According to the Mayor, this was the longest public comment period he could ever remember.
The majority of the speakers expressed the need to further deconcentrate public housing, especially James Bland, Samuel Madden and Andrew Adkins.
Afterward, a number of the speakers who were gathered in the hallway outside the Council chamber were approached by Councilman Rob Krupicka, who had left the session in order to talk with us. Based on that conversation, this morning the Growler sent him the following E-mail:
Thank you for joining us in the hallway following the public comment session at last Saturday's Council meeting. Your continuing interest is always appreciated, but given the nature of the discussion I have two questions related to the public housing off-siting issue.
First, are you -- and in turn City Council -- prepared to make an alternative, legally-binding commitment to the community regarding the number of units that will be off-sited from each public housing project in the Braddock area?
The draft Braddock East plan as released on August 29 contains no numbers or timetable. Mr. Miller opposes any statement of numbers and consequently it is only a vague document that will be incorporated into Alexandria's Master Plan and hence become the City's guiding policy.
Second, did you not dismiss Potomac Yard as a location for off-sited units? If this is correct, can you advise me what other areas in the City are similarly "off limits"? A scattered site program likely requires multiple locations.
41 comments:
"According to the Mayor, this was the longest public comment period he could ever remember."
Hopefully our local media won't be a bunch of party hacks and will actually report the truth, both fairly and accurately.
Perhaps Pope could lead off with the headline; "Parker Gray to Euielle - We're Pissed"
"The majority of the speakers expressed the need to further deconcentrate public housing, especially James Bland, Samuel Madden and Andrew Adkins."
Why do we think Council will fall back on the funding issue to tell us little if any offsiting will occur. Never mind that RK is willing to float bonds to secure work force housing. Restricting developer contributions to the Housing Trust Fund may be an option but the sum likely falls short of the goal. The city will not invest because it has no faith in ARHA management is another of RK's issues but ARHA management is not our problem. It is the wimpy Council's problem. RK could solve the latter by appointing a new ARHA Chairman. Wanna bet he won't?
The math: The Monarch $1 mil
The Madison $1 mil
Payne Street $1 mil
Jaguar $6 mil
With or without errors $9 mil divided by $250,000 per offsited unit = 36 units over an unspecified time period.
Show me the money and the timeline!
"With or without errors $9 mil divided by $250,000 per offsited unit = 36 units over an unspecified time period.
Show me the money and the timeline!"
You keep accepting offsiting as a goal when the elephant in the room is Res. 830. The slavish devotion to it on the part of Council is going to create a fiscal nightmare.
That 9 million was intended for neighborhood improvements. Issuing bonds would just put younger residents further in the hock to clean up this mess.
FOCUS ON 830!
"That 9 million was intended for neighborhood improvements."
Wrong. These are contributions to the City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund that are required of all developers. It's money that's being sucked out of the neighborhood and put into buying affordable housing units or loaning money to nonprofits to buy affordable housing complexes and keeping them affordable. It's funded projects in Del Ray, Northeast, Old Town ... everywhere but here.
There are separate funds for streetscaping and open space acquisition established in the Braddock Metro small area plan, but it remains to be seen if they will ever be funded. Developers like the Madison and Payne Street have not been told in their SUPs exactly what they will have to contribute. That's different tha the affordable housing contribution which is determined by an already published formula and is explicitly stated in the SUP.
"Restricting developer contributions to the Housing Trust Fund may be an option but the sum likely falls short of the goal. "
Isnt this the money also used to loan ARHA money? Specifically, anytime ARHA needa a bailout it comes from there....
"FOCUS ON 830!"
Nah! I'd rather win the battle (offsiting) and let you lose the war (830).
Mr. Krupicka has responded and would like readers to know that "Potomac Yard is definitely the mix as a location for housing sites, as are many other areas of the city."
Thank God for Mr. Krupicka. He's the only one who's shown ANY responsiveness on this issue. What's wrong with the rest of them??
