------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/tOsolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: CPPH_Info-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ There are 6 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. Another view of Atlanta's Carver Homes From: Grant 2. Nail by Nail From: Grant 3. Finding housing for relocated public housing residents a struggle - Fort Worth From: Grant 4. Durham NC, Judge blocks one strike eviction From: Grant 5. More on Bonds -- Lessons from Arizona From: Grant 6. Wayne on Hope VI in congress From: Grant ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 1 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 07:15:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Grant Subject: Another view of Atlanta's Carver Homes --- Wayne Sherwood wrote: > > > > Bush to Visit Mixed-Income Housing > Sun Jun 16, 7:01 PM ET > By ERRIN HAINES, Associated Press Writer > > ATLANTA (AP) - When President Bush ( news - web sites) > praises the Villages > at Carver on Monday, one resident wants him to know that > she thinks the > neat lawns, fresh paint and secure buildings of the new > mixed-income > community hide an injustice. > > The Villages replaced a 990-unit housing complex called > Carver Homes as > part of a national push to repair troubled public-housing > tenements. > > For people who can afford the high rents, all it takes to > move in is an > application. For former Carver Homes tenants, the process > can be a lot more > challenging, and that, 47-year resident Louise Watley > said, isn't right. > > "The poor aren't making it back. They're only letting in > seniors or people > with decent jobs," Watley said. > > Carver Homes, built in 1950 and once home to as many as > 4,000 people, was > torn down two years ago by the Atlanta Housing Authority > to make way for > the $175 million Villages complex. > > The first new apartments opened last fall, putting > middle-class people - > some paying more than $1,000 a month in rent - next door > to residents > receiving subsidies. The housing authority lauds Carver > and eight similar > communities as examples of how public and private > partnership can > revitalize poor communities, and Bush is expected to > promote it as a model > for other cities. > > "We've revitalized an entire section of the city in a > very short period of > time," housing authority spokesman Rick White said. "That > has to be a > success in anybody's books." > > So far, 220 units have been built at the Villages, with > only half for > low-income residents, leaving hundreds of people on a > waiting list, > including many former Carver Homes residents. > > The authority can reject applicants for everything from > failing an > inspection to having a conviction. And the rules are > inflexible, critics > say, with entire families being banned because of a crime > by anyone who > once lived with them. > > Some new residents, like Rashon Mitchell, love the > Villages at Carver. The > recent graduate of Clark-Atlanta University said she > chose the complex > because it's safe, cheap and close to campus. > > "I tell students to come here all the time because a lot > of people don't > know it's over here," she said. > > But Watley, president of the former Carver Homes Tenants > Association, > misses old complex's sense of community. Residents who > couldn't get back in > are scattered around Atlanta in other public housing > tenements, private > apartments or homeless shelters. > > The old complex had suffered years of neglect, and drugs > and violence > became problems. Then more middle-class people began > moving back into the > city, and the site, a short walk from the state Capitol, > became attractive > to developers. > > In 1995, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban > Development ( news - web > sites) launched Home Ownership and Opportunity for People > Everywhere, which > provides grants for cities to tear down projects and > build new ones. > > Atlanta was among the cities leading the charge, and > White said no one has > been hurt by the renovations. > > "When you talk about displacement, people have to ask > themselves, displaced > from what? We don't believe most families view an > opportunity to move out > of a cycle of poverty that many of them have been stuck > in for decades as a > negative," he said. > > ___ > > On the Net: > > HUD program: http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/index.cfm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 07:27:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Grant Subject: Nail by Nail Interesting article. Also note this key quote from the article: "Nationally, more than 115,000 public-housing units have been demolished since the HOPE VI grant program started in 1993. Only 66,000 new units have been built to replace them, Schaffer said." (and that doesn't even break down the public housing/market rate mix) G --- Wayne Sherwood wrote: > > Washington Post > June 15, 2002 > Section: Q > Edition: F > Page: H1 > Deconstructing Stanton, Nail by Nail Barbara Ruben Special to The Washington Post Two months ago, Beverly White tore down her home of 39 years, floorboard by floorboard and nail by nail. She and dozens of other former residents of the Stanton Dwellings public housing project in Southeast Washington are taking apart the 348-unit community, neatly stacking thermal windows, tongue-in-groove oak flooring and even the kitchen sinks in one of the gutted apartment