The City Council is a lot like Old Mother Hubbard when it comes to the deconcentration of public housing: the cupboard is always bare, and there's not a penny to be found, not even in the cookie jar.We hear that argument frequently whenever our community starts talking about the desire to offsite more public housing units from the James Bland site. (There need to be another 33 units dispersed to achieve the same formula that was employed for deconcentration at Chatham Square — a formula that Growler learned from Old Town activists was suggested by former City Council member and former ARHA Commissioner Joyce Woodson.)
The City moans and groans that it is already burdened with the job of finding and paying for land for the 16 Bland units that can't be shoehorned into the Glebe Park redevelopment site in Arlandria. Forget about another 33 units coming off Bland.
But take a gander at this: the City recently funded an $8 million loan at 2% annual interest rate to Bonaventure Realty Group, the new owner of Olde Towne West, to rehabilitate and preserve affordable housing.
There were a couple of other items on the docket for the Council's last meeting of the fiscal year that should give Parker-Gray residents pause.
First, the City Council agreed to loan another $1.5 million from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to Alexandria Housing Development Corporation for the Potomac Yard fire station project, a mixed-use development which includes affordable and workforce housing units. The loan is needed to cover a gap in tax credit financing.
(Note: Readers who sift through the staff memo will note that the voluntary developer contributions from the Potomac Yard development are part of the financing package for the station. Apparently in Potomac Yard, developer contributions are plowed back into the community from which they were derived. Where is Parker-Gray development money going? Will we ever know what the City ultimately did with the $1 million contribution from the Monarch?)
Anyway, back to the bailouts. The Council also provided another $500,000 (augmenting an existing $1.5 million loan) to Wesley Housing Development Corporation for the Beverly Park Apartments project in Arlandria. This loan is also being made to cover up a tax credit gap.
In fact, the Bonaventure loan pushed the City's total bond commitment for affordable housing from $15.0 to $23.0 million, nearly $1 million higher than a 2005 Council authorization. In the same final session of the legislative year, the City Council in fact voted to amend its 1997 formula for calculating debt policy guidelines so that it can issue more debt and still maintain a triple A bond rating.
Where is our community in the receiving line for these funds? At the tag end?
It's time to press the City about making the 33 additional Bland units a priority.
Show US the money!
68 comments:
This is hilarious in light of the fact that the total amount of affordable housing units preserved by these "rehabs" is a joke.
Compare Arlington and their affordable housing policy and you will see they create hundreds of affordable units...literally 10% per development, and developers buy into it, since they know they can get projects approved without being asked to pull out 10 teeth and neighbors buy in because they get real stores and real benefits to offset the negatives of density.
Of course, Arlington also has no public housing authority. What a prescient decision they made.....
"
In fact, the Bonaventure loan pushed the City's total bond commitment for affordable housing from $15.0 to $23.0 million, nearly $1 million higher than a 2005 Council authorization. In the same final session of the legislative year, the City Council in fact voted to amend its 1997 formula for calculating debt policy guidelines so that it can issue more debt and still maintain a triple A bond rating."
Smart choice, Euielle...especially as we enter tougher economic times....real brilliant....
Where does the money for Adkins and Madden redevelopment come from then?
Yes, Council's excuse is there there is not enough money to offsite more units.
Well, hear this: we don't accept that excuse. Either find the money OR come up with a creative way to reduce the number of public housing units at Bland. Move to section 8, drain the Trust Fund, issue some bonds, buy some exising condos languishing on the market, or abolish Resolution 830. The last option is free.
In short, we don't want to hear excuses. Just make it happen. It's the right thing to do and you know it.
Whats next, are they planning to give the 12 Yo Gang a loan to "bail them out"?
Where the heck is my bailout? My housing value is depressed by overconcentrated public housing.
A reminder to readers to click on the link on the right hand side of this blog screen and send an E-mail to the Mayor and Council with your thoughts if you are dissatisfied with what you are hearing.
Democrats Say 'No' - Emphatically - to Housing Authority
by SCOTT McCAFFREY, Staff Writer
Sun Gazette
The Arlington County Democratic Committee will oppose the fall referendum to create a housing and redevelopment authority in the county, a decision that likely spells doom for the proposal.
The party's leadership voted unanimously Aug. 6 to put their opposition on the Democratic sample ballot, which instructs voters how the local party thinks they should vote.
