Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
REVISED: Tassafaronga Hope Vl Proposal Threatens Oakland's Poor
Oakland Housing Authority Is Using Local Section 8 Reserve Funds, & Local Section 8 Administrative Reserve Funds As A HUGE Slush Fund, For It's Notorious Hope Vl Projects!
Tassafaronga Hope Vl Proposal Threatens Oakland's Poor
By Lynda Carson
June 5, 2007
Oakland -- During a recent March 28, Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) board meeting, OHA's Phil Neville announced that the OHA intends to file another Hope VI application, for the 87 unit Tassafaronga Village public housing complex, despite being turned down twice already by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in recent years.
The Hope Vl program is the nations most notorious housing demolition program that intentionally displaces low-income communities, as a way to replace them with higher income communities. If the Tassafaronga Hope Vl application is granted, 87 families will face eviction from their East Oakland low-income housing.
Tassafaronga Village is located at 929 - 85th Avenue and is one of the OHA's twelve largest public housing sites. The OHA wants to demolish the existing 87 units of low-income housing, and replace them with 191 units of mixed use housing, which includes 77 rental townhomes, 22 home ownership affordable townhomes, 60 rental apartments, and 32 rental lofts.
According to Ann Clegg from the OHA's executive office, "We still have families residing at Tassafaronga Village, though I can't exactly say how many are still residing there, and I believe that the Hope Vl application has been filed already."
During March 2006, the City of Oakland awarded $3 million from its annual affordable housing NOFA process to the OHA to be used for the termination of Tassafaronga Village, and an additional $1.8 million has been awarded to the OHA's partner, East Bay Habitat for Humanity for the proposed Hope Vl project.
Documents dated as recent February 13, 2007 reveal that an additional $3.5 million in local Section 8 reserves, have been made available to fund the architectural and engineering services involved in the Tassafaronga Hope Vl venture.
Currently theres enough documentation existing to reveal that the OHA has turned it's local Section 8 reserve fund, and it's local Section 8 administrative reserve fund into a huge slush fund thats being used to finance Oakland's privatized Hope Vl projects.
On Feb. 24, 2003, at the request of OHA's Executive Director Jon Gresley, OHA's board members authorized the use of $2,254,000 in local Section 8 reserves to purchase property for the Coliseum Gardens Hope Vl project. In addition, during that same meeting the board also authorized the use of $7,000,000 in local Section 8 administrative reserve funds to be committed to the Coliseum Gardens HOPE VI project.
According to OHA's own documants, during FY 2006 the year began with 11,324 (98.9 percent) of authorized Section 8 vouchers in use, while the year ended with only 10,699 (93.4 percent) of authorized vouchers in use.
This means that 615 authorized Section 8 vouchers have not been in use recently in Oakland, and other documentation shows that the Section 8 funding reserves (from unused vouchers) are being siphoned off for other purposes than what was originally intended.
Section 8 tenant Corrine James of Oakland is shocked to learn that local Section 8 reserves are being used for a project that intends to displace the 87 families from Tassafaronga Village. "It's really sick that someone would use funds that were originally meant to house poor people, for a project that intends to displace poor people and demolish their housing. This is flat out wrong, and must be stopped," she said.
Since 1994, Oakland officials and the Federal Government have targeted Oakland's poor with nearly $84 million in federal funding through the Hope Vl program, in an effort to displace the low-income communities from such housing projects known as Lockwood Gardens, Chestnut Court, Westwood Gardens, and the Coliseum Gardens. The above mentioned funds do not include all the other funding sources that have been used to dump the poor from their public housing units, in the name of the Hope Vl program.
On national average, less than 12% of the tenants being displaced by a Hope Vl program ever manage to move into the newly rebuilt Hope Vl housing community.
Activist's across the nation are urging public housing tenants to put up a fight, and demand the right of return, so that they too may benefit from the so-called promises of a Hope Vl project.
As working partners involved in the scheme to displace Oakland's poor from Tassafaronga Village, the OHA is partnered on the project with East Bay Habitat for Humanity which plans to build 22 homes after the poor are displaced by their project.