I really and truly think we can't accept anything less than the full additional 33 being offsited from Bland. We can't let them say that there are no funds and land in the City is scarce. If that's the truth, who's to say it's going to get better? Unless we push them NOW, we're screwed when it comes to Adkins and the rest of the projects here.
Bottom line: Either the City coughs up to offsite at least another 33 from Bland (and I don't give a flying %$# where they find the money), or ARHA should be forced to sell another property to fund the offsiting. To me, that lovely piece of property where their headquarters sits is perfect. And nobody to offsite. Just a few cheap offices to rent to replace what it's currently used for.
Or perhaps Tancil is a nice way to go. Would help those poor people at Chatham....
Mr. Krupicka has responded and would like readers to know that "Potomac Yard is definitely the mix as a location for housing sites, as are many other areas of the city."
Great. Now can they please name the real estate company they've hired to identify and purchase these properties. Sorry, but I simply don't believe the City has done anything REAL to find property to offsite the 16 plus the 33 units from Bland, not to mention the hundreds and hundreds of units they're going to have to offsite from Adkins, Maddden, Tancil, etc.
"Or perhaps Tancil is a nice way to go. Would help those poor people at Chatham...."
Obviously you live in Chatham Square. Like someone else said bring Old Town Civic to the table and let them plead your case. Since management is your primary concern then I agree we should sell ARHA headquarters and put staff in the vacant units at Tancil. We'll call it onsite oversight.
"Thank God for Mr. Krupicka. He's the only one who's shown ANY responsiveness on this issue. "
Huh, what Krupicka are you talking about? So he responds to an email...he was like a deaf mute at all the other Council sessions when Resolution 830 came up.
I want to see him speak out in public for once...he gets on Miller's nerves but then backs off.
"Mr. Krupicka has responded and would like readers to know that "Potomac Yard is definitely the mix as a location for housing sites, as are many other areas of the city."
"
Wagner just wet his pants....
Growler,
One thing that has perplexed me in this entire debate, as a newcomer to the neighborhood, is why the City didnt start planning for funding mechanisms sooner.
Why didnt the City or ARHA apply for HOPE VI funds back in the 1990's for Bland, for Tancil, for Ramsey, at least to prepare for this eventuality. It seems there is "no way out" for anything beyond Bland, because the density requirements create a situation where you literally have to build huge buildings or buy tons of land throughout the City to support the current status quo.
It just doesnt seem like from what I have heard that the City has planned for the eventual end of bricks and mortar public housing as we know it...it shows in their clear lack of preparation.
Would the OTCA support the density required to redevelop Tancil?
"Why didnt the City or ARHA apply for HOPE VI funds back in the 1990's for Bland, for Tancil, for Ramsey"
The more immediate question is why didn't ARHA apply for the second round of HOPE VI grant money that became available this summer from HUD. We BEAG members were told in the spring that they would do so again for the Bland project, but the Growler had to wrestle the confession out of Roy Priest at a meeting a few months later that ARHA had failed to apply.
Right now, we're being given the usual yada-yada by the politicians that the real estate market is down, that the City doesn't have the money.
Why, if an MOU is in place to ensure better management of ARHA, did the City not mandate that ARHA needed to go after the second round of money. The cost of reapplying isn't that great, it's the cost of creating the initial application -- and ARHA had already sunk money into the application last fall when it applied in the November 2007 grant round.
It's known that it can take time and a couple of attempts to get HOPE VI grants. And not all the projects funded in the earlier round went to Katrina-ravaged areas. Where's the vaunted influence of Congressman Jim Moran? P&Z tells us he can be called on to help negotiate the acquisition of the Wythe Street Post Office parcel as a park. Didn't anyone thing to talk to him about an earmark for ARHA or some influence on the grant application?
The term "shooting themselves itself in the foot" is being applied more and more to City
leaders, and here's another example: HOPE VI money would also have paid for counseling and other social services needed for residents during the relocation and transition.