buildings. Instead of bringing in the bulldozers and burying the debris in landfills, they are painstakingly taking apart the units. They hope the materials they salvage will fetch upwards of $700,000 from builders and individuals who can buy them for about half to a quarter of the price of what they would go for new. In the process, about 40 formerly unemployed people have learned a new skill and now make $11 an hour, plus health benefits. Most used to live in Stanton Dwellings, and a few are from elsewhere in Southeast. White, who spent her life in the deteriorating community of 87 two-story brick buildings, bounced from job to job, as a teacher's aide, a sales clerk and other minimum-wage indoor positions. This is her first manual-labor job, and she said she enjoys the physical work. "It feels good. My father is a carpenter, and it's just in my blood to do this," said White, who now lives in Barry Farms in Southeast. "I worked on the apartment where I used to live, and I was finding pennies in the floorboards, all sorts of stuff," she said. "But it wasn't like I was feeling sad, because I know I'm making way for something better." That something is a 600-unit mixed-income development called Henson Ridge, construction of which is scheduled to begin later this month on the site of Stanton Dwellings and the adjoining Frederick Douglass public-housing project. White plans to buy a below-market-price new townhouse in Henson Ridge, using closing-cost and down-payment help available through the federal and D.C. governments. Meanwhile, she uses a new invention called a denailing gun, which sucks nails from the floors and walls to speed the process of taking down her former community. "Bringing the walls down, now that's the best part," she said. Rather than demolition, the work is called deconstruction. "It's done in exactly the reverse order that a builder builds it. The first things taken out are the last that were put in, handrails, light fixtures, vanities," said Jim Primdahl, deconstruction program manager for the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which oversaw the training of workers for the project. The institute has also coordinated deconstruction of public housing in Bridgeport, Conn. "I drive by a boarded-up building and say, 'Look at the product in there.' Most people just see the blight," he said. When Primdahl looks at a brick, floorboard or other piece of building material, he envisions what he calls "embodied energy." "Imagine all the energy that goes into making a brick. Energy is used transporting the brick and putting it into a house, where it stays for 25 or 50 or 100 years," he said. "Does all that then go to the grave? Or does it go into the cradle, where it can be used again?" Primdahl estimates that if bulldozers plowed through Stanton Dwellings, it would take 10 workers about six weeks to bring down the 40-year-old project. Instead, deconstruction, which is slated to be completed in August, will take eight months and employ about four dozen workers. The sale of the materials gleaned from the project and greatly reduced disposal fees make the cost of deconstruction competitive with traditional demolition, he said. The institute said that more than 200,000 deconstruction jobs could be created nationally if the practice were put into widespread use. Locally, the D.C. Housing Authority hopes to expand the use of deconstruction to other public building projects -- and eventually help create a worker-owned company that would take on private projects as well. "We're fairly excited about this," said Larry Dwyer, the Housing Authority's director of planning and development. "Deconstruction has the potential to grow people's incomes so they can become employed homeowners." For Frederick Tibbs, 51, work on the deconstruction crew has given him not only a job after years of chronic unemployment, but also a new purpose in life. "I knew at my age, I'm not going to have many opportunities like this to train to get into a brand-new field. I think deconstruction is going to be a big thing. This is something that's catching on," said Tibbs, who had lived with his sister at Stanton Dwellings and now lives in Upper Marlboro with his niece. John Kitt, who calls himself a "human bulldozer," said he gets satisfaction from dissecting buildings. He recently knocked down a staircase in one of the units and was prying the steps off one by one to be sold for $8 apiece. The out-of-work contractor said he likes what he is doing so much, he hopes to start his own deconstruction business. And workers say they appreciate the environmental benefit of salvaging everything from kitchen cabinets to bathtubs for reuse. "It's one thing to hear someone say you've got to protect the Earth, but it's another to actually be involved in doing it," said Jamal Harris, 30, a father of three. "It really means something now to be saying you're doing this for the next generation." Harris serves as the project's safety facilitator and lived up the street from the housing project. The redevelopment project is partially funded by a $29 million grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development's HOPE VI grant program. Hope VI grants are allocated to replace distressed public housing projects by demolishing the buildings and replacing them with townhouses or garden-style apartments that house residents with a range of incomes. HOPE VI-funded projects include supportive education and job services, such as the deconstruction job-training