Further documentation for the project, reveals that Habitat for Humanity is to be charged only 1$ (ONE DOLLAR), for their piece of the action (.875 of an acre) in this land grab from the poor, and they have already been awarded more than $1.8 million by the City of Oakland to participate in this dubious venture.
The architectectural firm hired to design the proposed Hope Vl project at Tassafaronga, is called David Baker and Partners, who had little to say when asked what will happen to the 87 families being displaced by the project if it goes through. "We do not know what will happen to the families at Tassafaronga, and we do not have that kind of information," said Sherry Shannon.
For a look at who may be displaced from Tassafaronga Village, a recent 2006 public housing tenant profile sheds some light on the subject.
During FY 2006, according to the OHA, the head of house holds in Oakland's public housing units included the following; White 159, Black 2,221, Native American 5, Asian 428, Pacific Islanders 0.
Federal cutbacks to Oakland's public housing program have caused a back log of repairs to be made to their public housing units, and as recent as February 15, 2007 the City of Oakland sued the OHA and accussed it of being a slumlord.
As a further result of the funding cuts to Oakland's public housing program, documentation shows that the local Section 8 reserves are also being looted on a regular basis to provide funds to Oakland's public housing program.
According to OHA FY 2006 documents;
[[[As the Authority’s housing stock continues to age (the scattered sites were all built between 1968 and 1973, the larger sites even earlier), and more and more maintenance is deferred, residents are forced to live in less appealing conditions. Thus while the city of Oakland has enjoyed a surge in residential development, renovation and private investment, the public housing stock lags behind, creating an increasingly apparent discrepancy.
OHA has responded to this situation by regularly spending Section 8 reserves on the Public Housing program. ]]]
Oakland's Public Housing Problems
As of 2007, OHA documents reveal that the authority owns and operates 3,308 units of Conventional Public Housing within Oakland's city limits.
However, records also show that only 2,813 units were actually occupied during FY 2006, leaving 495 units vacant that year.
In addition a deeper look reveals that out of the 3,308 public housing units in Oakland, 307 units have been privatized, and are operated by private management under Hope Vl funding. As an example, Coliseum Gardens tenants (Now Called Lion Creek Crossings), send their monthly rent checks to a firm owned by a billionaire in New York City.
Furthermore, funding cuts to Oakland's public housing program are further aggravated by the lack of collection of rents that are owed at many of their properties in Oakland.
Reports show that during the beginning of FY 2006, 3.5 percent of rents owed to the OHA were going uncollected, according to OHA documents.
Lynda Carson may be reached at, tenantsrule [at] yahoo.com
By Lynda Carson
June 5, 2007
Oakland -- During a recent March 28, Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) board meeting, OHA's Phil Neville announced that the OHA intends to file another Hope VI application, for the 87 unit Tassafaronga Village public housing complex, despite being turned down twice already by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in recent years.
The Hope Vl program is the nations most notorious housing demolition program that intentionally displaces low-income communities, as a way to replace them with higher income communities. If the Tassafaronga Hope Vl application is granted, 87 families will face eviction from their East Oakland low-income housing.
Tassafaronga Village is located at 929 - 85th Avenue and is one of the OHA's twelve largest public housing sites. The OHA wants to demolish the existing 87 units of low-income housing, and replace them with 191 units of mixed use housing, which includes 77 rental townhomes, 22 home ownership affordable townhomes, 60 rental apartments, and 32 rental lofts.
According to Ann Clegg from the OHA's executive office, "We still have families residing at Tassafaronga Village, though I can't exactly say how many are still residing there, and I believe that the Hope Vl application has been filed already."
During March 2006, the City of Oakland awarded $3 million from its annual affordable housing NOFA process to the OHA to be used for the termination of Tassafaronga Village, and an additional $1.8 million has been awarded to the OHA's partner, East Bay Habitat for Humanity for the proposed Hope Vl project.
