As incomplete as they are, the ARHA files at Barrett Library do offer some interesting insights into the operations and woes of the public housing authority. We're going to explore some of them over the next few days.
The Growler posed a fundamental question at the most recent meeting of the Braddock East Advisory Group (BEAG): can ARHA afford to continue supporting public housing?
This query was met with a lot of rhetoric about Alexandria as a compassionate city, with the implication that the City could always be relied upon to support ARHA even as HUD funds continue to evaporate.
But in fact it appears that under financial pressure ARHA in recent years has already been forced to take steps of its own to change its housing mix so that it supports fewer public housing units for the neediest families and more Section 8 projects whose residents contribute a higher proportion of income toward rent.
For example, the minutes from 2006 and 2007 ARHA Board meetings reveal what some neighbors already suspect: that Jefferson Village (located at Princess and N. West Streets) was recently converted to Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program and the public housing residents offered accommodations elsewhere.
According to notes from the February 8 BEAG meeting, "there are 10 market-rate units and 50 Section 8 units that were converted from public housing units. The units were converted to Section 8 because those units produce higher yields for ARHA's budget."
The heavy cost of subsidizing pure public housing is one of the reasons ARHA had to seek City loans for Quaker Hill.
In 1990 and 1991, ARHA acquired 60 units of public housing (30 townhouses and 30 condominiums) as part of the redevelopment of the old Cameron Valley public housing site.
Yet by 1999 ARHA was forced to change the site fundamentals. According to the docket materials for the City Council hearing of December 16, 2006 "Prior to ARHA's issuance of Housing Choice Vouchers to Quaker Hill residents in 1999, the property's rental income came solely from low-income residents rents equal to 30% of their adjusted income, and therefore was not sufficient to cover its expenses. [Emphasis added.] Over time ARHA made operating deficit loans from its other housing programs totaling $6.9 million to cover Quaker Hill operating costs."
Hence the first loan from the City, which was later rolled into a second loan to help the housing authority purchase the project from its owners who had invested in the property for tax credit purposes and after their expiration were threatening to make it market rate.
In moments of financial stress, ARHA has been forced to consider similar conversions for other properties, although not all have come to pass.
The Hopkins-Tancil project in Old Town was built in 1942 as a public housing project, but since 1983 has been a "Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation" property with 111 units, in which tenants pay 30% of their adjusted income as rent.
In April 2006, according to the ARHA papers, the housing authority had considered changing the status of Hopkins-Tancil to market rate because of "recent financial penalties ARHA had been advised of under the Moderate Rehabilitation Contract." (Presumably these were HUD penalties for using Hopkins-Tancil surplus funds to subsidize the mold-ridden and increasingly uninhabitable Glebe Park project — a no-no in HUD's playbook.)
According to the minutes and supporting materials, ARHA officials intended to appeal the penalties, but considered giving families Section 8 tenant-based vouchers (meaning the vouchers travel with the person rather than stay with the site) and tell HUD that the authority would no longer participate in the Moderate Rehabilitation contract. This apparently didn't come to pass, but it was an idea on the table.
During the complex negotiations to refinance Glebe Park, ARHA sought a new financial firm to provide a letter of credit backing the bonds for the troubled project. Only Bank of America responded to the ARHA RFP, and then got cold feet because the project assessed under the estimated value. ARHA then applied for "Voluntary Conversions" for both Glebe Park and Jefferson Village to move tenants to vouchers. This voluntary conversion would raise the value of the Glebe Park site. But HUD wouldn't authorize the conversion (at least for Glebe Park), and Bank of America withdrew from the negotiations.
This reverse undoubtedly forced ARHA to seek a City bailout for the Glebe Park property in 2007, and the tandem redevelopment of Glebe Park and James Bland has forestalled the need — for now — to convert the Arlandria property.
With this history, does it appear that ARHA (and the City) can afford pure public housing in the future?