program at Stanton Dwellings as well as a job-training program for construction of Henson Ridge. The projects also forge partnerships with a variety of constituents; at Stanton Dwellings, the D.C. Housing Authority is working with governmental and nonprofit agencies, including Just U Wait 'N See, a community development corporation, which offers job support and a home buyers' club to help residents clean up their credit and understand the mechanics of getting a mortgage. Yet as the government moves to transform the forlorn, crime-ridden image of public housing by integrating moderate-income residents and more upscale housing into the picture, some housing advocates say the poor are being left out in the cold. "HOPE VI grants are certainly not a bad idea, but they create problems when dislocation occurs," said Kim Schaffer, communications director for the National Low Income Housing Coalition. "People are saying, 'This was my home for many, many years. Even if it has deteriorated, it's better than not having a home.' " Nationally, more than 115,000 public-housing units have been demolished since the HOPE VI grant program started in 1993. Only 66,000 new units have been built to replace them, Schaffer said. Brenda Graham-Nwabude, co-director of Just U Wait 'N See, said that services provided by her organization, including a newly hired relocation director, can ease the transition. Although Henson Ridge will replace the number of units lost in the two public housing projects, some will come with a higher price tag than the former residents can afford, a concern of public housing advocates. According to the D.C. Housing Authority, which is administering the Hope VI grant, one-third of the units will be for those with very low incomes, another third for low to moderate incomes, and the final third for those with moderate incomes who can pay market prices, about $120,000 for a townhouse. Rental units would also be available. "The truth is that if everyone wanted to return as low-income residents, they couldn't do that," said Dwyer, who serves as the Housing Authority's HOPE VI coordinator. "But the intention is to have a healthier mixed-income environment, where there is a spread of incomes and the socioeconomic mix is much healthier and will help improve the lives of all residents." Many of the deconstruction workers take Dwyer's point of view. "We're not only tearing this down, but we're building it back up with people as the first priority," Harris said. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 07:21:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Grant Subject: Finding housing for relocated public housing residents a struggle - Fort Worth --- Wayne Sherwood wrote: > > Finding housing turns to struggle > BECHETTA JACKSON; Credits, Star-Telegram Staff Writer > > Fort Worth Star-Telegram , Edition: FINAL , Page: > 1-SUMMARY- HOUSING: , > Thursday , June 13, 2002 , Section: Metro;Fort Worth & > Region > > FORT WORTH - With less than five months left before residents must move out of the Ripley Arnold complex, the Fort Worth Housing Authority is struggling to secure temporary housing for the 260 families. Some property managers - who had initially been receptive to housing the residents - have backed out, citing fear of opposition from tenants and reluctance to agree to special rental terms, officials said. "This whole Ripley Arnold debate has made me crazy," said Pat Ivie, a regional supervisor for Myers Development, which owns the Homes of Parker Commons on the city's south side. "It's something that you don't want to be a part of," Ivie said. "You would just as soon stay out of it." Ripley Arnold residents must move by Oct. 30 to clear the way for construction of a new corporate headquarters for Ra-dioShack, which bought the 24-acre downtown property from the housing authority for $20 million in November. Authority officials have said they plan to buy or build four or five mixed-income developments for Ripley Arnold residents in more affluent areas. The authority's recent purchase of the luxury Stonegate Villas complex in southwest Fort Worth, however, sparked a firestorm of opposition from homeowners and tenants trying to keep low-income residents out of their community. Eventually, more than 100 apartments will be available for Ripley Arnold residents at Stonegate and a complex that the authority plans to build in the Cityview area in southwest Fort Worth. Until those and other units are available, housing officials are searching for temporary housing for the residents. Under the terms of an agreement reached with residents before the sale of Ripley Arnold, the housing authority must find temporary replacement apartments for residents on the same terms and conditions they now have. "We haven't moved anybody under that provision yet," said Barbara Holston, the authority's executive director. Some Ripley Arnold residents have moved from the complex using a standard Section 8 rental assistance voucher, but those people are not covered under the special rental terms of the agreement. Most Ripley Arnold residents will be moved through special temporary-relocation vouchers from the Housing and Urban Development Department. "If they (Ripley Arnold residents) were willing to abide by the same rules and conditions that all of our other residents follow, we would consider taking some of them," said Paige Smith, property manager at the Garden Gate Apartments on North Beach Street. Smith, whose complex accepts