Documents dated as recent February 13, 2007 reveal that an additional $3.5 million in local Section 8 reserves, have been made available to fund the architectural and engineering services involved in the Tassafaronga Hope Vl venture.
Currently theres enough documentation existing to reveal that the OHA has turned it's local Section 8 reserve fund, and it's local Section 8 administrative reserve fund into a huge slush fund thats being used to finance Oakland's privatized Hope Vl projects.
On Feb. 24, 2003, at the request of OHA's Executive Director Jon Gresley, OHA's board members authorized the use of $2,254,000 in local Section 8 reserves to purchase property for the Coliseum Gardens Hope Vl project. In addition, during that same meeting the board also authorized the use of $7,000,000 in local Section 8 administrative reserve funds to be committed to the Coliseum Gardens HOPE VI project.
According to OHA's own documants, during FY 2006 the year began with 11,324 (98.9 percent) of authorized Section 8 vouchers in use, while the year ended with only 10,699 (93.4 percent) of authorized vouchers in use.
This means that 615 authorized Section 8 vouchers have not been in use recently in Oakland, and other documentation shows that the Section 8 funding reserves (from unused vouchers) are being siphoned off for other purposes than what was originally intended.
Section 8 tenant Corrine James of Oakland is shocked to learn that local Section 8 reserves are being used for a project that intends to displace the 87 families from Tassafaronga Village. "It's really sick that someone would use funds that were originally meant to house poor people, for a project that intends to displace poor people and demolish their housing. This is flat out wrong, and must be stopped," she said.
Since 1994, Oakland officials and the Federal Government have targeted Oakland's poor with nearly $84 million in federal funding through the Hope Vl program, in an effort to displace the low-income communities from such housing projects known as Lockwood Gardens, Chestnut Court, Westwood Gardens, and the Coliseum Gardens. The above mentioned funds do not include all the other funding sources that have been used to dump the poor from their public housing units, in the name of the Hope Vl program.
On national average, less than 12% of the tenants being displaced by a Hope Vl program ever manage to move into the newly rebuilt Hope Vl housing community.
Activist's across the nation are urging public housing tenants to put up a fight, and demand the right of return, so that they too may benefit from the so-called promises of a Hope Vl project.
As working partners involved in the scheme to displace Oakland's poor from Tassafaronga Village, the OHA is partnered on the project with East Bay Habitat for Humanity which plans to build 22 homes after the poor are displaced by their project.
Further documentation for the project, reveals that Habitat for Humanity is to be charged only 1$ (ONE DOLLAR), for their piece of the action (.875 of an acre) in this land grab from the poor, and they have already been awarded more than $1.8 million by the City of Oakland to participate in this dubious venture.
The architectectural firm hired to design the proposed Hope Vl project at Tassafaronga, is called David Baker and Partners, who had little to say when asked what will happen to the 87 families being displaced by the project if it goes through. "We do not know what will happen to the families at Tassafaronga, and we do not have that kind of information," said Sherry Shannon.
For a look at who may be displaced from Tassafaronga Village, a recent 2006 public housing tenant profile sheds some light on the subject.
During FY 2006, according to the OHA, the head of house holds in Oakland's public housing units included the following; White 159, Black 2,221, Native American 5, Asian 428, Pacific Islanders 0.
Federal cutbacks to Oakland's public housing program have caused a back log of repairs to be made to their public housing units, and as recent as February 15, 2007 the City of Oakland sued the OHA and accussed it of being a slumlord.
As a further result of the funding cuts to Oakland's public housing program, documentation shows that the local Section 8 reserves are also being looted on a regular basis to provide funds to Oakland's public housing program.
According to OHA FY 2006 documents;
[[[As the Authority’s housing stock continues to age (the scattered sites were all built between 1968 and 1973, the larger sites even earlier), and more and more maintenance is deferred, residents are forced to live in less appealing conditions. Thus while the city of Oakland has enjoyed a surge in residential development, renovation and private investment, the public housing stock lags behind, creating an increasingly apparent discrepancy.
