------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Will You Find True Love? Will You Meet the One? Free Love Reading by phone! http://us.click.yahoo.com/it_ffB/R_ZEAA/Ey.GAA/tOsolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: CPPH_Info-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ There are 5 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. extracts from "HOPE VI Best Practices" From: Grant 2. New Orleans will seek HOPE VI grant From: Grant 3. Save public housing- HOPE VI action planning meeting From: Grant 4. Housing Vouchers No Magic Key From: Grant 5. Fwd: Fw: [Housing_Set_Aside] DENVER INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE PASSES! From: Grant ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 1 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 06:43:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Grant Subject: extracts from "HOPE VI Best Practices" --- Wayne Sherwood wrote: "Best Practices and Lessons Learned" - some extracts 8/1/2002 To my HOPE VI distribution list from Wayne Sherwood: I recently presented a very brief overview of "HOPE VI - Best Practices and Lessons Learned" in my newsletter, "Housing News Highlights." This was my impressionistic, birdseye approach to that document. I found the document to be a thicket, a jumble of a little bit of hard information padded with many undocumented claims about how meritorious the concept of HOPE VI was, regardless of the PHAs' ability to implement this program. The report blames the PHAs for delays, and suggests that the program can be improved by reducing the size of the grants, reduce the amount of HUD oversight, and take a variety of other steps intended to make the program more user friendly to the private sector. The following are some extracts from the "Best Practices" report related to problems of the HOPE VI program. Some of these statements sound very much like those that the critics have been making. WS =========================== The National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing reported that there were "approximately 86,000 units that were termed severely distressed and in need of revitalization and/or demolition." (p.i) I think we need to keep correcting that statement by pointing out that the NCSDPH found that HUD had no information about what public housing developments were severely distressed. In addition, the NCSDPH, in spite of having been given several million dollars to carry out its studies, made no independent assessment of the number of public housing developments or units that were severely distressed, based upon any criteria, including its own. What the NCSDPH did was take a look at a study of public housing modernization needs that had been carried out in 1985-87, and take the number of public housing units that had relatively high modernization needs, and use that as a surrogate, claiming that that MIGHT be an approximate indication of the number of severely distressed public housing units. HUD has never come up with any better estimate, which means that everyone continues to rely upon a fifteen-year old study of modernization needs for the estimate of the number of SDPH units. Because of inadequate public housing capital funding since 1985, my estimate is that the number of deteriorated units in family public housing developments has continued to grow, in spite of HOPE VI. HUD has awarded 165 grants to 98 Housing Authorities. (p.i) "Only 15 of the 165 grants are completed." (p.1) "Progress toward new construction has been slow." (p.i) There is a "background of high costs and long development schedules" (p.i) Note that some of the figures in the table on p.iii reflecting HOPE VI grant awards do not seem to square with other announcements by HUD. For example, the table here shows that Chicago has had $258 million in HOPE VI grant awards; but an announcement on HUD's website for the FY2001 HOPE VI grant awards says that Chicago was awarded over $400 million in HOPE VI grants. (explanation?) HUD has awarded over $4.5 billion in HOPE VI grant awards. As of March 31, 2002, the PHAs have spent $1.78 billion (39%). (p.iii) "the pace of completing HOPE VI development projects is much slower than that to which private developers of residential housing are accustomed. Delays are caused by a variety of factors such as: insufficient management capacity; limited experience of certain PHAs with real estate development and mixed-finance transactions; the comprehensive nature of HUD proposal reviews and limited HUD grant managers." (p.iv) "It should also be noted that for years HUD made awards to applicants that did not have site control, funds committed for leveraged sources, requisite zoning, or resident relocation plans." (p.iv) "only a subset of private developers provide their services to low-income, mixed-finance housing developments." (p.iv) [Another way of looking at this might be that a fairly small handful of favored private developers have received most of the HOPE VI contracts. WS] "HUD is in the process of improving HOPE VI program guidelines and administration to make the program more supportive of private sector requirements and expectations and reduce HUD review time." (p.iv) [This report seems principally concerned about making the HOPE VI program more user-friendly to the private sector. WS] "Progress has been slow. the larger, earlier and more problematic grants have had difficulty in getting the redevelopment process started and or maintained.PHAs are lagging behind in new construction and reoccupancy.. Ten years after the inception of the HOPE VI program, only 22% of all new units planned have been constructed Many HOPE VI grantees are well behind their own anticipated schedules." ". it is true that HOPE VI developments will result in a net loss of public housing units nationally" [Note from WS: The number of relocated former residents who now occupy units in redeveloped HOPE VI sites needs to be scrutinized more closely. In the earlier quarterly reports submitted to HUD, this line item was labeled "planned to be reoccupied" by the former residents. HUD needs to be asked what is the source of this item, and exactly what does it mean? Does it reflect actual units that have been reoccupied by former residents, or is this a more hypothetical figure, based upon PHA planning