The decision, which was not unexpected, came after a forum and brief question-and-answer session at the party's monthly meeting.
“I don't think this is something Arlington needs,” said Rob Krupicka, a member of the City Council in Alexandria, which has a redevelopment and housing authority.
The difference, Krupicka said, is that Alexandria's authority began years ago, when land for development could be acquired cheaply. That would not be the case in Arlington, he said.
“It's going to drain resources, not add to them,” Krupicka said of the proposal to create a housing authority. “Why add complexity and bureaucracy?”
Under state law, housing authorities can issue tax-exempt bonds to finance housing projects themselves, which would mark a fundamental shift in Arlington's housing policies.
The government has long worked with non-profit partners and developers to address housing issues, rather than operate a housing agency.
That approach has served county residents well, said John Morland, general counsel of the National Housing Trust and a local housing advocate.
Like Krupicka, Morland said creating a housing agency now wouldn't improve upon the current situation.
“It would divert both financial resources and energy,” he said. “Housing authorities have not been the leaders over the past 20 years.”
The lack of a voice in support of the housing authority among the three-member panel led to some discontent among rank-and-flle Democrats at the meeting. Arlington County Democratic Committee Chairman Peter Rousselot said one of the panelists, Kathleen McSweeney, originally had been in favor of the housing authority concept, but had changed her mind by the time the forum was held.
Rousselot said the Democratic Committee didn't ask members of the Green Party, which supports the referendum, to speak on its behalf.
The issue of a housing authority could well provide fireworks in the fall County Board race, as Green Party candidate John Reeder has been a vocal backer of the referendum. County Board Vice Chairman Barbara Favola, a Democrat who is seeking re-election, has been a vocal opponent of the measure.
Creation of a redevelopment authority is one of the very few issues on which Arlington voters have the ability, under state law, to call for a referendum.
Members of the county's Green Party garnered enough signatures last year to get the measure on the ballot, but missed the cut-off date for the 2007 election by just a few days. The proposal automatically rolled forward to the 2008 general election.
Arlington voters in 1982 turned down a similar referendum by a large margin, even though the measure then had the support of the county's Democratic establishment. The proposal lost by a vote of 28,625 to 19,823 in what former Planning Commission member Maury Flagg called “a very nasty campaign.”
County voters in 1958 rejected a similar proposal, although the county government does not have the vote totals. County Board members in the early 1960s again considered the idea, but never sent it back to the voters.
The Code of Virginia required supporters of the referendum to gather the valid signatures of just 100 registered county voters, a figure so small it surprised political leaders and election officials when backers turned in the requisite paperwork last year.
By comparison, the Code of Virginia requires valid signatures equal to 15 percent of those who voted in the preceding presidential election in a locality, in order to place a referendum regarding changes to how School Board members are elected.
That equated to more than 12,000 valid petition signatures needed to get a referendum question about an elected School Board on the ballot in Arlington in 1993.
http://www.sungazette.net/articles/2008/08/08/arlington/news/nw983.prt
"“I don't think this is something Arlington needs,” said Rob Krupicka, a member of the City Council in Alexandria, which has a redevelopment and housing authority."
Gee, I wonder why Rob would say that....
"“I don't think this is something Arlington needs,” said Rob Krupicka, a member of the City Council in Alexandria, which has a redevelopment and housing authority."
Gee, I wonder why Rob would say that....
"The difference, Krupicka said, is that Alexandria's authority began years ago, when land for development could be acquired cheaply. That would not be the case in Arlington, he said.
"
What he meant to say was "I am so sick and tired of dealing with these hardheaded imbeciles who care more about their own power than about housing needs"
"In the same final session of the legislative year, the City Council in fact voted to amend its 1997 formula for calculating debt policy guidelines so that it can issue more debt and still maintain a triple A bond rating."
Dear Jerry McGuire:
I'll show you the money. The city can easily borrow to off site public housing units assuming the politicians are willing. But with Council members wanting to preserve the affordable housing trust fund for affordable housing only and Hamer's fraudulent tales (she repeatedly claims that we have not told her off siting is a Plan goal) we can only conclude a political fumble unless we force them to note a flag on the play. I'd rather we go into debt to off site public housing than pay for others who can by market formula afford the housing here anyway.