subsidized-housing vouchers, was one of the managers who initially agreed to help housing officials find temporary apartments for Ripley Arnold residents. She said she changed her mind after reviewing the housing authority's lease, which is different from a standard Texas Apartment Association lease. For example, most property managers issue late-rent notices on the third day after rent is past due and begin eviction three to five days later. The housing authority serves its late notice after the fifth day that rent is due, and gives tenants an additional 14 days to either pay or move. In addition, the housing authority lease has a provision that allows its residents who pay the minimum rent of $50 to request a "rent hardship exemption," which could result in the suspension of monthly rent for a period of time in certain circumstances. They include a death in the family, a decrease in family income because of job loss, or lost or pending eligibility from a federal, state, or local assistance program, the housing authority lease states. "That's not acceptable to some of the properties that they are trying to move people to," Smith said. To treat Ripley Arnold residents differently would not be fair to her other residents, she said. Housing authority officials "knew going in with us that the Ripley Arnold residents would have to meet the same rules and criteria or we wouldn't accept them," Smith said. Holston said finding properties willing to accept the special terms has been difficult. "The question becomes, 'How do we comply with the agreement and still be able to move our residents wherever they want to go?' " she said. Ripley Arnold resident Ella Caldwell, who will move temporarily to the Ridgmar Park Apartments next month on a regular Section 8 voucher, said she packed her things in early February in anticipation of the move. "It's taken so long that I have been tempted to unpack," said Caldwell, 64, who has lived at Ripley Arnold for five years. "They are working hard to get us out of here, but things are not turning out the way that the housing authority or the apartment managers wanted. "They told us that they were going to try to get us the same lease terms, but they're not going to find anybody willing to do that," she said. Managers at the Homes of Parker Commons have taken about a dozen displaced Ripley Arnold residents so far, on the same lease terms as other residents at the 192-unit development. "We explained to the housing people that we can't pick and choose a lease," said Ivie, the regional supervisor. "And we won't adjust a lease. We treat everybody the same. After we explained that to them, they agreed to our lease terms." Ivie said the company will continue to take Ripley Arnold residents as long as they meet the same screening criteria as other residents. "Just because they live at Ripley Arnold doesn't mean that they are bad folks," she said. "People just need to chill out and let others live where they are qualified to live." Ripley Arnold residents who have bad rental histories and felony records wouldn't qualify to live at the Homes of Parker Commons, Ivie said. Those who are good tenants will be welcomed, she said. "We're not backing down because we need good residents," she said. Bechetta Jackson, (817) 390-7155 bechettajackson@star-telegram.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:57:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Grant Subject: Durham NC, Judge blocks one strike eviction --- Wayne Sherwood wrote: > > Judge blocks move to evict mother, kids > Public housing trying to keep drugs out of communities > > By JOHN STEVENSON jcs@herald-sun.com; 419-6643 > The Durham (NC) Herald-Sun > Sunday, May 05, 2002 > > Despite a "zero-tolerance" eviction policy recently approved by the U.S. Supreme Court, agencies such as the Durham Housing Authority still must consider the tolerance level of judges when they try to oust tenants. Last week, District Judge Marcia Morey ruled in favor of a McDougald Terrace mother after deciding the Housing Authority went too far in trying to oust her and her children. Morey's ruling means that the mother, Jackie Kersey, who lives in a federally subsidized apartment on Wabash Avenue, will be allowed to keep her low-rent residence. Kersey's case was the first to be decided by a Durham judge since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its zero-tolerance decision in March. The decision allows tenants to be evicted from public housing if any family member or guest is involved in drug activity, regardless of whether the head of the household knows about such activity. In writing the decision, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said such aggressive action was necessary to fight a "reign of terror" in some public-housing communities because of drugs and violence. But the wide-ranging decision was not enough to carry the Kersey case last week. Here is what the evidence showed: An unidentified man knocked on Kersey's door one night and asked her to braid his hair - something she often does in her home to make extra money. Kersey told the man it was too late in the evening and asked him to return another time. When the man left, he reportedly became involved in a drug transaction with an undercover police officer on Kersey's back porch. The man then ran away and was not caught by officers. The Housing Authority soon filed an eviction against Kersey, claiming she knew about the alleged drug activity. A Durham magistrate decided in Kersey's