ARHA units.
The Berg originally had 100 ARHA units and no market rate housing.
The Growler's math may be faulty, so feel free to correct, but it appears density at the site increased by 35% with redevelopment.
Post a Comment