Over the past year or two, several issues have emerged in our neighborhood that superficially appear to be unrelated.
As the Growler disclosed on Wednesday, while ARHA officials denied that there were Hispanics living in public housing in the Braddock Metro area, they were conducting public meetings for Jefferson Village residents in both English and Spanish as neighbors increasingly observed that more Latinos were moving in to ARHA properties.
Meanwhile, many residents of the Parker-Gray neighborhood were shocked and angered by the City's unexpected attack on "gentrification" prominently featured in the Braddock Road Metro Small Area plan passed earlier this year by the City Council.
Then there's the Braddock Metro small area plan's strange notions about preserving the run-down Queen Street business strip, which many neighbors avoid walking through and which regularly jars the sensibilities of anyone who stumbles upon it, thinking from our lovely surrounding homes that they are driving through Old Town.
The City's interest in preserving the neighborhood's history and a two-block business "corridor" is hardly convincing. Among other things, had it been committed to preserving this history its top officials would not have sat on the Parker-Gray historic district nomination for 16 years until the City was finally embarassed into action through public disclosure.
And if the City feels it is important to freeze neighborhoods in a time warp, when will it begin to fight to restore the biker bars and railroad workers' boozy dives that used to grace Mt. Vernon Avenue in Del Ray before it became trendy? The 5th of never, of course.
In the end, the Growler believes all of these loose ends are elements of the same thing. the Marion Barry-esque attack on gentrification and the attempt to freeze-flash our neighborhood's 1970s identity is cynically rooted in the politics of public housing.
The evidence suggests the City is orchestrating a campaign to preserve this neighborhood's former racial identity in order to justify the continuing presence of concentrated public housing. The logic is that if a significant number of units are off-sited, the "community" will be broken up. Hence the need to deny that the neighborhood demographics have changed, that population served by public housing is changing or that Queen and Fayette is dysfunctional. The fiction of the "community" and who or what qualifies as being part of that "community" must be maintained and even propped up.
Make no mistake, public housing was first built in our neighborhood starting in the 1940s to replace shockingly substandard and dilapidated structures that blighted the area. Most of these properties, although not all, were earmarked for the African-American community. For many years these projects were a critical component in the stock of local housing because under Jim Crow blacks were denied the opportunities to live in most other areas of the City. It's understandable how this sense of propriety about public housing was born.
But that's ancient history now. Forty years ago, with the Fair Housing Act and the civil rights movement, black Parker-Gray residents were finally free to move elsewhere and many (including ARHA Chairman Melvin Miller) did so. The City's own comprehensive housing plan has noted, with apparent approval, that both black and Hispanic Alexandrians are less segregated in a handful of neighborhoods than in years past. And the change in the population in Parker-Gray has not been due to forced evictions and bitter condo conversions but the quiet transfer of valuable single-family homes and profit on both sides of the transactions.
Readers need look no further than the two versions of the Braddock Road draft small area plan from 2006 and then 2007-08 to see that the public housing issue shaped and changed the plan.
The first draft, produced under then-P&Z Director Eileen Fogarty, did not address public housing redevelopment. It paid homage to Parker-Gray's past history but acknowledged the neighborhood had changed and was far less doctrinaire about preserving the old community.
The second draft was more radical and, in the opinion of some here, more racist than its successor. It was drafted as ARHA was in the throes of negotiations over the bailout and redevelopment of Glebe Park and James Bland, and as staff were preparing to launch a full-scale planning process for all Braddock Metro-area ARHA properties.
What is undoubtedly compelling to the politicians about this approach is that it absolves them from the need to (1) pay for off-siting units; and (2) accept units in their own backyards. It also provides an opportunity to strut their credentials for compassion.
At the same time, curiously, the presence of public housing is being used to justify the massive density planned for the Braddock Road Area.
The City can't entirely bury its head in the sand about segregation and the need to deconcentrate public housing, something which has been a pillar of housing policy in the last generation. It also knows that economic development in the Braddock Road Metro area has only moved by fits and starts for a quarter century. (Wasn't it curious that we had so many ex-P&Z planners turn out for the charrettes?)
But as noted before on this blog, the City's approach is now to pour more density in and around public housing in our area and claim that this "dilution" approach deconcentrates public housing and desegrates the neighborhood.
This, however, may be an example of the City shooting itself in the foot once again. In more than 20 years, economic development has never taken off at Braddock Road Metro in large part due to the persistent presence of public housing. Our officials are taking a huge risk that once the area is built out, potential homeowners and retailers will continue to shun the area because of the City's failure to tackle the deconcentration of poverty and disorder on some of the most valuable properties in Northern Virginia.