"That approach has served county residents well, said John Morland, general counsel of the National Housing Trust and a local housing advocate.
Like we in Alexandria dont know it. Why cant the City adopt the Arlington approach? It works wonders and they have similar demographics...
Like Krupicka, Morland said creating a housing agency now wouldn't improve upon the current situation.
“It would divert both financial resources and energy,” he said. “Housing authorities have not been the leaders over the past 20 years.”
Example 1: ARHA....
"The issue of a housing authority could well provide fireworks in the fall County Board race, as Green Party candidate John Reeder has been a vocal backer of the referendum."
Maybe the ICCA could sponsor an Adkins/Bland tour for Mr. Reeder so he could understand what he is signing up for.
I am also sure Mr. Reeder will demand that Arlington immediately place 10 units of public housing near his house.
"But with Council members wanting to preserve the affordable housing trust fund for affordable housing only "
It didnt stop them from raiding the fund to loan ARHA money for Glebe Park.
Face it, they dont want to offsite because to offsite units brings the party to their neighborhood...they are just too afraid to admit that they are fearful of Resolution 830 units in Delray, Cameron Station ,Beverly Hills, Rosemont, etc....
If you brought 50 million down to City Hall today and said you would pay for offsiting public housing, they would come up with about 830 excuses as to why they cant do that...and probably end with "we have to do the right thing for the City"
"Where is our community in the receiving line for these funds? At the tag end?"
To be fair, Council will argue that they spent a fortune to upgrade the Charles Houston Rec Center and the Monroe St Bridge...
"The City moans and groans that it is already burdened with the job of finding and paying for land for the 16 Bland units that can't be shoehorned into the Glebe Park redevelopment site in Arlandria. Forget about another 33 units coming off Bland."
Yep, Wagner needs to save money so he can bring another 8 dog parks to Delray.....
Fair? Charles Houston isn't going to be any different than before--and its intended receipients are pub lic housing residents, not the community at large. Very little was done to figure out what homeowners wanted out of the project and many of our suggestions were rebuked as too costly and in need of too much space that would otherwise be used for the subsidized childcare, boxing and elderly programming--including an indoor pool that could be used year round, a soft play room and a tot lot so that younger children don't have to hear the f-bomb when they are trying to play on equipment overrun by fowl-mouthed teenagers. Don't try to re-write history that "community" center was redone for Bland residents not greater Parker Gray. I can't be bought that easy.
"To be fair, Council will argue that they spent a fortune to upgrade the Charles Houston Rec Center and the Monroe St Bridge...:
Like I am impressed. I still can't get from the Bridge to Mount Vernon Avenue. The Rec Center looks like a mini palace for god knows who. Wonder who slept with Council members to earn that architectural tropy. The good news is that once the Rec center opens there will be little reason to keep the Boy and Girls Club here. It can go the West End where such private sector amenities are truly needed. Overconcentration
"Charles Houston isn't going to be any different than before"
The anger and cynicism of some who post here never ceases to amaze me. Have you seen that new building? It is about twice the size of the old one and looks great. If anyone thinks this facility is going to be the same as the old one they just aren't dealing with reality.
Have you bothered to research what is IN the building? Its not cynicism, it's knowledge. The menu of options is virtually the same. Instead of throwing daggers perhaps you can look past the green roof to the redundancy INSIDE the building.
"Have you bothered to research what is IN the building?"
Did the old building have a public weight & fitness room like the new one? No.
Did the old building have a dance & aerobics studio like the new one? No.
Did the old building have a computer lab like the new one? No.
Did the old building have a pool that worked like the new one? No.
Did the old building have a four separate public meeting rooms like the new one? No.
Of course I know what is in the building and I have done my research. I went to all the meetings and I can't wait for this new facility to be finished. Again, equating this new facility with the old is just plain wrong.
The fact that the City has invested some money in the neighborhood by building the rec center does not mean they shouldn't cough up more to offsite the additional units.
And if they don't have the money, no biggie. Offsite the units for free using available Sec. 8 vouchers. Perhaps the council members don't get that for this neighborhood, THIS IS A REALLY BIG DEAL for us. People are really really pissed.
"And if they don't have the money, no biggie. Offsite the units for free using available Sec. 8 vouchers. Perhaps the council members don't get that for this neighborhood, THIS IS A REALLY BIG DEAL for us. People are really really pissed."