favor. The Housing Authority then appealed to District Court. When the case came before Morey last week, she also came down on Kersey's side. She concluded that the man was not a guest or visitor in Kersey's apartment, and that Kersey had no control over him. "There was nothing to link this unknown man to this apartment," Morey told The Herald-Sun later. Morey also said that evicting Kersey, who is disabled, and her three small children might have created a dilemma. "If they are evicted, where do they go?" the judge asked. "What happens? Does the Department of Social Services take these children?" Lawyer Maricia Moye, who argued the case for the Housing Authority, had no comment on the outcome. Nor did Michael Alston, the housing manager at McDougald Terrace. "It's probably best that I don't talk about it," he said. But James Tabron, the Housing Authority director, accepted Morey's decision philosophically. "We don't always like the outcome of these cases," he conceded Friday. "But we respect the process," Tabron added. "In this particular case, we really wished the outcome had been different. Be that as it may, we will not weaken our level of [anti-drug] enforcement. That would be a disservice to the community. We just kind of have to let the chips fall where they may." Tabron said the Housing Authority serves about 10,000 people in some 2,100 apartment units spread over 15 complexes. Statistics indicate that the tenants have an average income under $10,000. By law, they are required to pay no more in rent than 30 percent of their household earnings. Tabron applauded the new Supreme Court decision on public-housing evictions, saying he was personally present in the high court's chamber when the ruling was handed down. "It provides us with more administrative latitude," he said. "It has the potential to be quite effective. But it is clearly not an absolute application. It is not meant to hurt individual families. Rather, it is designed to help entire communities. I honestly have always been of the mindset that housing authorities need a range of remedies. At the same time, we want to apply them reasonably. I don't want to be part of an agency that has a blanket 'one-strike-and-you're-out' rule. That's not how we do it." James Anderson, crime prevention administrator for the Housing Authority, agreed the zero-tolerance policy can be useful in fighting illegal narcotics. "We've always had a pretty strict policy as it relates to drugs," he said Friday. "This is just one more tool. It's part of our policy to keep our communities drug-free." Anderson said public-housing lease documents are being revised to make tenants aware they can be evicted for narcotics activity, even when the head of the household is unaware of such activity. Although precise statistics were not available Friday, Anderson said the Housing Authority has evicted very few people for criminal conduct in recent years. He said the annual number of evictions generally ranges from 35 to 50, with most of them being for nonpayment of rent rather than for drugs. Anderson acknowledged that a large number of drug arrests are made within Durham's public-housing communities, but he said the majority involve outsiders rather than residents. "Most of our crimes occur because of outsiders," Anderson said. "They bring the problem to our communities. Most of it occurs in common areas of the communities. It doesn't necessarily reflect on our residents." This theory was dramatically illustrated nine years ago, when a New York man named Ernest "O" King received a life prison sentence for a drug-related murder in one of Durham's public-housing complexes. During his trial, King graphically described how boundary lines were drawn in the complex by competing drug dealers. He said that such dealers, including some barely in their teens, were armed to prevent rivals from invading their claimed territory. ==================== DURHAM HOUSING AUTHORITY Close call for an innocent tenant The Durham (NC) Herald-Sun Monday, May 06, 2002 Final Edition Editorial Section Page A6 District Court Judge Marcia Morey did justice a good turn when she refused to permit the eviction of a McDougald Terrace woman and her children who were unwittingly caught up in a failed drug bust on her back porch. The Durham Housing Authority (DHA) had sought the removal under a zero-tolerance policy that allows people in public housing to be summarily evicted if any family member or guest is involved in drug activity - whether the head of the household knows about it or not. In this case, Jackie Kersey didn't know about the incident that occurred on her back porch after an unidentified man knocked on her door and asked her to braid his hair. Kersey braids hair to pick up extra income, but she told the man the hour was too late. The man left, but an undercover police officer reportedly tagged him in a drug sting on Kersey's back porch. Realizing what was happening, the man fled. Police didn't catch him. Shortly after the incident, DHA told Kersey she would be evicted because she knew the man was involved in drug activity. But she didn't know what had happened, and a Durham magistrate agreed with her. The Housing Authority appealed the magistrate's decision to district court, where Judge Morey properly ruled in Kersey's favor. The man was not a visitor in Kersey's dwelling nor was he a guest. She had no control over him. One could hardly find a better case to illustrate how unfair a zero-tolerance policy can be against an innocent tenant. DHA Director James Tabron had trouble deciding how to come down on the issue. First, he told The Herald-Sun that in the Kersey case, "we really wished the outcome had been different." Then, he said zero tolerance, affirmed by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, "is clearly not an absolute application." But wasn't zero tolerance being applied against Jackie Kersey, no matter the facts in the case? Judge Morey thought so. In fairness, the Durham Housing Authority has generally used good judgment in evictions, which run about 35 to 50 a year, usually for nonpayment of rent. This time, though, an astute magistrate and a district court judge averted a serious injustice. If they could see it so easily, the Durham Housing Authority should have seen it, too. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 07:39:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Grant Subject: More on Bonds -- Lessons from Arizona More on Bonds -- Lessons from Arizona --- Wayne Sherwood wrote: > > Bond agency subject of political infighting > Dennis Wagner > The Arizona Republic > May 28, 2002 12:00:00 > A government agency that has funneled billions of dollars into the construction of hospitals, schools, homes and industry has been crippled by 12 months of political infighting. The struggle at the Maricopa County Industrial Development Authority affects an organization that has helped expand the Valley of the Sun, issuing more tax-exempt money for home construction than any other agency in Arizona. And it may hurt poor families if all the political wrestling leads to a cutback in the development of low-income housing, which is already in short supply statewide. The IDA's job is to provide bond money for public projects. Because the funds are tax-exempt, development costs less and, in the case of housing, consumers pay less. But in just the past three months, one IDA director has been fired by county supervisors, and four others on the nine-member board quit in disgust, disgrace or frustration. The resignation letter from former IDA President Charlie Thompson explained: "The perception of self-dealing by members of the professional staff and some members of the board has not changed significantly enough in the last few months to warrant my continued commitment to the board." In January, newly elected IDA President Martha Taylor Thomas reeled off a list of woes and declared, "It is not a pretty picture. It is not a pretty face." Thomas was voted out as president moments later, and the picture got uglier. Today, divided camps cannot even agree what started the controversy. Some board members, including Paradise Valley investment adviser Gary Gibbons, blame a dispute over new legislation. Others, led by lawyer and politician John Kaites, say the feud stems from efforts to reform IDA business practices. Meanwhile, it is unclear whether the IDA's prime mission of promoting low-income housing has been damaged. Why? Because the agency did not even keep a ledger showing how much bond money was issued last year. Big money at stake While the Industrial Development Authority's profile is low, the stakes are high: control over hundreds of millions of dollars in tax-exempt loans and the related professional service fees. One of the authority's primary goals, and the key subject of contention, is affordable homes for the working poor. The Maricopa County IDA is the nation's eighth-biggest financier for such projects. Gov. Jane Hull and other officials argue that low-cost housing development should be coordinated by a statewide agency. But, when the governor made that a legislative priority last year, some IDA representatives feared the new system would add costs and bureaucracy to a program that worked fine. The Maricopa County IDA assigned a subcommittee to monitor Hull's legislation and hired a pair of lobbyists to defend the agency's interests. When Gibbons and other directors learned in March 2001 that the governor's plan was about to pass without opposition, he suggested that the IDA subcommittee - Kaites, Thompson and Alan Maguire - purposefully kept board members in the dark, letting the bills churn forward with help from the agency's lobbyists. Not true, Maguire answered. He says the subcommittee did its job, winning key compromises in legislation that was going to pass anyway. He notes that the full IDA board never formally opposed the governor's plan. And, he insisted, the new law does no harm to the county IDA. Gibbons disputes those points and complains of an even greater betrayal: Kaites quietly took work as a paid lobbyist, pressing lawmakers to pass the very bills board members thought he was combating. "I think we got sandbagged," board member Thomas agrees. "It was a total violation of public trust." In fact, Kaites was hired to represent the non-profit Stardust Foundation, headed by developer-philanthropist Jerry Bisgrove, who figures to build far more low-cost homes for the poor under a state housing program. Kaites insists there was no conflict of interest but also notes that he recused himself from IDA discussions of the bills after going to work for Stardust. IDA records confirm that Kaites disclosed his role to the subcommittee. But he didn't tell the full IDA board for two months, by which time the legislation was a done deal. That is when the cat fight began. Gibbons drew up a list of accusations. Kaites' group blocked Thomas from ascending to the board presidency. Gibbons wrote accusatory memos