OHA has responded to this situation by regularly spending Section 8 reserves on the Public Housing program. ]]]
Oakland's Public Housing Problems
As of 2007, OHA documents reveal that the authority owns and operates 3,308 units of Conventional Public Housing within Oakland's city limits.
However, records also show that only 2,813 units were actually occupied during FY 2006, leaving 495 units vacant that year.
In addition a deeper look reveals that out of the 3,308 public housing units in Oakland, 307 units have been privatized, and are operated by private management under Hope Vl funding. As an example, Coliseum Gardens tenants (Now Called Lion Creek Crossings), send their monthly rent checks to a firm owned by a billionaire in New York City.
Furthermore, funding cuts to Oakland's public housing program are further aggravated by the lack of collection of rents that are owed at many of their properties in Oakland.
Reports show that during the beginning of FY 2006, 3.5 percent of rents owed to the OHA were going uncollected, according to OHA documents.
Lynda Carson may be reached at, tenantsrule [at] yahoo.com
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The affordable housing community owes Ms Carson a great deal of thanks for her insightful, well-researched, and easily readable article. She is to be congratulated for exposing HOPE VI -- an horrendous program that has, since its inception, serruptitiously done immeasrable harm to low income people all across the country. HOPE VI is touted as a program that upgrades public housing projects and creates renewed neighborhoods that fit comfortably and acceptably into their neighborhoods. Under this guise, cities contribute generously of their limited affordable housing funds to meet the federally-required public/private financing of these projects. Unknown to local cities, congress, and the administrators who believe the hype, are the true objectives and results of these disastrous schemes. Some of the repercussions of the HOPE VI boondoogle are: (1) mandatory reduction ("reduced density") of the number of units formerly provided as public housing; (2) mandatory eviction of all tenants of the housing -- all of whom ore very low income, and who are given Section 8 vouchers to seek other housing, however, the vuchers are good for one year, and must be contnually renewed, if allowed; (3) renovation of the former public housing project to become "garden apartments," attractive to middle income renters; (4) in the HOPE VI process, the Housing Authority's contibution to the deal is the land the public housing project formerly occupied -- in exchange for approximately 50% or less of the post-construction units to be "leased" to the Housing Authority for Section 8 voucher holders (the land and the housing project becomes "privatized"); (5) following HOPE VI renovation, re-occupancy of the "lesser" number of former units is limited to no more than 50% that can be rented to "public housing eligible" households; (6) one-half or more of the units must be rented at "market-rate" to middle-income people and the new project must be self-supporting with no federal financial assistance in the future; (7) few former low and very low income tenants are "re-qualified" to ever be re-housed in the development after the HOPE VI process; (8) after HOPE VI, the project is owned and managed by private or non-prrofit entities -- not the Housing Authority; (9) HOPE VI removes the federal government as the "houser of last resort" and former tenants who lose their Section 8 vouchers are likely to become homeless.
Finally, since inception of HOPE VI (enacted under Bill Clinton) the national inventory of public housing has been reduced by over 300,000 units that formerly were homes for low and very income households.
James E Vann,
Architect and Housing Activist,
Oakland, California
UPDATE:
Tassafaronga & Hope Vl - June 8, Update
The following is for those that are actually following the latest on the Hope Vl proposals in Oakland.
On Friday June 8, 2007 after playing touch tag for days with OHA spokesperson Bronwyn Hogan, I finally gave up and managed to reach OHA's Hope Vl director Phil Neville for a lengthy discussion about the Tassaforanga Hope Vl proposal.
For the record, no offense intended, but it seems pointless to attempt to speak to a so-called spokesperson that may be impossible to reach, or may even lack the indepth knowledge or wealth of expertise needed to fully explain the politics of a Hope Vl process or procedure. Phil Neville was kind enough to spend around an hour bringing me up to date on Oakland's Hope Vl program.
1) No 3rd Hope Vl application has as of yet (June 8, 2007), been filed with HUD for the Tassafaronga Village.
2) The likelyhood of the OHA filing a Hope Vl application with HUD in the near future for Tassafaronga, is a YES.