reports, that means "planned to be reoccupied"?] "new units have been slow to materialize" "..few replacement units have been built. Many grants are over eight years old and have yet to complete construction on the first phase of their new units.." [HUD's solution is to reduce HUD oversight of PHAs in the future.] "Oversight must be carefully balanced against the need for production and results." "Unfortunately, the PHA management and operation systems were as distressed as the properties they represented. Regardless of their endemic weaknesses, some large PHAs were awarded multiple HOPE VI grants.." "This led to increased inadequacies in the program, resulting in slow progress in planning, redevelopment and construction" (p.viii) "It was not until 1996 that HUD instituted a tracking system to monitor the progress of marginal or sub-standard performing PHAs" (p.viii) In some cities there was significant resistance from the residents, and consequently serious delays. (p.ix) "In the following chapters you will get a sense of some of these (resident-related) issues and how some PHAs have overcome them." (p.ix) ".there are additional factors involving resident consultation and participation that can stall redevelopment activities" (pix) [Note from Wayne: I think that the above remarks in the Introduction/summary to the report indicate that HUD is primarily concerned with expediting the program, stepping up the rate of expenditures, making the program more friendly to private investors, and reducing HUD oversight. The impact upon residents is seen almost entirely in terms of potential dangers that may slow down the pace of HOPE VI projects, and HUD's stated goal is to reduce those delays. No concern is reflected in this section about any real negative impacts upon public housing residents, former residents of HOPE VI sites, or upon those on waiting lists for public housing who will now face longer waiting times as a result of the reduction in the number of available public housing units.] The fact that "only 15 participating housing authorities have completed their HOPE VI developments throws into question the capacity of housing authorities to implement the ambitious development agenda that HOPE VI now prescribes" "Housing Authorities often lack readiness, capacity and systems for effective oversight and project management. There are many issues that must be resolved in order to successfully move the program forward, improve housing authority accountability and increase the unit production of current and future HOPE VI grantees." (p.3) "..capacity and readiness shortfalls are so pronounced among some grantees that they are unable to assume their role as asset manager.." (p.5) "A lack of knowledge, experience and capacity for managing the development process, poor accounting and insufficient internal controls and oversight have plagued a number of housing authorities and resulted in cost overruns" (p.5) " the size of HOPE VI grants often fuels unrealistic and overly ambitious revitalization agendas that sidetrack their focus on providing affordable housing.." (p.6) ".there are a number of poorly planned and implemented community and supportive services programs that provide little benefit to residents.." (p.7) ".one (PHA) grantee has been awarded over $111 million since 1994 through three HOPE VI grants. However, this housing authority has failed to fully complete any of these developments" (p.8) [Based upon an earlier table in the report, this seems to refer to Detroit. WS] ".While HUD has long recognized the problems among low performers, including readiness issues, capacity shortfalls, substandard oversight and mismanagement, the agency has done little to rectify these issues among HOPE VI grantees" (p.8) "..only 22% of all new units planned have been constructed" (p.9) "Baseline assessments of early HOPE VI revitalization projects revealed that a number of housing authorities actually discouraged resident involvement, while others only peripherally engaged residents in the development process. Additionally, a 1998 General Accounting Office (GAO) audit of ten HOPE VI sites found that five of these projects were delayed because of resident opposition. Resident opposition often focuses on the amount and kind of replacement housing, relocation and control over the development process. Many residents mistrust the housing authority, are skeptical that they will follow-through with their plans and are fearful that the HOPE VI revitalization process will adversely affect them." (p.14) "HOPE VI grantees are beginning to recognize the shortcomings of (vouchers) in tight housing markets by including more hard public housing units as part of their replacement housing strategy." (p.24) "Critics of HOPE VI are correct when they argue that the program is reducing the number of hard public housing units. However, our national focus is shifting from the traditional public housing model to a new housing choice model." (p.24) "There is very little published research on the social and physical characteristics of completed HOPE VI developments and their effect on residents. There is even less information available on the economic and neighborhood impacts of these developments." (p.27) "Although HOPE VI grantees have been required to do project and program evaluations since 1998, few of these evaluations have been completed because they progress with the life cycle of the grant. The first set of evaluations is expected to be complete in 2006. When finished, these evaluations will provide important insights regarding the impact of HOPE VI on families, children and surrounding neighborhoods." (p.27) [In other words, there will be no evaluations of HOPE VI until the program is over. That's real helpful in improving the program. WS] Nine case studies have been completed in an "Interim Assessment" of 15 HOPE VI grantees. The "Best Practices" report lists the 15 cities where these "Interim Assessments" are being carried out, but does not say who is doing them. These are all "unpublished drafts." A footnote on page 28 says, "The nine case studies reported in this chapter have not been released and are currently embargoed by HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research. These case studies will be available in June 2003." The "Best Practices" report