And what Hamer keeps saying is that it is not a big deal and that no one has mentioned to her that they want offsiting at Bland.
"Of course I know what is in the building and I have done my research. I went to all the meetings and I can't wait for this new facility to be finished. Again, equating this new facility with the old is just plain wrong."
I think what peoplke are mad about is not the inside amenities; its whether the center will again be overrun by children more concerned with ruining everyone elses life that with using those amenities....
The old center was notorious for police visits, unruly children, and a surrounding neighborhood that was unfriednly and uninviting.
"Face it, they dont want to offsite because to offsite units brings the party to their neighborhood...they are just too afraid to admit that they are fearful of Resolution 830 units in Delray, Cameron Station ,Beverly Hills, Rosemont, etc...."
Bingo...I dont understand the money angle, Growler. They dont want to offsite because they dont want any units in their neighborhood. The outcry from residents in Delray and Rosemont would be extraordinary.
"And what Hamer keeps saying is that it is not a big deal and that no one has mentioned to her that they want offsiting at Bland."
Agreed, this is what she said in her recent memo to the Bland Working Group. One way to push back would be to pester her (and City Council) with messages stating that she is off the mark - we do want a reduction in Public Housing units in the Inner City.
Another is to continue speaking up at the public meetings related to this project. I have been pushing a shift to vouchers as a solution to this problem, hoping that they will latch onto it as something concrete.
For the record:
The Growler serves on the Braddock East Advisory Group and has repeatedly stated publicly that our neighborhood wishes to see further off-siting from the Bland public housing project. Ms. Hamer was present for those meetings.
Those meetings are recorded and are available on P&Z's Braddock East site.
What some commenters are alluding to is an August 19 memo from Ms. Hamer to the members of the ARHA Redevelopment Work Group in which she outlines the community's issues with the project.
Further off-siting is not included in the list.
You can read the memo here:
http://tinyurl.com/5lmke4
Growler - The Council members claim that the City's budget is limited and that finding enough money in either the capital fund or the Trust Fund to offsite additional Bland units is not realistic.
Assuming for the sake of argument that's true, what are their options?
Can't the City issue bonds to pay for this additional offsiting?
More importantly, why do we have to use the buy-more-land-and-build-your-own scheme? Isn't that antiquated thinking? Why won't they offsite using vouchers? I thought there are plenty of vouchers available.
Certainly, in such an educated and talented neighborhood, we can come up with realistic alternatives?
In fact there are lots of options, and here's one to consider:
The City has loaned ARHA $5.6 million for the Glebe Park project. ARHA Vice Chair Connie Ring suggested at the ARHA Redevelopment Work Group meeting on August 7 that perhaps the City could turn that loan in whole or in part into a grant.
But this would ONLY be acceptable to this community if the loan monies were used to off-site the additional 33 units from Bland. Any gifts to ARHA for any other purpose would not fly.
In fact there are lots of options, and here's one to consider:
The City has loaned ARHA $5.6 million for the Glebe Park project. ARHA Vice Chair Connie Ring suggested at the ARHA Redevelopment Work Group meeting on August 7 that perhaps the City could turn that loan in whole or in part into a grant.
But this would ONLY be acceptable to this community if the loan monies were used to off-site the additional 33 units from Bland. Any gifts to ARHA for any other purpose would not fly.
"Perhaps the council members don't get that for this neighborhood, THIS IS A REALLY BIG DEAL for us. People are really really pissed."
I agree, but don't get pissed, vote the bums out of office or at the very least make them sweat the next election
http://tinyurl.com/6aumoq
Send them a message "figure out how to offsite public housing or I won't be voting for you"
PG is a great area in a fun city; very walkable, lots of great restaurants, near the water, tons of history .. there is no reason public housing should change all this.
"PG is a great area in a fun city; very walkable, lots of great restaurants, near the water, tons of history .. there is no reason public housing should change all this."
I think we agree, but just to make sure I'm clear, I agree that PG is a great area. But I want to point out that, unfortunately, the large concentration of public housing does negatively impact the area.
For example, our neck of the woods is not always "walkable" - if you don't feel safe or comfortable, you don't walk. Personally, I'll either drive or take a cab to metro if I'm going out at night. I don't feel safe walking through parts of PG at night, particularly in the summer. I've been harassed and threatened before and it's not worth it. Also, my friends won't walk to my house from metro because they don't feel safe or comfortable. Part of that is perception, but part is reality.