3) Phil Neville says, "We do hope to get Hope Vl funds again. Unfortunately, there used to be over 500 million in funds available to housing authorities that wanted Hope Vl funds, but now it's down to $100 million being available, and theres around 40 housing authorities competing for the much less available funding.
4) Neville says theres still around 79-80 families residing at Tassafaronga Village, but that at this point they (OHA) no longer are filling vacancies at Tassafaronga in anticipation of the Hope Vl application being granted.
5) According to Neville, Hope Vl applications are granted on a point system, and the most competitive housing authorities receiving the most points, get the Hope Vl grants. The more points received, the better the odds of an authority to receive a Hope Vl grant. In this case, Neville says that if the OHA can manage to remove all the tenants (families) and demolish their housing units at Tassafaronga Village before the Hope Vl application is filed, then the OHA receives more points from HUD towards the Hope Vl application.
Just imagine losing your housing and being forced to move just because someone wants to make more points in the world of leveraged land grabs by the wealthy....
What a fucking world!
This really stunned me when I suddenly realized that displacing poor people from their housing and demolishing their old homes (community) has become part of a point system in the Hope Vl game, being manipulated by HUD (federal government).
HUD dangles funds to convince a housing authority to dump their public housing tenants onto the streets and to demolish their housing, just to tempt the housing authorities to play the Hope Vl game... Pretty fucking wild!!!!!
The worst part is now knowing that even if all the families have been displaced and their housing has been demolished by a housing authority seeking a Hope Vl grant, there is no guarentee that a Hope Vl grant will be given.
It's all about the possibility of leveraging some local funds in hopes of leveraging even more funding sources, until millions upon millions more are sucked up into the leveraged Hope Vl deal.
Once a Hope Vl process gets going, a few million in local dollars being invested into the leverage game, may finally be leveraged into pulling in up to $200 million in funds from other investors that are willing to play this game.
It's all about leverage says, Neville.
The tragic part is that the poor are always the ones being sacrificed and leveraged out of their low-income public housing so that wealthy investors can make a bundle out of the wealthier income tenants who are later lured into the newly rebuilt and privatized Hope Vl communities.
Sounds like monopoly on steroids.
Start up funds on a local level such as in Oakland to play this Hope Vl game, means that the funding comes from other housing programs originally designed for the poor, which are then siphoned off and diverted into the game of promoting a Hope Vl application.
Hope Vl projects do not displace wealthy communities, only the poor low-income communities are displaced by Hope Vl schemes.
Section 8 Reserve Slush Fund:
In regards to the millions in Section 8 Reserves and the Section 8 Administrative Fee Reserves being siphoned off into a huge slush fund in Oakland, in which the millions of dollars are diverted into Hope Vl projects, the following is true.
Theres a huge battle going on between the OHA and HUD over the the unspent Section 8 reserves, and HUD is trying to get it's hands on the Section 8 reserves that rightly belong to the OHA, and other housing authorities across the nation.
As long as the unspent Section 8 reserve funds are liquid and are still sitting in bank deposits/accounts, HUD can grab the money and return it back to the Treasury Department.
But once the Section 8 reserves are actually invested into properties, such as for a Hope Vl project, the funds no longer can be grabbed by HUD, and are then secured by the housing authority in perpituity...
With the War Criminal Bush administration breathing down their back, it makes sense for all of the nations housing authorities to lock up their unspent Section 8 reserves as quick as possible in land deals so that the Bush administration does not grab the money and use the funds in the war machine which will end up killing more people around the planet in the name of the ruling elites empire.
Below is more info about the Hope Vl program...
Sincerely,
Lynda Carson
**************
National Low-Income Housing Coalition Hope Vl Information:
HOPE VI
March 1, 2007
http://www.nlihc.org/detail/article.cfm?article_id=2772&id=46
In 1993, Congress created the HOPE VI program through the VA-HUD-IA Appropriations Act to revitalize dilapidated public housing units. Funds allocated to the HOPE VI program are used for eligible activities under the program, including demolishing public housing units, rehabilitating units and relocating residents. In the FY07 budget, HUD again proposed the elimination of the HOPE VI program and the rescission of prior year funds.