states (p.28) "While these case studies provide a snapshot of HOPE VI sites, and to a lesser degree, their surrounding communities, the conclusions from each study are qualified by limited data." "there is missing baseline data for a number of key variables, and incomplete data for some sites, further limiting comparison across site and time." That does not deter the writer of the "Best Practices" report, however, who apparently has had privileged access to read these embargoed studies. "Despite these caveats, this study presents a good overview of completed HOPE VI developments and conditions in surrounding neighborhoods through a combination of empirical observations, subjective indicators, quotations, anecdotal evidence and social statistics. The discussion in this chapter summarizes selected findings from the nine completed case studies in the interim Assessment, several other small studies and anecdotal evidence to describe the characteristics of completed HOPE VI developments and their impacts on surrounding communities." [From Wayne S. The above statement is pretty amazing. The writer acknowledges that these interim case studies are incomplete, that in any event they rely upon data that is only partially complete, and that the case studies are embargoed and therefore not available to the public. The writer then says that it is fair to present "selected findings" from the nine completed case studies, combined with a whole bunch of other stuff, including anecdotal evidence. What is one to say to such a claim?] "Positive outcomes are anticipated among families who return to the new HOPE VI community, but strategies for creating a mixed-income development out of high poverty areas often limit the number of original families who are able to return to the revitalized development. An emphasis on demolition and low unit density reduces the overall number of hard public housing units available to original residents. Unit mixes that include market rate and other housing types further reduces the number of public housing units relative to this new density. Additionally, opening public housing to a range of households within the 0-80% of AMI qualified range limits the number of units reserved for extremely low-income families that comprise a majority of original residents." (p.29-30) [That sounds like it could have been taken from 'False HOPE'. WS] "most residents permanently relocate and do not return to the new HOPE VI development.." (p.30) ". most of those who want to return are able to return" (p.30) [This is a common claim that HUD and the PHAs make, but they never document this conclusion, and it is obviously full of loopholes. WS] [Throughout the footnotes, a variety of material is attributed to a variety of unpublished reports of the "Housing Research Foundation." Again, how is one to deal with claims made in any material that HUD says exists but that is not available to the public? WS] "there is little data to explore the degree to which (community and supportive) services have built self-sufficiency among residents" (p.51) "There were few community and supportive services standards during the first five years of the HOPE VI program.." (p.52) ".only 40% of CSS related HOPE VI funds and only 10% of matching funds have been expended.." (p.53) ".some grantees reserve their CSS funding for residents returning to the revitalized HOPE VI developments" (as opposed to the original residents) (p.53) ".local evaluations of CSS programs will not be available until 2006." (p.53) "Some criticize the HOPE VI program for losing track of original residents during the development process. Others assert that residents are not being adequately connected to or substantively helped by HOPE VI community and supportive services. These are fair criticisms." (p.54) "however, both HUD and participating housing authorities have been working to improve." Figures relating to community and supportive services contained in the Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI program "do not include residents who are permanently relocated off-site." (p.57) [There follow several pages of descriptions of these programs and services anyway.] The following data is provided concerning the relocation caseload on page 64. "Mobility counseling and relocation services assist residents as they transition into new communities. These services help residents locate and retain quality housing in good neighborhoods, and are provided to all original residents. Approximately 22,000 residents have benefited from these services." "Among those who have been relocated: o 9,842 currently live in other public housing; o 9,274 have accepted (vouchers) and live in private market units; o 3,625 have left assisted housing and moved to market units." [Note from WS: the total for the three figures above is 22,741. In the HOPE VI quarterly progress report through 12/31/2001, there was a line item that said, "Number of households actually relocated, as of 12/31/2001, by destination." 40,671. Of this total, the quarterly report says, 20,077 were relocated to other public housing, 12,268 to Section 8, and the balance to all other. Why are these figures so different?] The "Best Practices" report then continues, "The remaining residents live in HOPE VI developments or those awaiting revitalization, with 15,770 living in seriously distressed developments scheduled for HOPE VI demolition and 3,846 living in revitalized developments." The citation for these figures is the HOPE VI quarterly progress reports of March 31, 2002. [The figure of 3,846 "living in revitalized developments" cited here is much lower than claimed at the beginning of the report. "Residents displaced by HOPE VI demolition occupy 6,869 (of the completed units)." (p.vi) Why is there such a discrepancy between these figures? If the real figure is only 3,846, this is even worse. WS "critics allege that HUD's rhetoric (concerning relocation) does not match reality. Housing and resident advocates assert that HOPE VI has a poor track record of providing replacement housing to residents who do not return to the revitalized development. They further assert that the heavy reliance on (vouchers) is a poor strategy for providing replacement housing in tight housing markets that often results in clustering of relocated residents