Instead, although EYA is paying relocation costs the City is going to have to pick up some of the social services slack on its own. So ARHA's failure to pursue funding sources comes back to bite us all as taxpayers.
Here's the way I feel about Krupicka. (And, to some extent, Wilson). Both have consistently responded to emails and calls from my neighbors and me and have offered to meet to discuss neighborhood issues, including the Bland/ARHA issues. Nobody else on council did that, and certainly the mayor didn't.
So, I appreciate that. I also appreciate that both appear to be open-minded creative thinkers, a quality which is SORELY LACKING on the current council.
However, unless they vote to fund and offsite those additional 33 Bland units, I'm not going to support them any longer. And, I'm not alone. There is a huge amount of anger in the City, probably more so that ever. Over the Braddock plan, over the ARHA mess and Bland, over the ethanol debacle, and over a hundred little things like the nitpicking over table colors and heights along King Street.
In the next election, if there are enough candidates, I'll vote against EVERY member of Council who did not make the offsiting of those 33 units possible. If not, I'll give Krupicka and Wilson a pass. Or maybe I'll write in Growler....
"In the next election, if there are enough candidates, I'll vote against EVERY member of Council who did not make the offsiting of those 33 units possible."
It is important to do so during the Democratic Primary. Like it or not, the candidates coming out of this primary are going to win in the general election. At most you might get one Republican.
As I recall there are about twice as many candidates as needed during the Primary. So there is opportunity to winnow out the current crop of councilors.
Anyone registered voter can vote in the Primary. You have to sign a form stating that you will support the winners of that Primary.
"Right now, we're being given the usual yada-yada by the politicians that the real estate market is down, that the City doesn't have the money."
They can yada yada all they want. I'm no longer in the mood to hear excuses. Frankly, I don't care how they offsite the additional 33 units from Bland. If they don't have the money now, then
(1) Issue a bond and borrow it. We can pay it back with future contributions made by developers to the affordable trust fund.
(2) Make ARHA sell off another piece of their property. I'm quite sure EYA would love to get their hands on Tancil, Madden, ARHA's HQ site, etc.
(3) Amend Resolution 830 to allow offsiting of the additional 33 units using available Sec 8 vouchers.
(4) Abolish 830. This would be FREE.
(5) Buy existing properties for sale in the City to use for offsiting.
Bottom line: My neighbors and I will NOT support this Bland project UNLESS another 33 units are offsited. And get used to it. We will demand AT LEAST 50 percent offsiting from future redevelopments. So start planning and quit making excuses.
I am going to play devil's advocate here. If Resolution 830 were abolished, where exactly would all the non-working young men, and single mothers with folks of children live? Since they already live in an artificial world where they don't need to work, get hugely discounted rent ($100/month in some cases) and (with Obama) additional tax refunds even though they pay no taxes... what are you expecting them to do?
On Chatham Square, let me note that we, as homeowners are Alexandrians first! Ie, let's take into consideration the entire city, not just one area or another. Petty in-fighting between our neighborhoods is a waste of time, and won't help us all accomplish our similar goals, to make our city fun, safe, interesting, to have great public schools so we can all send our children there, and to have a fair housing policy that rewards hard-working folks with future opportunites. Look at what the city government has done so far, fixing up Delray, leaving King St in a shambles and forcing Old Town and Parker Grey residents to put up with ridiculous situations that should not be occurring at all.
Keep in mind that just pestering the council will only have so much effect. You need to act by voting. If everyone votes in the next election, and votes out the current mayor, vice mayor, and pro-ARHA council members, maybe we will see a change. (I would say just vote for republicans, but sadly I have a feeling some homeowners would rather live across the street from public housing than have conservatives running thier city)
Let's work together to make things happen and effect some change in the city!
Sooo... here's a question from a newbie Alexandrian. Are there any debates that happen before the elections? COULD there be? Where and when could we hear these politicians recieve questions like "Are you for or against Resolution 830?", as well as other pertinent questions so we can tell the sheep from the goats?