18 comments:
Growler - do you think it's too late for Bland? In other words, does this neighborhood have any hope of getting more public housing units moved out of the "new" Bland or is the process too far down the road?
I remember attending the very first meeting where the redevelopment of Bland was brought up. At that time, we were assured that nothing was set in stone and everything was still up in the air with respect to the number of units, the mix of public/market, the design, etc. Since then, we've only been presented with the number of public housing units as a done deal. This angers me and my neighbors and we don't intend to thank the City Council with our votes in the next election unless they exhibit some real effort to change this.
"Our officials are taking a huge risk that once the area is built out, potential homeowners and retailers will continue to shun the area because of the City's failure to tackle the deconcentration of poverty and disorder on some of the most valuable properties in Northern Virginia."
Oh thats a given. Many neighbors I talk to simply want some cranes and some construction trucks so that they can then sell their house (or try to sell it) to some unsuspecting newcomer that thinks the area is about to revitalize.
Most of us have learned the truth in this grueling 2 decades of planning - the city has no vision and the leadership of this city stands cowardly before ARHA because of race.
"It also knows that economic development in the Braddock Road Metro area has only moved by fits and starts for a quarter century. (Wasn't it curious that we had so many ex-P&Z planners turn out for the charrettes?)"
Which is what makes all these economic assumptions surrounding public housing redevelopment so strange...
NO ONE in this process has explained with any facts how they believe all that density will be occupied, which would be the prime justification in terms of cost as to whether or not the projects are even redeveloped.
259 units have be occupied at Bland. Hundreds more once Ramsey, Adkins, and Madden Uptown get touched.
And no one has a clue as to whether those units will sell to justify the cost
Thats why this process has always failed (for decades now). the City doesnt understand there is a difference between paper neighborhoods (like the one they write about in their "Plan") and real neighborhoods (the one people actually will have to live in once all this density and public housing dilution gets completed)
The housing situation is so simple, but people can't see it. ARHA needs to sell all its properties in Old Town to developers. The millions in profits, then get invested into mutual funds. The income from these funds can be used to pay for vouchers for the 1100 families who need housing, anywhere in the DC area, not just Old Town! Why is this a bad thing? The police would be happy, the city would earn tax revenue, home owners would be free of public housing, and needy families would be able to live in affordable neighborhoods at reasonable rates. Think about it...
The drawback... oh darn, you liberals would no longer be able to walk down the street to buy your drugs, you'd have to drive to DC again.
"The drawback... oh darn, you liberals would no longer be able to walk down the street to buy your drugs, you'd have to drive to DC again."
Whoa Whoa Whoa. The ideas that you stated before the above statement made good sense, but the quoted item serves no purpose beyond placing yourself along a political spectrum.
None of the liberals whom I know, including this one, participate in the activity you describe.
We are all trying to eliminate illegal and unwanted behaviour, broader policy and political beliefs have no bearing on this.
"you liberals would no longer be able to walk down the street to buy your drugs, you'd have to drive to DC again"
This comment is absolutely absurd.
"The drawback... oh darn, you liberals would no longer be able to walk down the street to buy your drugs, you'd have to drive to DC again."
This is exactly the type of comment that allows ARHA to inject race into the current public housing debate. They just claim that all the opposition to Resolution 830 is racist or Republican.
Not helpful at all.
"Growler - do you think it's too late for Bland? In other words, does this neighborhood have any hope of getting more public housing units moved out of the "new" Bland or is the process too far down the road?"
Frankly I think its too late for the entire neighborhood. You basically have a situation where an entire subculture has taken hold which is socially and economically devastating. Even if you could offsite these units, many people in the projects are used to the entitlement and counterculture of their lifestyles. Its going to take decades to correct those behaviors. Once the market rate units get occupied, I think we are only going to see a spike in problems as poor project residents adjust to re-acclimation into society.
"This comment is absolutely absurd" ... "Not helpful at all."
Agreed, but I do think the orginal comment indicates the author's level of frustration, which is shared by many in Parker Gray. Our elected officials, who supposedly represent us and our interests, seem to be making irrational decisions that are destructive to this neighborhood and by extension ourselves. We realize this very clearly and want solutions, but don't seem to be able to convince, influence or even make those in charge hear us. We write letters, send emails, blog, go to meetings, ask questions and in general speak out as much as possible, but are ignored or at best are called racists and bigots.
Some might even say we are the disenfranchised citizens of Alexandria, not those in public housing as so many claim. So frustration mounts and we end up fighting amongst ourselves.