in high poverty neighborhoods." (p.65) [The report then goes on to say that while nearly 40% of the people who receive vouchers relocate to high poverty neighborhoods, that figure isn't as bad as where they were living before, i.e. when they were living in SDPH. There are no figures on the proportion of voucher recipients who relocate to neighborhoods that are EITHER high poverty OR neighborhoods of high minority concentration OR BOTH. WS] "While many original residents are relocated through housing choice vouchers, others are either temporarily or permanently relocated to other public housing developments or leave assisted housing altogether for market rate units. There is very little data on the neighborhood or housing outcomes for these households." (p.66) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 07:20:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Grant Subject: New Orleans will seek HOPE VI grant COST OF HOPE VI IN NEW ORLEANS TO DATE: (From Article below) There are 1,299 tenants at Fischer. They occupy 358 of 629 units, with 271 vacant. More than 370 units have been demolished. St. Thomas has been completely razed and the demolition phase of the Desire revitalization is nearly complete. There are 43 tenants living in 14 of 76 units remaining at Desire. More than 1,780 units have been demolished. --- Wayne Sherwood wrote: HANO seeks $20 million grant for Fischer U.S. program backs revitalization efforts 08/03/02 By Lynne Jensen Staff writer/The Times-Picayune The Housing Authority of New Orleans is applying for its third federal HOPE VI revitalization grant, which would be used to help renovate the Fischer public housing complex in Algiers. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced Wednesday that $492.5 million will be available for 2002 HOPE VI Revitalization Grants, issued since 1993 to help cities across the country transform public housing and improve neighborhoods. To ensure that more cities receive grants, HUD set a maximum this year of $20 million per grant, a HUD spokeswoman said. The deadline for applying is Nov. 29. HANO will ask for $20 million, housing authority spokesman Adonis Exposè said Thursday. There are 1,299 tenants at Fischer. They occupy 358 of 629 units, with 271 vacant. More than 370 units have been demolished. Plans for Fischer include the construction of a 100-unit village for senior citizens and a mixed-income community consisting of rental units and purchased homes. The total cost of demolition and revitalization at Fischer is estimated to be about $64 million. The HOPE VI grant program began after the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing submitted a report to Congress in 1992 calling for a National Action Plan to raze about 86,000 "severely distressed" housing units of the country's 1.4 million public housing units by 2000. The commission estimated that the cost of removing and replacing the worn units would be $7.5 billion. Congress responded by appropriating the first $300 million for a revitalization effort that became known as HOPE VI. Since 1993, 377 grants totaling nearly $5 billion have been awarded for planning, demolition and revitalization efforts. HANO has received two HOPE VI revitalization grants: $44.2 million for Desire in 1994 and $25 million for St. Thomas in 1996. The housing authority also received two HOPE VI "demolition only" grants: $3 million for Desire and $1.5 million for Fischer. St. Thomas has been completely razed and the demolition phase of the Desire revitalization is nearly complete. There are 43 tenants living in 14 of 76 units remaining at Desire. More than 1,780 units have been demolished. Redevelopment at Desire and St. Thomas will include a mix of public housing units, low-income houses and more upscale housing sites. . . . . . . . Lynne Jensen can be reached at ljensen@timespicayune.com or (504) 826-3310. 08/03/02 of the Desire revitalization is nearly complete. There are 43 tenants living in 14 of 76 units remaining at Desire. More than 1,780 units have been demolished. > --- Wayne Sherwood wrote: > > > HANO seeks $20 million grant for Fischer > > U.S. program backs revitalization efforts > > 08/03/02 > > By Lynne Jensen > Staff writer/The Times-Picayune > > The Housing Authority of New Orleans is applying for its > third federal HOPE > VI revitalization grant, which would be used to help > renovate the Fischer > public housing complex in Algiers. > > The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development > announced Wednesday > that $492.5 million will be available for 2002 HOPE VI > Revitalization > Grants, issued since 1993 to help cities across the > country transform > public housing and improve neighborhoods. > > To ensure that more cities receive grants, HUD set a > maximum this year of > $20 million per grant, a HUD spokeswoman said. The > deadline for applying is > Nov. 29. > > HANO will ask for $20 million, housing authority > spokesman Adonis Exposè > said Thursday. > > There are 1,299 tenants at Fischer. They occupy 358 of > 629 units, with 271 > vacant. More than 370 units have been demolished. > > Plans for Fischer include the construction of a 100-unit > village for senior > citizens and a mixed-income community consisting of > rental units and > purchased homes. The total cost of demolition and > revitalization at Fischer > is estimated to be about $64 million. > > The HOPE VI grant program began after the National > Commission on Severely > Distressed Public Housing submitted a report to Congress > in 1992 calling > for a National Action Plan to raze about 86,000 "severely > distressed" > housing units of the country's 1.4 million public housing > units by 2000. > > The commission estimated that the cost of removing and > replacing the worn > units would be $7.5 billion. Congress responded by > appropriating the first > $300 million for a revitalization effort that became > known as HOPE VI. > > Since 1993, 377 grants totaling nearly $5 billion have > been awarded for > planning, demolition and revitalization efforts. > > HANO has received two HOPE VI revitalization grants: > $44.2 million for > Desire in 1994 and $25 million for St. Thomas in 1996. > The housing > authority also received two HOPE VI "demolition only" > grants: $3 million > for Desire and $1.5 million for