My cranky celebration of life in Alexandria (Virginia)'s historic Parker-Gray District.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Work Group Update!
A revised agenda has just been sent out for tonight's ARHA Redevelopment Work Group, and it now includes "Emergency Executive Session to discuss acquisition of real property in relation to the replacement 16 units for James Bland."
Interesting ...
8 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Question for you Growler: Is the "executive session" open to the public?
"Executive sessions to discuss property acquisitions are always closed to the public."
Since they're excluding us from this meeting, everyone email Krupicka, Wagner, Euille, etc. and remind them how you feel about concentrated public housing!
The article "ARHA Sees Braddock Differently" (31 July 2008) contains two errors that, uncorrected, serve to shift blame for problems associated with public housing redevelopment away from local officials and to either the federal government or an undefined concept of "economic viability," as well as to mask a broader problem with the city’s approach to public housing.
The first is the statement from P&Z Director Faroll Hamer: "There must be two market rate units for every public housing unit in order to maintain the area’s economic viability." This is not true; the economic viability of the Parker-Gray neighborhood is not dependent on the ratio of public to market-rate units. In fact, its economic vitality has been depressed for generations by concentrated public housing.
The ratio Ms. Hamer proposes relates only to the viability of the specific redevelopment project. She is claiming that the estimated profits gained from the sale of two new market-rate units are needed to pay for a single redeveloped public housing unit. If 500 public housing units must be replaced, then 1,000 market-rate units must be built. Yet Ms. Hamer is ignoring other alternatives to the costly approach of building replacement housing units from the ground up.
The second is the reporter’s statement related to the 500 ARHA units in 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 is also incorrect; there is no HUD rule requiring one-for-one maintenance or replacement. A quick review of HUD policy and press releases shows that HUD is supporting and touting projects that reduce the density of public housing in urban areas. HUD is not supportive of programs, like Alexandria’s, that concentrate public housing.
The linkage between these two errors, and the real reason for the City’s continued efforts to maintain concentrated public housing in Parker-Gray, is the City’s anachronistic approach to a flawed legislative act, Resolution 830. This act, passed in 1982 and based almost completely on a 1972 resolution, requires that no public housing unit be demolished unless a replacement unit is available, and fixes the number of public housing units at 1,150. The City Council and ARHA continue, in the face of local opposition, evidence to the contrary, and a nation-wide shift away from concentrated brick-and-mortar public housing, to treat that resolution as requiring one-for-one replacement at the existing locations. If unchallenged, they will succeed in continuing a long tradition of maintaining concentrated poverty in a small section of the city, this time with the hope that market-rate units will mask the problem.
A solution to this problem is simple and at hand: end the reliance on a 1940’s-era view of housing assistance for low-income residents, and shift to housing vouchers. This will allow public housing residents to choose where they would like to live, and help to eliminate concentrated poverty in our city.
8 comments:
Question for you Growler: Is the "executive session" open to the public?
Executive sessions to discuss property acquisitions are always closed to the public.
Does this mean that finding sites for the 16 units wasn't all that hard?
"Executive sessions to discuss property acquisitions are always closed to the public."
Since they're excluding us from this meeting, everyone email Krupicka, Wagner, Euille, etc. and remind them how you feel about concentrated public housing!
Will there be discussion and oppprtunity for public comment before the e.s?
No, there is no public comment at these work sessions.
The E-mail addresses you asked for are:
alexvamayor@aol.com
erwagner@comcast.net
council@krupicka.com
FINALLY!
Someone has said something. This is the first letter on public housing I have seen since 2006.
http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=318227&paper=59&cat=110
Letter: Use Housing Vouchers
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
To the Editor,
The article "ARHA Sees Braddock Differently" (31 July 2008) contains two errors that, uncorrected, serve to shift blame for problems associated with public housing redevelopment away from local officials and to either the federal government or an undefined concept of "economic viability," as well as to mask a broader problem with the city’s approach to public housing.
The first is the statement from P&Z Director Faroll Hamer: "There must be two market rate units for every public housing unit in order to maintain the area’s economic viability." This is not true; the economic viability of the Parker-Gray neighborhood is not dependent on the ratio of public to market-rate units. In fact, its economic vitality has been depressed for generations by concentrated public housing.
The ratio Ms. Hamer proposes relates only to the viability of the specific redevelopment project. She is claiming that the estimated profits gained from the sale of two new market-rate units are needed to pay for a single redeveloped public housing unit. If 500 public housing units must be replaced, then 1,000 market-rate units must be built. Yet Ms. Hamer is ignoring other alternatives to the costly approach of building replacement housing units from the ground up.
The second is the reporter’s statement related to the 500 ARHA units in 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 is also incorrect; there is no HUD rule requiring one-for-one maintenance or replacement. A quick review of HUD policy and press releases shows that HUD is supporting and touting projects that reduce the density of public housing in urban areas. HUD is not supportive of programs, like Alexandria’s, that concentrate public housing.
The linkage between these two errors, and the real reason for the City’s continued efforts to maintain concentrated public housing in Parker-Gray, is the City’s anachronistic approach to a flawed legislative act, Resolution 830. This act, passed in 1982 and based almost completely on a 1972 resolution, requires that no public housing unit be demolished unless a replacement unit is available, and fixes the number of public housing units at 1,150. The City Council and ARHA continue, in the face of local opposition, evidence to the contrary, and a nation-wide shift away from concentrated brick-and-mortar public housing, to treat that resolution as requiring one-for-one replacement at the existing locations. If unchallenged, they will succeed in continuing a long tradition of maintaining concentrated poverty in a small section of the city, this time with the hope that market-rate units will mask the problem.
A solution to this problem is simple and at hand: end the reliance on a 1940’s-era view of housing assistance for low-income residents, and shift to housing vouchers. This will allow public housing residents to choose where they would like to live, and help to eliminate concentrated poverty in our city.
Todd Foust
Alexandria
"Does this mean that finding sites for the 16 units wasn't all that hard?"
Why would it be? Its easy to find owners willing to sell units, especially if the City is going to pay for it.
Go Todd!
Post a Comment