Could one of the civic associations hold one?
"Look at what the city government has done so far, fixing up Delray, leaving King St in a shambles and forcing Old Town..."
You're not kidding; just about every new exciting small business spotlight that the local papers run a feature on is not only in Del Ray but quite often relocated from King Street as well.
The latest example is Kingsbury Chocolates, which had a feature in the Gazette-Packet this week. What was painfully obvious was how the article was written seeking to obscure the fact that the now Del Ray-based business is the latest small business King Street refugee, as there is no mention of their time in Old Town and their history is described to make it appear that they came directly from DC to Del Ray.
That asinine Old Town BID scheme with its significant tax implications was the last straw for many of those businesses, and the exodus ever since has been steady. I hope it stays on the shelf, because its implementation will kill what small business opportunity is left there. And if Old Town takes a ecnomic downtuwn, it just might be Del Ray where the city aims its next destructive economic scheme that aims to increase revenue but instead drives business out of the city.
"Sooo... here's a question from a newbie Alexandrian. Are there any debates that happen before the elections? COULD there be? Where and when could we hear these politicians recieve questions like "Are you for or against Resolution 830?", as well as other pertinent questions so we can tell the sheep from the goats?"
They're all for it. At the last election, I reframed the question, asking "are you in favor of concentrated poverty" and they were NOT in favor of that and claimed they were in favor of scattering. But they were obviously lying. Or maybe they meant to say, I'm in favor of scattering, as long as it doesn't cost the city any money and as long as it doesn't cost me any political capital.
"Or maybe they meant to say, I'm in favor of scattering, as long as it doesn't cost the city any money and as long as it doesn't cost me any political capital."
I think you nailed it. They are not an especially courageous bunch.
"That asinine Old Town BID scheme with its significant tax implications was the last straw for many of those businesses, and the exodus ever since has been steady."
So if Boyd Walker runs for City Council as expected are you going to kick his can?
"Sooo... here's a question from a newbie Alexandrian. Are there any debates that happen before the elections? COULD there be? Where and when could we hear these politicians recieve questions like "Are you for or against Resolution 830?", as well as other pertinent questions so we can tell the sheep from the goats?"
Whats sad is that both Wilson and Cleveland expressed some reservations about Alexandria public housing in their debate prior to their special election, but nothing came of it.
Its clearly time to have the debate. Why can't the ICCA sponsor it?
"But they were obviously lying. Or maybe they meant to say, I'm in favor of scattering, as long as it doesn't cost the city any money and as long as it doesn't cost me any political capital."
Exactly, the pandering to the mythical "community" is ridiculous. Much of that community no longer exists and they moved specifically because of the concentration of poverty, not because the "gentrifiers" came.
"I am going to play devil's advocate here. If Resolution 830 were abolished, where exactly would all the non-working young men, and single mothers with folks of children live? Since they already live in an artificial world where they don't need to work, get hugely discounted rent ($100/month in some cases) and (with Obama) additional tax refunds even though they pay no taxes... what are you expecting them to do?
"
This brings up another point; Dearman claimed in 2006 that "75% of our residents work" and now we see in the preliminary BEAG report that only 53% of ARHA residents work.
So whats the discrepancy? And would this not be a mteric to show how ineffectual ARHA's policies are?
"The more immediate question is why didn't ARHA apply for the second round of HOPE VI grant money that became available this summer from HUD. "
Because they would lose and lose royally. Lost in the hubbub about funding is that HOPE VI grants DO NOT REQUIRE 1-1 replacement housing. Thus, ARHA would be going up against PHA's who werent restricted to finding sites for every unit replaced.
"P&Z tells us he can be called on to help negotiate the acquisition of the Wythe Street Post Office parcel as a park."
They actually said that? Are they just starting to believe whatever they want to say now?
"here's another example: HOPE VI money would also have paid for counseling and other social services needed for residents during the relocation and transition.