25 comments:
"With this history, does it appear that ARHA (and the City) can afford pure public housing in the future?"
May we ask the definition of pure public housing?
Public housing with the poorest tenants paying the least amount of rent.
No, of course pure public housing is not sustainable. Many of the tenants pay little, if any, rent and HUD no longer favors that model of housing so provides insufficient funds. Under these circumstances, how can it possibly be sustainable?
Which is why it's completely beyond me that the City INSISTS on slavish devotion of Resolution 830. If the goal is to provide housing to low income families, who cares whether it's via Sec 8 or some other scheme? Why must it be dedicated (and concentrated) bricks and mortar public housing?
Morever, if the City truly cared about housing people in the most humane and best possible environment, they would actively encourage scattered low income housing and not be proposing another 1970's Cabrini Green style public housing high rise to replace Adkins.
Wow - thanks for the info, Growler. I've often thought that the public housing mess here in the City has been caused, in part, by a lack of real information on this issue (coupled with our public officials failure to seek it from ARHA).
Our Council seems to have some utopian ideal that we are caring community and must house the needy. A fine idea, but we need to know the true costs of providing housing via Sec 8 vs. public housing, etc. Some of these utopian ideals are just not realistic financially, nor does Council seem to grasp the long term consequences: financial insolvency on the part of the housing agency on the one hand, plus increased crime and violence, failing public schools, and failing to break the cycle of poverty on the other.
"Public housing with the poorest tenants paying the least amount of rent."
I think there is an important distinction to make here. I think most people DO NOT oppose housing for low-income elderly or disabled tenants who might have little to no income. Its the able-bodied and those who continue to make poor choices who seem to be the main issue in the current state of Alexandria public housing. It is truly amazing (living less than 2 blocks from public housing) how a few individuals can completely destory an entire neighborhood and make it difficult for everyone else.
Furthermore, pure to me is bricks and mortar public housing, an idea long since headed for the trashheap of history. It simply is not workable in its current form in the City of Alexandria, and I do think at some point, the pressure is going to get worse as people begin to realize that the city has a ton of OIOU's it cannot pay without increased taxes or decreased spending.
Why demand the City fork over money to provide housing to a 30 year old able bodied male whern said male can receive a housing voucher and live wherever they want?
In honor of our previous blogger/troll who get stating they were interested in a "debate":
This would seem to be "sticking to the facts".
What say the debater about these facts? They seem pretty irrefutable.
"We're going to explore some of them over the next few days."
I get the feeling the apologists are going to go into overdrive trying to claim all this info is taken out of context or is untrue.
But that previous blogger did ask people to do their homework and read the facts. I havent taken a skim of the minutes yet but read through some newspaper articles on ARHA in the local papers dating back to 2005 and also attended a recent ARHA Board meeting.
The meeting and the articles dont inspire a ton of confidence.....
"supports fewer public housing units for the neediest families and more Section 8 projects whose residents contribute a higher proportion of income toward rent"
and what is truly sad about ARHA's outdated mindset (a fact that several people are publicly vocalizing) is that the Section 8 voucher program would solve many of their financial issues while at the same time relieving some of the pressure in their current projects and their gradual disintegration.
I asked one of the ARHA commissioners where the Bland residents will "go" once construction commences. It doesnt seem that ARHA wants you to know that they will get a voucher in many cases and will live wherever they like.
That to me sounds more compassionate than asking people to suffer economic and social destruction because your ideology prevents you from accepting HUD funding realities.
"Mr. Priest described the Section 8 porting process whereby non-residents of Alexandria may use their Section 8 vouchers to move into Alexandria Section 8 units and vice versa."
And this fact particularly disgusts me because what ARHA is thus asking us to do is fund the rebuilding of new Section 8 units for non-Alexandria residents.
So our taxes might potentially go to build a new unit for a resident of Lanham, Silver Spring, or Arlington?