Also, while Old Town has lots of great restaurants, PG does not. We've got a couple, but certainly not a lot. Esmeralda's? I believe that a big reason for this is the very large concentration of public housing. In fact, at one of the Braddock Road meetings, one of the developers said that the proximity of the Adkins housing project would make it difficult to find retail tenants. Of course, that person said "don't quote me on this."
"The Growler serves on the Braddock East Advisory Group and has repeatedly stated publicly that our neighborhood wishes to see further off-siting from the Bland public housing project. Ms. Hamer was present for those meetings.
"
So then why do you think she is lying in this memo?
"The City has loaned ARHA $5.6 million for the Glebe Park project. ARHA Vice Chair Connie Ring suggested at the ARHA Redevelopment Work Group meeting on August 7 that perhaps the City could turn that loan in whole or in part into a grant.
"
Again, bailouts and handouts. And what would making this a grant accomplish? Its still taxpayer money being used to support bad public policy.
It sounds like they are beginning to prep us for the inevitable "ARHA needs even more money since they didnt win the tax credits and cant get HOPE VI funding" debate....Thats another 7.5 million down the toilet to build units for people like Robert Boyd who are more interested in thugging than in society at large but who are going to be built new 450,000 homes.
"The anger and cynicism of some who post here never ceases to amaze me. "
It comes from years and decades of failures and of living in a neighborhood that is so abstract from the rest of Northern Virginia...I dont even live there but have walked through and marveled and how ridiculous it is to keep that area in its current form....its a tragedy and simply unreal and its a primary motivator in creating unnecessary stereotyping and resentment.
Do you realize how much of a joke the area north of Pendleton is? Most of us just shake our heads at the tragic waste of assets and land and how it doesnt jibe with the Mayors professed vision of smart growth to have an unwalkable area that it filled with trash, filled with loitering, and filled with f-bombs.
Whatever the result of this whole process, most people have been scarred to the point where they won;t ever want to live anywhere near a project again in their life. Rather than fostering diversity and compassion, this process is building resentment and unwillingness to be compassionate in the face of hypocrisy.
"So then why do you think she is lying in this memo?"
It's a good question - what gives Ms. Hamer?
My theory is that she didn't bother listing the offsiting concern (um, the biggest one!!!) because she'd been led to believe that it wasn't an option.
Honestly, SOMEBODY has already decided that the City would cough up for the 16 units only. Somehow, somebody has decided that 16 is the bare minimum they'd need to pay for in order to have their Glebe Park/Bland cake and eat it too.
I'm no big fan of Ms. Hamer, but the fault for this lies squarely with the Council. They are the ones holding the purse strings. They are the ones supporting Resolution 830. They are the ones who can offsite the additional units.
And, trust me, I'm not going to forget it come Tuesday, May 5th, 2009. And I'm not the only one. I really think the council is underestimating what a big deal this is.
"The anger and cynicism of some who post here never ceases to amaze me. Have you seen that new building?"
Cynacism? Of course! This neighborhood got the homeless shelter because Pepper did not want it in her west end neighborhood. Wanna bet she, Euille and Gaines are the biggest obstacles to the neighborhood's success? Just call my cynacism massive resistance of a different sort.
"Rather than fostering diversity and compassion, this process is building resentment and unwillingness to be compassionate in the face of hypocrisy."
Euille Hartmann and Hamer were just nailed. Well done, anonymous!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Park and Recreation Commission to Hold Public Hearing on Proposed Renovation of Patrick Henry Recreation Center
Um, well, the capital budget can't be THAT lean if they are going to renovate another rec center. Hey Council - How about you use this money to offsite???
Here's what I don't get.
Our Council drools over Arlington's commercial tax base. And the City's own Economic Sustainability Task Force tells them to encourage retail and other commercial development in order to rebalance the tax base. And further tells them to capture the full economic development potential of the City's metro stations.
Yet here we are, AGAIN reconcentrating public housing in one of the most potentially valuable areas of the City!! Are you kidding that you're going to offsite only 16 units from Bland? And you're talking about building a high rise-style Cabrini Green at Adkins?
Well, even though it's not done, the developers hear you. So now there is no realistic hope for successful stores, restaurants, hotels, or other things that contribute to the commercial tax base. Just a bunch of rental apartments.