"
I was talking with someone who works for the city's emergency services board recently, and you forgot to mention another factor in this though; the majority of the service support infrastructure for public housing residents is in this area. What do people think goes on at the Travelodge and Towne Motel? Does no one ask who stays there, given their location and the fact that they always seem to have cop cars around at night?
There is a reluctance on the part of City social services to deal with scattered site public housing, since "clients" would effectively be spread out all over the place.
Of course, Council wouldnt want you to know this. Thats because moving the service infrastructure to Cameron Station would make the current ethanol debate seem like a whisper....
"(1) Issue a bond and borrow it. We can pay it back with future contributions made by developers to the affordable trust fund."
That trust fund is meant to pay for units for City employees.
I am not sure City unions are going to like it constantly being raided to bailout ARHA and their schemes. It was never approved to deal with the contingency of Glebe Park or the offsiting of units.
Perhaps the PG community needs to remind City unions that they are in this too; if that fund keeps getting raided there won't be any money left ot buy these affordable housing units.
And if you add City unions to your side, then its lights out for Kellom and the Dem Party machine....thats where a lot of the 18% of people who actually vote in this town comes from....
"(2) Make ARHA sell off another piece of their property. I'm quite sure EYA would love to get their hands on Tancil, Madden, ARHA's HQ site, etc."
Maybe someone needs to remind the Council that ARHA was prepared to let go of Adkins and have that redeveloped but Farner and P&Z said no, we have to build our "hotel" and extend Payne.
Growler, the words "shooting yourself in the foot" couldnt be more apt....here we are in the age of 4 dollar gas, with a Mayor bleating for smart growth, and 2 of our 4 metro stations are criminally underdeveloped and untapped (not with density, but just with some vitality or life)
"That trust fund is meant to pay for units for City employees.
I am not sure City unions are going to like it constantly being raided to bailout ARHA and their schemes."
Hello Mr. Levy. When in hell was it written that the affordable housing trust fund is meant to pay only for units for city employees? I don't remember voting on a referendum item. Talk about cushy jobs. Some of the rest of us just struggle along with mainstream America.
"There is a reluctance on the part of City social services to deal with scattered site public housing, since "clients" would effectively be spread out all over the place."
Worked especially well for Quaker Hill.
"If everyone votes in the next election, and votes out the current mayor, vice mayor, and pro-ARHA council members, maybe we will see a change."
Parker Gray can not stop the voting system of all the NIMBYiz throughout the city. 65% of public housing is in our area and we only account for a small voting percentage compared to the whole city.
Feel free to respond with a suggestion.....
SCSA
Without council members representing certain districts or areas of the city, change (or voting out undesirable council members) is almost impossible in this City "MACHINE".
Haven't we learned this yet????
Time flows like a river and history repeats itself.....
"They can yada yada all they want. I'm no longer in the mood to hear excuses. Frankly, I don't care how they offsite the additional 33 units from Bland. If they don't have the money now, then
(1) Issue a bond and borrow it. We can pay it back with future contributions made by developers to the affordable trust fund.
(2) Make ARHA sell off another piece of their property. I'm quite sure EYA would love to get their hands on Tancil, Madden, ARHA's HQ site, etc.
(3) Amend Resolution 830 to allow offsiting of the additional 33 units using available Sec 8 vouchers.
(4) Abolish 830. This would be FREE.
(5) Buy existing properties for sale in the City to use for offsiting.
Bottom line: My neighbors and I will NOT support this Bland project UNLESS another 33 units are offsited. And get used to it. We will demand AT LEAST 50 percent offsiting from future redevelopments. So start planning and quit making excuses."
I like all of your suggestions, especially #4.
"Or maybe they meant to say, I'm in favor of scattering, as long as it doesn't cost the city any money and as long as it doesn't cost me any political capital."
Does anyone else see what my eyes see? Forget political names.
Euille = Soon to be - State Rep. in Richmond
Krupicka (future or next Mayor) = Also, soon to be - State Rep. in Richmond
Gaines = No opinion, No comment
Wilson = future major politician (State Rep. without ever having to be our Mayor, then US Delegate / Senator) using Alexandria as a stepping stone like most of the others.