"According to the minutes and supporting materials, ARHA officials intended to appeal the penalties, but considered giving families Section 8 tenant-based vouchers (meaning the vouchers travel with the person rather than stay with the site) and tell HUD that the authority would no longer participate in the Moderate Rehabilitation contract. This apparently didn't come to pass, but it was an idea on the table."
I have been wondering about Hopkins Tancil. Thats one of the oldest remaining complexes in the Alexandria public housing system. When in the world do they plan to repair/demolish those units?
It certainly seems that no City funding can help here as that would be quite a massive investments, especially when they want BRT, streetcars, metro stations, and police stations.
"Actually there have been attempts to organize and politicize public housing residents (think Lenny Harris, think the Council candidate forum last year organized by Bill Campbell) but in fact they've gotten little traction, quite possibly because public housing tenants are not as alarmed as the non-residents outsiders about redevelopment or being moved to better quarters elsewhere in the City. It's remarkable that nearly all of the people agitating about "breaking up the community" don't live in the "community."
"
Saw this in your previous post Growler, and you forgot to mention Flip Jones and the Berg saga. An education on what happened with ARC might be in order for the newcomers....
Althouhg opinions vary about the man (may he rest in peace), some say the man
I dont understand the matter of organizing the public housing residents, though. The people in Adkins in some cases have lived there for 10-15 years. They have never thought of organizing on their own to clean up trash, discipline unruly children, and control noise?
I know some do it, but they are for the most part the elderly residents, who should be the true clientele of the current public housing system.
"The Growler heard ARHA Chairman Melvin Miller state at a Council/ARHA work session that if the City had upzoned Glebe Park enough, the other 16 units could have squeezed onto that site -- meaning there would have been no scattered sites. Had Mr. Miller had his way, the only thing that the joint redevelopment would have achieved would have been to displace 60 units off Bland onto another ARHA site, Glebe Park.
"
Is there anything in the minutes that suggests Mr. Miller supports scattered site housing?
It seems ARHA's new playbook is that yes, they do support what the residents of Parker Gray want, its just that dang City, Planning Commission, and greedy developers who are ruining it for them.
Where in the minutes of any ARHA meeting has Mr. Miller ever publicly supported the concept of rebuilding mixed income communities with scattered site public housing or alternative housing models such as Section 8?
Flip Jones? You mean Thomas "Pete" Jones, the president of the Alexandria Resident Council who was part of the ARC lawsuit to stop redevelopment of the Berg?
Fill us in on the details. All the Growler has ever heard is that Mr. Jones was proud of the fact that each of his eight children had their own public housing unit.
"Althouhg opinions vary about the man (may he rest in peace), some say the man"
What I should have said was "some say the man single handedly delayed Chatham Square for 13 years".
Newcomers might not recognize that technically Chatham Square was supposed to be started in 1991 and completed 2 years later. ARHA and ARC and HUD and the City battled in court to see who had the right to own the property.
This could partially explain the Citys reluctance to announce any plans in terms of Resolution 830 or other possible alternative housing options. There are some outside the community who would do anything to keep the situation as it is now and might resist through lawsuits.
Here is the battle between Jones (ARC) and ARHA/HUD in summary. Its just a lawyers website (its the company that filed the lawsuit in 2002) but this wasnt decided until 2005 I think....Supposedly ARC represented tenants in the Berg that tried to resist the redevelopment into Chatham Square by arguing they could have bought the property.
Facts betray me and sorry about the name...so many players in this soup of Alexandria politics that I lose track...
http://www.lawyerscomm.org/2005website/publications/press/press112502.html
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
1401 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
For Immediate Release
Contact: Diane Gross
202-662-8600
November 25, 2002
HUD Sued for Denying Purchase of Public Housing Project for Redevelopment
Alexandria Resident Council Says HUD Violated Federal Law by Denying Public Housing Residents the Opportunity to Purchase Samuel Madden Public Housing Project
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, the Alexandria Resident Council, Inc. (“ARC”) filed a federal lawsuit against the Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), alleging that HUD refused to permit ARC an opportunity to purchase the Samuel Madden (Downtown) public housing project ("Samuel Madden") in violation of federal law. ARC is a community organization that officially represents the public housing residents in Alexandria, VA.