My only constructive thoughts are to pursue solutions others have put forth in this blog. Start with doing what we can do to prevent Melvin Miller's reappointment by Council as ARHA Chairman. Vote next year (and make it known that you will be doing this) for council members based primarily, if not exclusively, on their stance regarding Resolution 830 and their support for Melvin Mille. Finally request that any public housing that we decide to retain should be solely for current residents of Alexandria. If there isn't enough demand within our city (and there isn't) then sell off this valuable land and use the money to repay the money ARHA owes the city and/or invest in mutual funds to pay for vouchers that ARHA can offer in lieu of public housing units.
One thing that I don't think has been mentioned (at least not frequently enough) is that of course ARHA doesn't want fewer brick and mortar housing units. It would be far easier and cheaper to issue vouchers than it is to build, maintain and police these units. So without brick and mortar units ARHA would need fewer people, spend less money, have a smaller budget and wield less power; and if there is one thing any quasi-governmental bureaucracy is good at, it is making itself needed and keeping the budget cycle going.
"Growler - do you think it's too late for Bland? In other words, does this neighborhood have any hope of getting more public housing units moved out of the 'new' Bland or is the process too far down the road?"
No, it's not too late. There will be upcoming Planning Commission and Council hearings on the Bland SUP in October. The Braddock East draft plan will be unveiled in September and will probably come to Commission and Council for approval in the same time frame.
Now is the time to start pressing City leaders (both appointed and elected) through E-mails, petitions and letters to the Editor regarding the Fair Share policy and the deconcentration of public housing.
"We write letters, send emails, blog, go to meetings, ask questions and in general speak out as much as possible, but are ignored or at best are called racists and bigots."
Could it be the Mayor who is racist? His housing agenda has blinded him to the point that he does not see the big picture. Braddock is going to fail unless something is done to bring the public housing debate into the mainstream of political thinking. In the end our money's on Miller. We think he's teaching Euille all he wants to know about HUD.
An example of how out of touch they truly are:
http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=317983&paper=59&cat=104
ARHA Board Sees Braddock East Differently
By Chuck Hagee, Gazette Packet
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The realities of the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority's mission to provide public housing for needy citizens ran headlong into the more esoteric desires of the Alexandria Department of Planning & Zoning Monday night prior to ARHA's regular monthly meeting.
At the suggestion of ARHA's acting Executive Director, Roy Priest, P&Z Director Faroll Hamer and members of her staff sought input from the ARHA Board of Commissioners on the development of the Braddock Road East Small Area Plan. To accomplish that end they set up a mini charrette to compare the Board's evaluation with that gained from an ongoing series of community wide meetings.
ARHA's input is critical to the plan because the area in question contains three of ARHA's public housing sites -- Samuel Madden Uptown, Ramsey Homes, and Andrew Adkins. There are a total of 500 ARHA units presently within the plan area. That number must be maintained or replaced one for one in order to comply with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules.
Presently, the ARHA sites of the Braddock Road Small Area Plan are being viewed much the same as Chatham Square -- a mix of ARHA and market rate units. However, as Hamer pointed out, "There must be two market rate units for every public housing unit in order to maintain the area's economic viability."
As the P&Z staff quickly learned, their approach to analyzing the future development of the Area Plan and that of the ARHA Board was quite different. "The community that we serve is more than what is represented by these three sites," said ARHA Board Chairman A. Melvin Miller.
When Vice Chairman Carlyle C. "Connie" Ring asked, "What flexibility is there in the zoning to maintain the number of units that the sites now support," he was told by Andrea Barlow, principle planner, P&Z Department, who lead the presentation, "We are not working with existing zoning. We are looking to create new zoning for this area."
As explained by the planning staff the amount of open space throughout the plan area can be increased or decreased depending on the configuration of the various mixed-use structures. The higher the building the more surface area is available for open space uses.
"It has been my experience that high rise buildings don't operate well within our mission to provide public housing," Ring said.
Hamer noted that "high rise" did not have to mean buildings over three stories. "These are the options we want you to consider. We want to know how you look at this plan. Then we will compare that to what has come out of the other planning sessions with the community," she said.
At the conclusion of the one-hour presentation there were no definable conclusions. However, Hamer promised Miller that the suggested plan would not be presented to the Alexandria Planning Commission "until we come back to this Board."
The outcome of this presentation will be documented and given to the Board along with a summary of the various community sessions. It was also decided that another session with the ARHA Board was needed. That session will be scheduled at a separate time from a regular ARHA Board meeting to avoid the time crunch that occur Monday night.