and demanded an investigation. Kaites' group stormed out of a meeting. An independent counsel was hired to study the whole mess. Maguire, formerly the state's chief deputy treasurer, claims the conflict had nothing to do with new legislation and everything to do with his campaign to "clean up the IDA and reform some of its practices." He and Kaites say the agency's law firm, Kutak Rock, had too much control, providing the IDA's administrator, agendas and legal advice while earning multiple fees on bond transactions. Although the setup did not violate any law or ethical cannon, Kaites says, it smacked of a monopoly because applicants for bond money felt pressured to hire Kutak Rock. At times, the firm acted as bond counsel, issuer counsel and applicant counsel, collecting legal fees of nearly $2 million over 24 months. While Gibbons' camp defended the status quo, Kaites says, "I just didn't feel that the checks and balances were there." By December, resignation letters were flying as fast as recriminations. The agency's insurance company, auditor and bond reviewers quit. Maguire and Thompson dropped off the board, followed by two other directors. The Gibbons alliance, suddenly in control, held a meeting and elected Thomas president. An outnumbered Kaites called Maricopa County Supervisor Andy Kunasek and announced, "I'm sitting here . . . waiting for the Alamo. I've got to resign, or you've got to send me reinforcements." Within days, four new IDA directors were appointed, all of them immediately joining Kaites' camp. Thomas was voted out as president, replaced by Kaites. Kutak Rock was dumped as legal counsel. Maricopa County's chief financial officer, Tom Manos, was hired to run the agency. Gibbons, a tenacious political foe, complained to county supervisors. He contacted the state Attorney General's Office. He questioned and criticized. Then Gibbons got a call from Don Stapley, chairman of the Board of Supervisors, seeking his resignation. That demand was rejected. In March, county supervisors voted Gibbons off the IDA board. What's next? As a result of Hull's legislative initiative, Arizona now has a new cabinet-level Housing Department and a Housing Finance Authority to do bond deals. Mike Bielecki, an assistant to the governor, says the system is designed to coordinate projects statewide. He and Sheila Harris, director of the state agency, say there won't be increased costs, duplication of work or interference with the Maricopa County IDA. But Arizona will be eligible for more federal grant money and be able to target a critical need for affordable homes in rural communities. As for the IDA, Kaites and the new board have control. Manos, the executive director, says reforms are in progress and "we are continuing to meet the needs of the community." But there is lingering unease. About the only point of agreement is that 12 months of internecine conflict sabotaged an agency that had been doing good work for Arizona. "Our IDA is in such disarray now . . . ," Thomas says. "I would question whether anyone wants to come and do business with us." Reach the reporter at dennis. wagner@arizonarepublic.com or (602) 444-8874. Find this article at: http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/0528IDA.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 07:43:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Grant Subject: Wayne on Hope VI in congress --- Wayne Sherwood wrote: > To people interested in HOPE VI This Congressional session will probably be a short one because all of the House, and one third of the Senators, will want to get home early for the fall election campaigns. This means that all kinds of things might happen with respect to the reauthorization of HOPE VI. During the past several months, there have been a variety of statements made in hearings before Congress expressing concern about: 1) what has happened to the former residents; 2) the lack of involvement of former residents in the planning; 3) the few former residents who return; 4) the lack of assistance to those who move, to help ensure that their lives are genuinely improved; 5) the lack of monitoring and tracking to find out what has happened to those people; 6 ) the net reduction in the number of affordable housing units for very low income (VLI) and extremely low income (ELI) households that results from HOPE VI, with a consequent increase in the the amount of time that people have to spend on the waiting lists for public housing and Section 8 in their local communities; 7) how HOPE VI has veered away from its original intent; and, 8) the almost total lack of performance data on HOPE VI, including the information about who is living in these new developments after redevelopment, the very slow expenditure rate, what HOPE VI is costing per unit produced, and where is the HOPE VI money really going (construction costs, site costs, administrative costs, lawyers and developers and bank fees, etc.) In addition, although HOPE VI claims to be "leveraging" a lot of additional money, these claims have to be looked at very closely. The use of the term "leveraging" outside the HOPE VI context would ordinarily mean that a private investor can put only a small amount of their own money into a project, and borrow a lot from others. In the case of HOPE VI, much of the money that is being counted as "leveraged" is really only a shift of public money away from projects where it would have been used to provide affordable housing anyway, e.g. use of money from