And no hope of getting a hotel at Braddock Road - the most profitable type of business tax wise for the City - even though it is ONE STOP from the airport. Do any of the council members ride metro?? Do they see the HUGE number of tourist families getting off at Crystal City and Pentagon City to spend their money on hotels and meals? I've seen a few getting off at King Street, but never once at Braddock Road.
For crissakes. And they're bitching about spending a lously $10 million to offsite? What? Can you get much more shortsighted than that?
What is going on with them? I don't really have a dog in this fight, but the Council really seems to have dropped the ball on this one.
Guess they were too busy making sure the stools on King Street weren't to colorful or too tall.
"What is going on with them? I don't really have a dog in this fight, but the Council really seems to have dropped the ball on this one."
Reads like Anonymous does have a dog in the fight. Past Councils determined that this neighborhood would be a classless hell hole and for years it has been. Most of the black middle class abandoned the 'hood in the late sixties, made their money, only to come back (like Ms. Dixon's daughter) and tell the rest of us middle class types what class obligations we have inherited. If you have a BEAG such as the one Hamer constructed, a lousy one I might ad, who is there to reasonably complain?
"What some commenters are alluding to is an August 19 memo from Ms. Hamer to the members of the ARHA Redevelopment Work Group in which she outlines the community's issues with the project.
Further off-siting is not included in the list."
Since when does this neighborhood need an interpreter? If a petition was given to the Mayor at an ICCA Board meeting then let the ICCA Board write a follow up letter a copy posted here to all involved stakeholders stating the community's want to offsite a reasonable percentage of public housing units. The competing push for affordable housing comes from city employees maybe their unions and it's time we go toe to toe with these needy bureaucrats.
"The competing push for affordable housing comes from city employees maybe their unions and it's time we go toe to toe with these needy bureaucrats"
Whoa. I'd much rather have City employees living in the new Bland. They have a stake in the neighborhood, a job, etc. The environment we've provided for hte current residents (not to mention the school where we've segregated their children) is dismal and it shows in their behavior and the care they show for the surrounding neighborhood.
"Our Council drools over Arlington's commercial tax base. And the City's own Economic Sustainability Task Force tells them to encourage retail and other commercial development in order to rebalance the tax base. And further tells them to capture the full economic development potential of the City's metro stations.
"
I think thats been said to Councils for years....I knew they werent listening when I saw Arlington putting ads right at the Braddock Road Metro talking about how they are the place to go for business....and the AEDP's response? NOTHING.
"Do any of the council members ride metro??"
Krupicka and Wilson take nice pictures of themselves at the Metro.....thats probably as close as Council gets.
"Do they see the HUGE number of tourist families getting off at Crystal City and Pentagon City to spend their money on hotels and meals? I've seen a few getting off at King Street, but never once at Braddock Road."
Better yet, do they talk to them? If you asked the people going to the hotels on the north side what they think of what they are seeing, you usually get quite the answer.....
"Well, even though it's not done, the developers hear you. So now there is no realistic hope for successful stores, restaurants, hotels, or other things that contribute to the commercial tax base. Just a bunch of rental apartments."
And now rumors are growing that you might not even get that....
""Have you bothered to research what is IN the building?"
Did the old building have a public weight & fitness room like the new one? No.
Did the old building have a dance & aerobics studio like the new one? No.
Did the old building have a computer lab like the new one? No.
Did the old building have a pool that worked like the new one? No.
Did the old building have a four separate public meeting rooms like the new one? No.
"
Forget whats inside...Factor in whats outside....
Does the new building have a sound wall to protect kids from unruly teens screaming foul language?
Will the new building have more or less calls for service than the near daily calls that happened at the old building?
Does the new building have automatic trash pickup robots that will follow people around and force them to put their trash in a trash can?
Will the new building be safe enough that people won't fear for their lives every time they walk by it?
You are focused on whats in the building. thats meaniningless if the perception is that no one wants to walk to the building or feels safe being around it....
Thats whats lost in all these debates at the BEAG...people dont perceive a sense of safety north of Pendleton....yet they wont discuss it....
See the "One Bad Night" story in the Gazette Packet: http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=318622&paper=59&cat=104
Despite the "one strike" policy which does not require a criminal conviction, I'll bet Mr. Boyd's family is still living in ARHA housing at taxpayer expense, and that Mr. Boyd himself returned there after his dad bailed him out.