Fischer. > > St. Thomas has been completely razed and the demolition > phase of the Desire > revitalization is nearly complete. > > There are 43 tenants living in 14 of 76 units remaining > at Desire. More > than 1,780 units have been demolished. > > Redevelopment at Desire and St. Thomas will include a mix > of public housing > units, low-income houses and more upscale housing sites. > > . . . . . . . > > Lynne Jensen can be reached at ljensen@timespicayune.com > or (504) 826-3310. > > > > 08/03/02 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 07:28:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Grant Subject: Save public housing- HOPE VI action planning meeting I thought those on this list might be interested in actions being taken in place other than Chicago to defend Public Housing. Below is a call from DC activists. Anyone on this list in DC might take particular note. > --- jenny kirby wrote: > > dchousing@lists.mutualaid.org, > > hnj-dc-list@homesnotjails.org > > Subject: [HNJ/DC] Save public housing- HOPE VI > > action planning meeting > > Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 22:21:52 +0000 > > > > All- We will be doing door-to-door outreach with > > this flyer tomorow > > (tuesday) and wednesday. If interested, in helping > > call 202-714-4430. > > > > ALERT! > > SAVE PUBLIC HOUSING NOW! > > > > Eleven public housing projects in DC face HOPE VI- a > > HUD-funded program that > > puts public housing residents at the risk of > > homelessness. The aim of HOPE > > VI is to turn public housing into "mixed-income" > > housing. Unfortunately, up > > to 90% of residents can be displaced, many with > > nowhere to go. > > > > The HOPE VI program is up for reauthorization in > > Congress right now. It's > > time for us to send a message to our local housing > > authority and officials, > > to HUD, and to our federally elected officials that > > we will not tolerate the > > continued displacement of public housing residents. > > > > You are invited! > > > > What: Planning session for an event to demand an end > > to HOPE VI displacement > > both here in DC, and nation-wide. > > When: Thursday, August 8, 6pm-8pm > > Where: Southeast Branch Library at 7th and D St. SE, > > near the Eastern Market > > Metro Station, on the Blue and Orange Line. > > **Refreshments will be served, and Daycare will be > > provided.** > > > > HOUSING IS A HUMAN RIGHT! > > For more information, please contact 202-714-4430. > > Sponsored by the National Coalition for the Homeless > > and Homes Not Jails DC > > > > If your organization would like to officially > > sponsor the event, call > > 202-714-4430. > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 07:08:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Grant Subject: Housing Vouchers No Magic Key If you would like me to send you an MS Word formated copy of this article write me at Grant57_99@yahoo.com G. --- Wayne Sherwood wrote: About This Series Monday, August 5, 2002; Page A08 This is the third in a series of articles The Washington Post is writing about the lack of affordable housing in the region. The previous installments, which appeared March 17 and May 3, can be found at www.washingtonpost.com. ============================================================ Housing Vouchers No Magic Key Rising Rents, Dwindling Choices Thwart Low-Income Residents By Fredrick Kunkle Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, August 5, 2002; Page A01 Stephanie Urama wasn't looking for paradise -- just a decent home in a neighborhood without drug busts, a place with a playground where her four children might play without fear. And the way out seemed at hand: a federal housing voucher deemed to be as good as cash. She dialed up Elden Terrace in Fairfax County. Nothing was available. She called Skyview Apartments. Again, nothing. Over at Kings Gardens, there was a waiting list. Same at Cherry Arms. Dulles Center Apartments suggested checking back in a few months. Springfield Square told her that it had not seen a three-bedroom apartment on the market in a year. Within a few days of calling around Fairfax, Urama discovered that in a hot real estate market, her housing voucher could be almost worthless. It is a double bind: When high housing costs leave low-income families struggling to find a decent place to live, the largest federal program to help them -- known as Section 8 -- is itself seriously strained. Urama faced several problems. The supply of Section 8 apartments had shrunk. Some landlords wanted more than her voucher could pay. Others wanted to avoid the hassle of paperwork. And some -- though they almost never said it outright -- wanted nothing to do with Section 8 renters. "It was tough, seeing places and kind of hoping that this would be it," said Urama, 40, a single mother who lives in Fairfax. "I'd take the kids along, and they would always be going, 'When are we going to find a place that will be ours?' " Her experience has become common in the Washington area as the scarcity of affordable housing has grown acute. A combination of the '90s economic boom that drove up costs, rapid population growth that boosted demand and an increase in poverty has left thousands of local families desperate for housing. Recent census figures show that more than one-quarter of all renters in the Washington area -- about 176,000 households -- spend at least 35 percent of their monthly income on rent. Modest, two-bedroom apartments are often beyond the reach of firefighters, police officers, teachers and other middle-class workers. Even in the economic downturn, prices have not fallen. In Montgomery County, the average apartment rent jumped 11 percent last year to $1,180 a month, according to county officials. And in Fairfax and Arlington counties, rents have climbed even higher. Similar conditions have taken hold in San Francisco, Chicago and other tight housing markets across the nation. In Los Angeles, for example, where some Section 8 renters were able to find homes in middle-class neighborhoods in the 1990s, a kind of downward mobility has recently set in, with many low-income families migrating back to impoverished neighborhoods or finding nothing at all. The pinch has magnified the drawbacks of Section 8, the nation's 30-year-old program meant to help low-income renters find decent