This is truly upsetting considering his age. He has the promise and the ability to make a difference in this city and then curtail and rocket his career the right way, on results or as an advocate of city reform. Where is the guy that shook my hand and asked for my vote a short time ago? Will he truly let himself be remembered and the City Council "Golden Child"?
Smegberg = No opinion, again no comment
Lovain = Who is he again? And what are his ambitions?
Pepper = Long time city resident who I truly feel is not now, or ever, going to try to push herself past the city or use us as a stepping stone. If there was anyone on council who I would want to try to try and persuade to get behind us (as much as she aggressively gets behind the closing of Mirant Plant??) it would be her. 4600 Duke Street is not a place that your can really say "Not In My Backyard". It is a true diverse complex with its share of every type of income level, culture and concerns.
Tap the true committed resources that we already have (and give way to the broken promises of stepping stone politicians) to provide and bring change to our neighborhood.
Why are we talking / voting for young politicians whose motives (that we don't know, or maybe do know) whose long term plan are in question. Vote for the ones that are here to stay, that have some sought of commitment to being an Alexandrian.
Like the most of us on this site, I love this City, which is why I choose to live here. Yet I rise and settle to the epidemic issues north of the Cameron Street problems we refer to as ARHA. I don't live in Chattam, Braddock Lofts or Northwest. I'm an Inner City resident.
Without malice in my heart, or judgment in my blood, I ask Council this......
Fix this problem, please. You have the control, the power and the ability to make a difference in so many peoples lives. All for the better.
Resolution 830 is not an American Constitution or a Bill of Rights. It was a policy set up along time ago that is as outdated as much as a pentium 1 processor.
You don't even have to abolish it, just adding new and updated addendum's or anything that we can see as progress, would benefit all parties involved. If that means offsiting a few more, then so be it.
Secondly, please consider the next time ARHA has a board member election. Just because people have lived through history (which will always be respected, especially in past, harsh and difficult times) doesn't necessarily qualify them to lead the future of all.
Any and all comments may be addressed to me,
TAD.
Every one of the "open mike session" speakers referred to a do-nothing city council with no accountability, no desire to actually solve any problems, and no interest or ability to even stay informed.
Krupicka spoke up - attempting to discourage public discussion of the Bland/Adkins/BEAG mess by saying the proper City staff members weren't present to respond (even though P&Z Director and ARHA official were present).
Krupicka spoke up again - to deflect at least one speaker's dissatisfaction with the CITY'S non-existent follow-through by expressing sympathy for what the speaker and the "good" folks in public housing must endure from the "bad" folks in public housing. But no mention about City following through.
Krupicka responds that "Potomac Yard is definitely the mix as a location for housing sites, as are many other areas of the city."
Did he say this is part of a "legally-binding commitment to the community regarding the number of units that will be off-sited from each public housing project in the Braddock area??" Anything can be "considered" however briefly.
Deconcentrate. 50%. No excuses.
"Why are we talking / voting for young politicians whose motives (that we don't know, or maybe do know) whose long term plan are in question."
No long term plans for them if history associates them with the failures of Euille's City Council.
Just ask the $150 Million Man if anyone remembers that he gave away the Potomac Yard metroS.
"Deconcentrate. 50%. No excuses."
Amen!! This could be the simpliest, most effective petition language in the world.
"Every one of the "open mike session" speakers referred to a do-nothing city council with no accountability, no desire to actually solve any problems, and no interest or ability to even stay informed."
I am tired of listening to how Krupicka is the one most willing to listen.
Stand up to Miller Rob. We already know Euielle won't and we see nothing from Ring.
Its the younger generation of this City who are going to be stuck cleaning up this mess when the unsustainable ARHA business model rears its ugly head again.
I am sick of listening to how our public housing policy is a "success"...its a joke.
Post a Comment