The lawsuit was filed in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., and the plaintiffs are represented by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a national civil rights legal organization working to eradicate discrimination in both public and private housing, and the law firm of Paul A. Fiscella, P.C. The lawsuit alleges that beginning in 1996, when the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority ("ARHA") resolved to demolish and redevelop Samuel Madden, ARC has sought to purchase Samuel Madden.
The complaint details how ARHA, and now HUD, have stood in the way of ARC's opportunity to purchase and have also prevented the resident's involvement in the redevelopment of their homes. ARHA wanted to sell Samuel Madden to a private buyer, however, federal law requires that before public housing projects are sold, residents must be given the first opportunity at purchase. Therefore, the lawsuit alleges, and other courts have found, that ARHA has improperly denied ARC's opportunity and right to purchase Samuel Madden. In 2002, ARC appealed ARHA's actions to HUD, who promptly denied ARC's appeal. As a result, the lawsuit alleges that HUD's denial of ARC's appeal violates federal law and represents a dramatic reversal of positions that HUD has taken both in Alexandria and across the county.
"The residents have been trying to purchase this property since 1996. First, it was ARHA, now it's the federal government trying to thwart our efforts. These attempts to deny the rights of public housing residents to buy their own homes are outrageous," said Thomas "Pete" Jones, the president of ARC. He added, "We do not want to delay the project, in fact we welcome the opportunity to work with the current ARHA commissioners and staff.. We just want justice and for HUD to stand up for public housing residents - both of which have not happened."
This lawsuit seeks to require HUD to mandate that ARC have the right to purchase Samuel Madden and to develop it in a manner that will serve all of the residents of Alexandria, including African-American, low-income residents of the City. "It is unforgivable that public housing residents are being denied this opportunity to take control over their housing," commented Barbara R. Arnwine, Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee. She added that, "it is particularly shocking that HUD arbitrarily refuses to follow its own guidelines in this regard."
When HUD denied ARC's request to mandate ARHA to comply with federal law, it claimed that the requirement to offer the residents that ability to buy the public housing project is a one-time requirement that was satisfied by ARHA's 1998 offer. "That the previous offer satisfies federal law is unconscionable given that ARHA and the City of Alexandria have dramatically improved the terms of sale of Samuel Madden for the private buyer," says local lawyer, Paul Fiscella, who has long represented ARC in this matter. “Federal law demands that ARC be given an opportunity to purchase on as favorable terms as any private developer. This lawsuit is about ARHA, and now HUD, failing to meet this requirement, "he added.
"What HUD and ARHA have done here is unprecedented and could possibly destroy residents' right to purchase their homes," stated Matthew Clash-Drexler, Lawyers' Committee Staff Attorney. "Housing authorities will simply choose to make offers that are unworkable for residents so that they can select a developer of their choice. We cannot stand by while HUD and ARHA blatantly disregard the rights of an African-American public housing organization, " he continued.
This whole mess highlights that Alexandrians want public housing units; they just dont want their taxes raised to pay for them.
It seems most of the outsiders of this community want the units; they just dont want to pay for them; they want the feds or the state to subsidize it all.....
The issue seems to not be so much the loan amounts or whether ARHA pays, its whether the loan should be given in the first place.
It seems to create a slippery slope to provide loans to a non-City entity for operational or capital improvement purposes, even if they prove able to pay them back (in whatever timeframe imaginable)
You forgot to mention that ARHA's repayment of the recent Glebe Park is not slated to repay the loan itself; its slated to buy replacement public housing units. Right in the memo of understanding
Exactly. Most of these outsider hypocrites want THEIR entitlement, THEIR handout, THEIR oversized piece of the pie, they just do not want anyone else to have it too because that would "unfairly" raise THEIR taxes. Same applies in reverse; they dont want public housing in their neighborhood, they dont want taxes raised to resite it, and they think that some density will just sprinkle tax fairy dust on all the problems.