housing by giving them vouchers for a portion of their rent. In the District, more than 40 percent of those with vouchers fail to find and lease a privately owned rental property before the vouchers expire, a 2001 study found. Vouchers are issued for 60 days, but most jurisdictions generally offer 60-day extensions. Because of the tight real estate market, the District will extend vouchers to 180 days. This year, Fairfax chose not to apply for more vouchers from the federal government because there were not enough apartments for people already in the program. "The Section 8 people are at the bottom of landlords' lists. They're not going to rent to them unless there's nobody else," said Susanne Arnold, who heads ALIVE! House, a small homeless shelter in Alexandria. Menacing Atmosphere As Urama lugged baskets of clothing between her apartment and the laundry room, other tenants jammed the concrete stairwell, creating a gantlet of people smoking, cursing and sometimes drinking. Grudgingly, they let her pass. "Are you done?" one asked belligerently. At Janna Lee Village, a complex of garden apartments just off Route 1 in Fairfax, Urama found that even a simple trip to the laundry room could be filled with menace. In Great Falls, where Urama had lived with her family before her husband abandoned them, they sometimes did not lock their doors. At Janna Lee, life exposed them to a steady round of police sirens, even gunshots. "They were loud, too," said Urama's 13-year-old son, Chima. "Mom told everybody to turn the lights off. . . . That happens almost every night -- you hear sirens." A few months after they moved in, a 19-year-old Liberian immigrant was shot to death in a patch of woods behind the apartment building while walking home after working the night shift at a convenience store. In the halls of the building were fliers with a police sketch of a serial rapist. There were more subtle dangers, too, including prejudice. Although Urama and her children are black, and many of those around them in the complex were also minorities, neighborhood bullies mocked Chima as a bookworm who looks black but "talks like a white person," his mother said. To Urama, Janna Lee Village was better than the homeless shelter her family had landed in for a few months -- but not by much. "You have to be really strong to struggle to stay ahead," she said. "Everybody is there trying to pull you down." All around the apartment were signs of her struggle to do more than stay afloat: her daughter's violin case on the faded, worn wall-to-wall carpeting, not far from a collection of poinsettias atop a donated TV stand. Her children's books were scattered near a table with a broken computer and plastic chairs held together with electrical tape. Life has never been easy for Urama. She grew up in Adams Morgan, one of five children raised by a single mother after her parents divorced. While taking courses at the University of the District of Columbia, she met and married a Nigerian immigrant studying to become an engineer. They eventually settled in an apartment in Sterling after Urama's husband took a job with a large construction company. But he kept a tight fist on the family's money, she said, buying himself BMWs and costly silk ties and leaving little for her and the children. When their bills became difficult to meet, she took a night job stocking goods for a department store, catching sleep whenever she could while also watching her young children. After 15 years of marriage, her husband returned to Nigeria to pursue a business career. He left a few checks to pay some bills, a 1991 Ford Explorer and some clothing, she said. When Urama could no longer afford the rent on their home in Great Falls, a counselor urged her to enter a shelter in Reston. From there, United Community Ministries Inc., a nonprofit agency, found the family a two-bedroom apartment in Janna Lee Village for $1,350 a month. Urama paid $450 a month; the agency paid the rest. "I really want them to live in an environment where they're not going to live in fear," Urama said. "You can't do that here. To live here, you have to be transformed." So Urama, who is a Jehovah's Witness, tucked a copy of "The Watchtower" into the thick, yellow folder from the county explaining the Section 8 program and set out to search for a new home. Heightened Competition The growing strain in the Section 8 program has many causes: Rising prices mean the vouchers cover less of the total cost of a home, making it difficult for low-income families to come up with their share. Participants may not pay more than 40 percent of their income on rent. Also, demand for the program has grown. Since 1999 in the District, for example, the number of families receiving vouchers has increased by one-third to 10,000, heightening competition for the limited supply of housing. And perhaps most critically, landlords, enticed by a sizzling real estate market, are dropping out of the program. Real estate companies that own big apartment buildings have opted out of long-term contracts with Section 8, while mom-and-pop property owners who rent condominium units or single-family homes have shunned Section 8 because they can earn more on the open market. Mike Finkle, chief of housing services in Fairfax County's Department of Housing and Community, estimated that 1 in 10 landlords has left the program in the past two years. "I think Section 8 is a very much needed program. But if there's no units to use it, it's stagnant," said Marye E. Ish, director of housing operations with the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority. She said the federal government should adjust the program to rising costs, lift the cap on how much families can contribute and build more units. "It's not the Section 8, per se, that's the problem -- it's the lack of affordable housing." High Rent, Low Quality In November, when a three-bedroom cottage on Fisher Avenue in Falls Church came on the market, Urama darted from work on her lunch hour to check it out. Though the commute would pose difficulties, the neighborhood was welcoming and picturesque with trees. The rent, at $1,600 a month, was manageable. Urama, who had begun to feel frustration in her search, now at least had help: Courtney Stockman, a real estate agent who was new to the business and