"They have a stake in the neighborhood, a job, etc."
Whoa back at ya. What exactly is your argument? Hopefully it more than the whiney ass of poor folks living nearby. Unlike you I don't believe all who live in public housing are unemployed. Some struggle with multiple jobs and everyday I see a LOL sweeping up debris. My guess is dislikes trash probably more than you do. And, yes I know that folks who buy affordable housing are better employed. I also know that off siting and affordable housing compete for the same city appropriations. You can have your affordable housing pals but only after I get some of the others off sited.
A caution from the Growler re the one-strike-you're-out rule in ARHA.
The Cranky One believes that it may require a felony conviction rather than simply an arrest. Remember that all suspects are considered innocent until proven guilty. The suspect in the recent case has admitted the crime but has not entered a guilty plea and the case hasn't even gone to grand jury yet.
A caution from the Growler re the one-strike-you're-out rule in ARHA.
The Cranky One believes that it may require a felony conviction rather than simply an arrest. Remember that all suspects are considered innocent until proven guilty. The suspect in the recent case has admitted the crime but has not entered a guilty plea and the case hasn't even gone to grand jury yet.
"The Cranky One believes that it may require a felony conviction rather than simply an arrest. Remember that all suspects are considered innocent until proven guilty."
Um, no. Convictions are not required for an eviction under the public housing one strike rule. Here's a link with a discussion. http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/rcq/public_housing_saffran.html. Yes all suspects in criminal matters are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court, but evictions are civil matters with a lower standard of proof. Admitting to involvement in a violent gun-related crime within blocks of the public housing abode meets that burden, in my view.
"The Cranky One believes that it may require a felony conviction rather than simply an arrest. "
What we also need to look at is pattern. Does Mr. Boyd have a string of misdemeanor convictions? ARHA certainly has the right to evict whoever they want if they have a pattern of crime.
The 1-strike rule is simply a requirement. ARHA can evict troublemakers if Officer Wilson, for exmaple, clearly brings problems to their attention.
Back to the offsiting issue.
The City Council, ARHA, and EYA should know that unless they offsite these additional units from Bland, they will not be able to stick to their ambitious time line.
There will be a protest, as well as appeals from the BZA and BAR, both to Council and to the Circuit Court. This alone will put the Glebe project in jeopardy.
Please hear us. Let's work together to make this project acceptable to everyone.
"There will be a protest, as well as appeals from the BZA and BAR, both to Council and to the Circuit Court. This alone will put the Glebe project in jeopardy."
Hear Hear!!
An appeal of any BZA up zoning decision re Bland will cause considerable delay and have a drastic impact on the City's time line. Like crushing it into little pieces. So will an appeal of the obvious concessions from BAR that will be required for the plan as proposed to move forward. Parts of Bland are in an area controlled by historic guidelines.
Way to build consensus with the affected community, Alexandria City Council. Now pay the piper.
"An appeal of any BZA up zoning decision re Bland will cause considerable delay and have a drastic impact on the City's time line. Like crushing it into little pieces. So will an appeal of the obvious concessions from BAR that will be required for the plan as proposed to move forward. Parts of Bland are in an area controlled by historic guidelines."
I love how you guys think they wont just walk all over the BAR.....They are simply going to use the ol' Miller two-step - either approve the project or hundrededs of poor African Americans will be without homes....
Everyone already knows that Bland is pretty much in the bag...I am more worried about Madison and Payne St then Bland....
"Everyone already knows that Bland is pretty much in the bag"
Ultimately, Bland will be developed. But will the Bland cash cow produce milk fast enough to fund Glebe if the numerous available appeal opportunities are pursued? Quite likely not.
Is a concentrated effort at de-railing the expedited Bland process what is necessary to get the City to put the cash it gets out of this neighborhood back into it? Maybe.
Way to curl up and take it.
"Is a concentrated effort at de-railing the expedited Bland process what is necessary to get the City to put the cash it gets out of this neighborhood back into it? Maybe. "
so describe that effort....how are you going to get the BAR to resist what the City and ARHA want? And if you appeal, how are you going to get a judge to agree with you?