other governmental housing programs such as CDBG, HOME or the low income housing tax credit (LIHTC). This does not really count as an increase in funding available for low-income housing. In other cases, local municipal borrowings are included. When you look at how much private money is being brought to the table, that is not fully guaranteed by public funds, my guess is that it is relatively small. Many Housing Authorities are fully guaranteeing the private investments by putting HOPE VI money into a loan reserve account or its equivalent, minimizing the risks involved. Kevin Marchman, at the recent meeting of the US Conference of Mayors, stressed that in the reauthorization of HOPE VI, Congress should make the HOPE VI rules even more flexible, i.e. make the HOPE VI funds even less tied to public housing, by being more explicit about allowing HOPE VI money to be used as "first in" money. I don't know all of the ramifications of this, but I think it means that he wants HOPE VI to be clearly usable for all of the costs of preparing a site, and that the charges made to the private partners that they would have to pick up with their moderate or market rate units will be minimal. I think that most HOPE VI Housing Authorities have already found ways of doing this, but apparently it is felt that the language of the Act should be made more explicit on this point, perhaps in order to allay HUD fears of criticism. There were some good words in yesterday's issue of Housing Affairs Letter about the presentations before the National Neighborhood Coalition concerning HOPE VI by NHLP and CCC. It is certainly good to get this kind of coverage. I would also urge all who are interested in HOPE VI to put together some kind of joint monitoring effort to watch what is happening in Congress. As always, as a tricky game proceeds, it is very important to "keep your eye on the ball." There are a variety of ways in which HOPE VI might get reauthorized this year, de jure and de facto. Various members of Congress and HUD have shed some rather amazing crocodile tears this year about the fate of the former residents and the need to "tweak" the HOPE VI program a little bit. I am not a complete cynic, but I would remind readers that these concerns are for the most part (except of course for groups such as NLIHC, NHLP and CCC) being expressed in Washington DC for the first time, and only during the year when the HOPE VI program is being reauthorized. My personal feeling is that the present goal of the great majority of legislators, and HUD, is simply to have the HOPE VI program move forward, in one way or another, whether formally reauthorized or not this year, with as few changes as possible, other than to allow HOPE VI funding to be used even more broadly and flexibly in the future, and especially in ways that will make it more profitable for the private sector. If I were a legislator who wanted to do that, I would think up a few words saying that: "To the extent possible, in the planning of HOPE VI, every possible consideration shall be given to the needs of the eligible former residents of these developments who continue to meet the requirements of the program, including their need for decent, affordable housing and the need for services, to help them move to self-sufficiency and homeownership. HUD shall also encourage Housing Authorities to consider in their planning whether there would be any net reduction in units available to low income households in their communities." Then I would try to stick that into a bill someplace, say the problem has now been addressed, and urge reauthorization of HOPE VI for another 10 years, or without time limit at all. There are a variety of legislative vehicles going through Congress in June and July that might be used for that purpose. In this time of an "eager to get home" Congress, all kinds of things might happen in late night sessions. 1) There is currently a FY2002 supplemental appropriations bill going through Congress. This is the least likely vehicle, but you never know. It should be going to conference soon. 2) There is the more conventional route of the authorizing committees. The Roukema subcommittee expects its authorizing bill to be passed in the House in early June. On the Senate side, Senator Sarbanes has a bill. It isn't clear whether these two bills will be conferenceable as a means of reauthorizing HOPE VI, but my guess would be that if they go to conference, HOPE VI reauthorization will be included. 3) If HOPE VI doesn't get reauthorized in the manner described in #2 above, then Senator Mikulski could simply ignore the lack of authorization for HOPE VI in FY2003 and go ahead and appropriate money for it anyway, perhaps putting a little bit of wording in about some of her concerns. The appropriators could extend HOPE VI for several years this way, unless someone clearly got up in Congress and objected to appropriating without authorizing legislation. I doubt very much that anyone would object, because it would guarantee that nobody in that legislator's district would get a HOPE VI grant in the future, and who would want that? So this means that those concerned about HOPE VI face a formidable array of opportunities for allowing HOPE VI to go ahead with little or no change. So I think it would be good to coordinate legislative strategies and sharpen up ideas about exactly what kinds of legislative language should be sought and in what bills. Wayne __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/