looking for clients. Unlike many agents, Stockman was willing to work with a renter and told Urama about the listing. But the moment Urama stepped through the door, the odor of mold hit her full in the face. There were more signs of trouble: a leaky basement, drafty windows, a door that looked as if someone had kicked it in. The tenant, who was moving out, noted helpfully that her cats kept down the mice. Even Stockman seemed shocked by the disrepair. Urama said that when she mentioned the smell of mildew to Stockman, the agent responded: "Well, you know, it's Section 8." Urama, who works at the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute in Fairfax conducting patient interviews, at first thought she might find an apartment in a safe, convenient neighborhood and a landlord who would allow her kids to keep a dog. Her enthusiasm was high, and she squeezed time to search into an already impossible schedule that began each day at 5:45 a.m. She felt as if she was in a race against time -- not only because the voucher would expire in June but also because she worried that the violence on the streets would catch up to her children. Within 10 days of receiving her voucher, she had called 23 places. Her voucher allowed up to $1,893 a month for a four-bedroom apartment, $400 of that from her own pocket. That would leave the remaining $1,500 of her monthly take-home pay to feed and clothe her family. Then she learned about a townhouse on Mazewood Lane near Chantilly that accepted Section 8. The house seemed gorgeous, and there was a grassy field nearby where her children could play. She stopped by again on a weekend, bringing her children to see the place before an evening worship service at their Kingdom Hall. But as her children chattered about picking bedrooms, Urama worried about the commute. Living nearly 20 miles from work and school would pose a problem, especially in rush hour, when she needed to pick up her three youngest children at day care or else pay a late fee. So she passed. Other places were snapped up before she could see them. She flubbed an appointment to see a house, and it was rented before she had another opportunity. Urama realized that she'd have to give up some things. Her kids probably couldn't have a cat or a dog. She contemplated squeezing into a two-bedroom apartment, but that would violate Section 8 rules. The hope she felt when she began her search had spiraled into despair. Vouchers' Early Promise Section 8, which supplies 1.8 million vouchers to families, the elderly and people with disabilities, began as an alternative to the federal government's vast program of building and operating public housing complexes. Housing advocates argued that the high-rise buildings and sprawling developments concentrated poverty, bred crime and deposited tenants in neighborhoods devoid of job opportunities. Section 8, now known as the Housing Choice Voucher program, reduced the government's involvement and introduced a more free-market approach. Landlords had an incentive to participate because the program delivered a potential pool of renters and guaranteed a substantial portion of the rent, even if the occupant couldn't pay. "If conditions are ideal, Section 8 works better than public housing because people have choice. So if there are landlords who are willing to rent to you and there's housing available . . . people end up in better neighborhoods than they do in public housing," said Susan J. Popkin, a housing expert at the Urban Institute. But many landlords are not willing, shying away from the program because of the hot rental market or to avoid red tape and the problems low-income renters can bring. In recent years, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, which administers the approximately $8 billion-a-year program, has tried to keep up with the market by allowing jurisdictions to increase their subsidies. In Montgomery, for example, the maximum voucher for a one-bedroom apartment in certain neighborhoods has gone from $804 to $928. "We still know that it's a struggle in some markets," said Michal Liu, HUD assistant secretary for public and Indian housing. He said the agency is trying to improve Section 8 by reducing paperwork and recruiting landlords. To sign up more landlords, Fairfax, for example, recently kicked off a campaign with the slogan, "Get into the people business." Hidden Costs Revealed When her real estate agent suggested a townhouse in Daventry, an upper-middle-class neighborhood in Springfield, Urama was ready to sign the lease, sight unseen. That day, she e-mailed her supervisor that she had to leave work to see the place and dashed out to meet Stockman. But Urama got lost. By the time she arrived, she had missed her agent by minutes and was locked out. She walked around the townhouse, looking in from the outside. She sized up the neighborhood and liked what she saw. Springfield Mall was close by. The homes looked tidy, befitting a street of hardworking neighbors. There were toys, flags and other decorative touches. None of the cars on the street was as old as hers. Though she was uneasy about renting a place whose interior she had never seen, Urama, by now feeling a little desperate, decided to go ahead. After all, it was February, and her voucher would expire in four months. Other properties had come and gone. Stockman reassured her that she would be wise to jump at the townhouse. But there was trouble. Although the place was advertised at $1,850, the owner wanted $1,885, saying there had been a mix-up on the asking price. The owner also wanted an $875 pet deposit because Urama mentioned on the application that her family would like to get a dog or cat. After some dickering, the owner agreed to a four-month lease at $1,850, which would then go to $1,885. Urama put up the $35 application fee. UCM, the social services group that had helped Urama before, wrote a $3,500 check for the security deposit. But then, just like that, the owner backed out. There was no explanation. A Fairfax housing employee told her that it was just as well the townhouse fell through: The total cost of the place was even higher, with garbage collection fees and homeowners association dues that no one had mentioned. Once more, disappointment settled over the Urama family. Time to Face Reality After only a