During the regular Board meeting Priest explained that ARHA needed to write off $225,917 in uncollectible accounts from vacated tenants that has accumulated from 2001 through 2006. ARHA is required to do this by HUD, he explained in presenting his Secretary/Treasurer's report.
However, as Miller noted "Writing these collectibles off does not mean we stop trying to collect the past rents. We can use a collection agency and once they are written off in an accounting sense anything we do collect is a plus."
As Priest pointed out in his report, satisfaction of accounts receivables can also used as leverage "when families want to return to ARHA" housing. In answer to a question from Commissioner Carter Flemming as to how the amount got so high, it was explained that the debts are not collectable until all legal processes have been exhausted. This can take months while the back rentals are accumulating, according to Marye Ish, director, Housing Operations, ARHA.
Priest told the Board that starting with the present fiscal year, Tenants Accounts Receivable will be part of the annual budget process and not allowed to accumulate over a series of budget years. "Under this process we will have an accurate accounting on an annual basis," he said.
Even the GAO thinks that the 1-for-1 replacement policy is out of sync with the times:
http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d07290high.pdf
Note the key highlight:
To enhance its efforts, GAO recommends that HUD modify its one-for-one replacement policy for Section 8 units and address property owners’ concerns about reimbursements for operating costs in high-cost areas. HUD provided comments on a draft of this report and generally agreed with the findings and has efforts underway to address the recommendations.
"At the conclusion of the one-hour presentation there were no definable conclusions."
I'm SHOCKED, simply shocked! The City is usually so good at getting things done and moving forward. Oh wait. Perhaps I'm thinking of Arlington...
"To enhance its efforts, GAO recommends that HUD modify its one-for-one replacement policy for Section 8 units and address property owners’ concerns about reimbursements for operating costs in high-cost areas. HUD provided comments on a draft of this report and generally agreed with the findings and has efforts underway to address the recommendations."
This stuff gets complicated quickly. The referenced GAO study concerns the contracts for rental housing, the units that can be rented using a housing voucher under the Section 8 Rental Voucher Program. There is a HUD policy to require renewal contracts for housing (with the owners) to maintain the current number of units.
It does not concern housing-authority-owned public housing projects. HUD does not require a fixed number of these units, and in fact has been pushing for a reduction of these types of units through demolition and transition to vouchers.
Euille has to go. He either cannot think his way to a smart solution or he is cowed by ARHA.
And everyone loses.
TRF, the reason I posted the study was this line from the Gazette:
"ARHA's input is critical to the plan because the area in question contains three of ARHA's public housing sites -- Samuel Madden Uptown, Ramsey Homes, and Andrew Adkins. There are a total of 500 ARHA units presently within the plan area. That number must be maintained or replaced one for one in order to comply with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules.
"
This misconception that ARHA promotes has to stop. The primary requirement for 1-1 replacement comes from Resolution 830 itself. Just recently, the DC Housing Authority used a scheme of vouchers and redeveloped units to fully fund 1-1 replacement at Southland Terrace.
"Euille has to go."
How?
Maybe he really does have the heart and mind of the rest of the city of alexandria? Or was he simply elected by people checking off the Democrat box on the ballot? (not that there is anything wrong with that, I am a Dem. at heart and usually in the voting booth)
For some reason I keep thinking of the Irish Parade and Mayor Euille waving at all the happy voters (and of course tourists and visitors). What if a group of those voters suddenly started booing and yelling "End Resolution 830" and maybe a few signs popped up, especially near the press box.
Speaking of the press, maybe some innocent bystander could snap a few shots of the "protest" and send them to some local papers. Even better an anonymous call to the Alexandria Times tipping them off to an interesting event.
Perhaps just a group of city residents turning their backs on the Mayor for Life ... I think some local newspapers might run with that.
But who wants to head this up? Honestly nobody, it's an ugly job that will probably brand you a fascist who hates minorities and make you the target of crime. If a protest location is published it is entirely possible that a "counter protest" could be organized. So we keep the time and place flexible, it's not (just) the Irish Day Parade at noon at King and Washington. This is counter-insurgency 101 ... since this is a public forum, when we start talking about events like the: Mayor's "walk through PG", "State of the City" or the "Christmas Parade" the month before it happens we keep it general and only spread the "idea" of a protest event. Then one-two days/hours before the event we agree on an area and time to stage our "protest". It will be hard for the other side to react ... and if they do, we walk away leaving them with nothing.
Forget asking him questions, just protest, it's easier and more dramatic and the press loves easy drama.
Post a Comment