We need to bring our troops home from Iraq and turn them loose on our domestic terrorists, ARHA's tenants.
"I think there is an important distinction to make here. I think most people DO NOT oppose housing for low-income elderly or disabled tenants who might have little to no income. Its the able-bodied and those who continue to make poor choices who seem to be the main issue in the current state of Alexandria public housing. It is truly amazing (living less than 2 blocks from public housing) how a few individuals can completely destory an entire neighborhood and make it difficult for everyone else."
This is a good point and probably illustrates the disconnect between many of us and the folks supporting ARHA. The supporters see an organization that provides housing for people such as the disabled and low- or no-income elderly. And they are correct. Those tenants are probably a significant, though non-majority, percentage of ARHA clients.
Many of us though see a significant, though also non-majority, percentage of ARHA clients who are able-bodied adults of working age who do not seem to be engaged in productive activities. In fact, they often seem to be engaged in unwanted and illegal activities. We see this day in and day out, night in and night out.
If ARHA were to position itself as a housing provider for the former group, and take action to specifically exclude the latter group, I strongly suspect that support throughout the inner city for ARHA would increase significantly. A good start would be to begin enforcing its rules relating to loitering and littering, as well as exercising with vigor its right and duty to remove problem tenants (i.e., those engaged in illegal activity).
I am a relatively new (only three years in Parker Gray) and was wondering if there were a place where I could find a map with a listing of all of the names of the public housing units? An even more informative one would be one with historical data and notes. I dont know where people are talking about most of the time.
"If ARHA were to position itself as a housing provider for the former group, and take action to specifically exclude the latter group, I strongly suspect that support throughout the inner city for ARHA would increase significantly."
I see your point, but this would not change things for me. As long as ARHA is in charge, I don't have any confidence that they would enforce any rules. They've been a failure thus far and there's no indication that they want to change.
Also, as this post is about sustainability, I have another worry. If I were a market-paying resident of Chatham Sq. I would be very worried. As I understand it, ARHA pays dues to the homeowners association on behalf of public housing residents who live there. This money is used for landscaping, upkeep of common areas, etc. But what happens when ARHA has sold off all their land and have no more resources? Isn't there a danger they'll stop paying dues? Can the homeowners association foreclose/seize the ARHA units in this case? Or does federal law prohibit it? I wonder if any residents of Chatham Sq. could comment on this?
"I wonder if any residents of Chatham Sq. could comment on this?"
I can. We are allowed, under our bylaws to take legal action against any "member" (of which ARHA is one) that does not pay dues in full. ARHA, so far, has paid their dues 100% and helped us with joint ventures (sprinkler installation, etc.).
In this case, "legal action" would be forclosure, siezure of property, etc. I'm guessing if Federal Law prohibited it, it wouldn't be written in our bylaws, but then again, I'm not a lawyer. Any property lawyers out there?
"I am a relatively new (only three years in Parker Gray) and was wondering if there were a place where I could find a map with a listing of all of the names of the public housing units? An even more informative one would be one with historical data and notes. I dont know where people are talking about most of the time."
Darlin', the Growler is here to help!
First, here is a link to a map showing the distribution of public housing units across the City by location and type.
http://tinyurl.com/6b7xgz
And here is a link to a spreadsheet with more detailed information, including date of construction.
http://tinyurl.com/59c7xp
To ARHA'S credit, they have agreed to help fund an initiative to have an off-duty police officer roam around Chatham Square and the Hopkins Tancil neighborhoods! This is a big step towards quieting down the streets and maybe reducing the drug traffic. Many Chatham Square residents are very excited about the prospect of getting a good night's sleep.
Post a Comment