few months, the relationship between Urama and Stockman was fraying. Stockman took her to a house in Alexandria, but Urama didn't like the house or the neighborhood or the idea that she would have to switch her children into a new school district. Why, Urama wanted to know, had the agent chosen this place? "Well, the place chose you," Stockman said. Urama was unrealistic in her expectations, Stockman thought. Every housing decision involves a calculus of price vs. amenities, proximity and schools, and in markets like this one, all but a few must compromise. But as Urama saw things, her agent expected too little. She believed that Stockman was eager to put her into anything that came along to get rid of her. After all, Stockman would receive a modest commission for arranging a lease, compared with selling a house. But the trip to Alexandria also brought about a realization for Urama. She decided again she would have to lower her standards if she wanted to get her children out of Janna Lee Village. "I could live here," she said of Janna Lee. "But my children can't grow up here." Finding a Middle Ground On an unseasonably warm day in March, Stockman called up with a listing and told Urama to hustle over to see it. The property was a three-bedroom, $1,200-a-month townhouse in Springfield. The three-story unit had been well-used -- paint splatters on the floor, a box of d-CON on a counter -- but it was also clean, its rooms smelling of bleach. Stockman stood in the empty living room, picking through a fast-food salad, as Urama toured the apartment. A smile lit Urama's face. "I think it's great. I'm tickled," she said, snapping her fingers. In the next few days, a county inspection was done. The lease was signed. She paid movers from the ministry that had helped house her, and the apartment became hers. Her children love the new location and its nearby wooded trails. "I feel like I learned a lot -- about needing to be patient and just toughing it out," she said. " 'Cause it was tough." But not everything has turned out as she hoped. She has feuded with the owner over a broken stove and loose bathroom tiles. Urama likes fresh air, but the landlord doesn't want her to open the windows for fear of rain damage. Their quarrels have sometimes erupted into shouting matches. "I know she thinks I'm going to damage the place," Urama said. "I know she has all these ideas of who she thinks I am." (END) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:22:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Grant Subject: Fwd: Fw: [Housing_Set_Aside] DENVER INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE PASSES! Hi all, This is good news. I hope to see you at the zoning meeting tonight. john From: "Josh Deth" DENVER INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE PASSES! I have attached a CRN advocacy alert about Denver's new inclusionary housing ordinance, which was passed last night. This is great news for our campaign and should help dispel the notion that this type of policy can't be passed in Chicago. FYI- Below is an email from Mary Hupp of the Capital Hill United Ministries, one of the groups who worked to pass the bill. Now it is out turn to keep the momentum going on set-asides in Chicago. I hope to see you all tonight. Josh Deth -----Original Message----- From: Mary Hupp Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 11:29 AM Dear CHUM members and friends: There is a new housing policy in Denver and we have been a player in making it happen! Last night, nearly two years after the idea was first proposed, City Council adopted the inclusionary housing ordinance to support the creation of housing for low and lower-middle income residents. We hope that this measure will have a real effect in providing homes for those who are currently not able to afford adequate housing. Thanks to all who have given their energy and attention and commitment to this effort! The plan has both mandatory requirements and expanded incentives to broaden the reach of the ordinance. The Save Our Section 8 coalition deserves great credit for pushing to increase its reach to lower-income people and in working to create a connection with the development community.. CHUM has played an important role in keeping the teeth in the bill that makes it mandatory and assures a real funding source and in remaining a commited advocate of this measure through many delays and set backs. The Metropolitan Organization for People (MOP) has also worked very hard to keep the measure before Council and to seek ways to strengthen its provisions. Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods and the Enterprise Foundation contributed to the public debate and took positions or worked to support the measure. This has been a complex process around a very complex issue and it has required many voices to bring it forward. Voting for the bill were Susan Barnes-Gelt, Debbie Ortega, Elbra Wedgeworth, Happy Haynes, Kathleen MacKenzie, Polly Flobeck and last but not least, Ramona Martinez, who agreed to vote yes on the measure in exchange for a compromise that extended its reach to lower income people and addressed some concerns about home owner equity. That compromise is in the form of an accompanying ordinance that should be heard on second reading next Monday evening. We should continue to keep an eye on this to be certain it goes forward as anticipated. Please write letters or send emails thanking those who supported this measure. This was a nasty, drawn-out process and the proponents deserve some recognition for their hard work--particularly Debbie Ortega, Susan Barnes-Gelt and Ramona Martinez. I have heard that Happy Haynes was also instrumental in helping to craft the compromise that Ramona carried. The Mayor's role in driving this through also should not be underestimated. (I've attached a document that gives you email and addresses.) We recognize that this is only a beginning and that there are many people with needs that this bill does not address. The measure may be challenged legally and we need to watch it closely to see whether in fact it serves in the way intended. Having said all that, it is a significant step forward and we can be proud of the role that CHUM has played! Peace and blessing! Mary __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/