I am NOT disagreeing and "taking" it...too many on this blog just call names at anyone with an alternate opinion...I am asking strategy...what is the concentrated effort and plan?
What I am getting at is perhaps if the City knows what that effort and plan is, and what kind of havoc it could cause them, they might be more willing to talk...
But just hoping the BAR will do something is a joke...they are more interested in stopping people from using the wrong shade of red....
"But just hoping the BAR will do something is a joke...they are more interested in stopping people from using the wrong shade of red...."
EYA has had to make that Bland project so big in order to accomodate all the public housing units (plus enough market rate units to make it financially viable), that the buildings are too tall, wide, and overscaled under the historic district guidelines.
And if you read the guidelines, anyone who lives in the historic district can appeal a decision they don't like. You don't have to be an adjoining property owner. So, in the event BAR approves the current plan, just file an appeal. First the appeal goes to the City Council (good luck there), then it goes to Circuit Court.
And if you don't win, big deal. You will have delayed the process for at least a year. Long enough to cause problems at Glebe.
The historic guidelines and the rules outlining the appeals process are on the City website.
"So, in the event BAR approves the current plan, just file an appeal."
Not to mention that even before BAR, in order to build the project, EYA and ARHA must obtain a rezoning of the entire property. A significant upzonining, in fact. So, you'll have another bite at the apple before the Board of Zoning Appeals, etc.
"An appeal of any BZA up zoning decision re Bland will cause considerable delay and have a drastic impact on the City's time line. Like crushing it into little pieces. So will an appeal of the obvious concessions from BAR that will be required for the plan as proposed to move forward. Parts of Bland are in an area controlled by historic guidelines."
"And if you don't win, big deal. You will have delayed the process for at least a year. Long enough to cause problems at Glebe."
Kudos to whoever thought of this. If we don't get what we want - about 30 more ARHA units off-sited and some adjustments on height - we can tie things up so that neither the City nor ARHA can get what they want - an approved plan that will allow them to move forward on Glebe Park in time the tax credits.
Sounds like a plan....
"An appeal of any BZA up zoning decision re Bland will cause considerable delay and have a drastic impact on the City's time line."
Anyone who is interested in joining this effort, contact the ICCA or NECA. We'll coordinate through them in order to gain maximum bargaining power with the City.
This is from the City's website regarding FAQ's on the Braddock East Advisory Group:
"A key factor in the schedule for planning redevelopment of James Bland is the state’s deadline for tax credits. To qualify for them, the James Bland development application must be approved by the City by November 2008. If this does not occur, the Glebe Park project will be jeopardized."
Well, I say, offsite the 33 units from Bland, or we're going to jeopardize it. We're sick of being ignored and we're sick of being walked on.
"Well, I say, offsite the 33 units from Bland, or we're going to jeopardize it. We're sick of being ignored and we're sick of being walked on."
Not to throw cold water on this idea....but what would stop the City from just loaning ARHA the 8 million bucks that they need in tax credits to make the James Bland redevelopment happen?
They have shown no shame in loaning ARHA whatever it wants up to this point...if lawsuits get filed to delay Bland, what would stop Miller from going to Council and groveling for cash?
"...if lawsuits get filed to delay Bland, what would stop Miller from going to Council and groveling for cash? "
If we successfully stop the James Bland development application approval by the City before November 2008, and Melvin Miller DOES go to the city, and all of this happens before May, there will be NO question as to which side they stand on. We're aware, but at that point, there will be a BLATANT example to point to for the campaigns.
The situation will make the council to think and to decide if they want to please the people who are giving them their jobs back or ARHA. Of course, there are plenty of people that Melvin Miller can deliver in his "voting blocks"...
"The situation will make the council to think and to decide if they want to please the people who are giving them their jobs back or ARHA."
Frankly I dont think they give a ^&%* what voters in PG think. The voting base is not large enough to sway their vote. As long as they bag Delray, thats all they care about.
But hey, go for it. I actually wouldnt mind the front page headlines of seeing Mayor bling squirm as he has to justify another 9 million in city debt....
Melvin's term is up-isn't it time that its up permanently? How about any email campaign to the council requesting that new blood, new life and new thinking be added to the ARHA board and he not be reappointed?
How much is the city sitting on, waiting for Gunston Hall in south old town? How many offsite units would that buy us? If we can't use the money somewhere else, why couldn't we put public housing there?
Post a Comment