Program History
In 1989, Congress established the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing. The Commission was charged with identifying severely distressed public housing and devising a plan to address the problem. The Commission submitted its findings to Congress in 1992. The Commission found that 6% of public housing units, or 86,000 units, were severely distressed and recommended that Congress create a revitalization plan; as a result, Congress created the HOPE VI program. Advocates have been troubled that under the HOPE VI program, Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) have demolished viable units and displaced families.
In 2003, Congress reauthorized the program through 2006. At that time, protections were added for tenants, such as requiring the HUD Secretary to involve affected public housing residents at the beginning and during the planning process. In addition, during the grant selection process, a criterion was added to reward minimizing the permanent displacement of current residents of public housing and prioritizing tenants of the existing developments to return to the revitalized development. There is also assistance available for smaller communities in order to develop affordable housing for low income families in connection with a main street revitalization or redevelopment project.
Legislation reauthorizing the program beyond September 2006 was introduced in the 109th Congress, but the bill died in committee. The program, as of September 2006, has expired. It is likely that reauthorization legislation will be introduced again, early in the 110th Congress. Funding for HOPE VI in FY07 will be determined by the FY07 joint funding resolution (see section on FY07 joint funding resolution).
Program Beneficiaries
The HOPE VI program is intended to benefit the current residents of severely distressed public housing, residents of the revitalized units and communities surrounding the revitalized sites. The program is supposed to improve families' quality of life by moving them closer to jobs and better quality schools, which has occurred for some families. But the HOPE VI program has not been beneficial to everyone. Approximately 30% of residents surveyed continue to live in high-poverty and high-crime neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, many families are being displaced and low income housing units are being lost under the HOPE VI program. As of September 2005, HOPE VI grantees planned to replace approximately half of the public housing units demolished. The remaining redeveloped units are intended for higher income residents who can pay more in rent or purchase some of the redeveloped units.
Structure
HOPE VI grants are awarded annually on a competitive basis through HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing. HUD evaluates grants based on four factors: demonstrated need for revitalization assistance, capacity of applicants to use grants effectively, quality of proposed revitalization plans and potential for applicants to use grants to leverage funds from other sources.
Any PHA that operates public housing units is eligible for a HOPE VI grant. HOPE VI grants are used for the capital costs of demolition, construction, rehabilitation and other physical improvements, development of replacement housing, and community and supportive services. PHAs administer the program and can use the grants in conjunction with modernization funds or other HUD funds, as well as municipal and state contributions, public and private loans and Low Income Housing Tax Credit equity.
While most of the funds are to be used for capital costs, a portion of the grant may be used for community and supportive services. HOPE VI increases private investment in communities and creates mixed-income housing. But critics point to the loss of housing stock affordable and available to the lowest income people.
Funding
For four consecutive fiscal years, the Administration has proposed the elimination of funding for the HOPE VI program.
Prior to FY04, HOPE VI was funded at more than $570 million. Due to bipartisan support, Congress has not acquiesced to the Administration's proposal to eliminate the program. However, funding for the program has been drastically reduced. In FY05, Congress appropriated $143 million for the program. The final FY06 budget allocates only $100 million to HOPE VI. For FY07, the President proposed rescinding $99 million from FY06 and providing no funds for FY07. Funding for HOPE VI in FY07 will be determined by the FY07 joint funding resolution (see section on FY07 joint funding resolution).
PHAs are constantly struggling to address public housing needs with inadequate appropriations from Congress. While the Administration is proposing to eliminate HOPE VI, there is no proposal to reallocate the HOPE VI funds to other public housing accounts. HOPE VI dollars could be reallocated to address the approximate $20 billion capital funds backlog.
Issues
Public housing is in desperate need of increased capital and operating funds. The HOPE VI program as it currently exists has negative consequences for low income households that must be addressed if the program is to be reauthorized. While the reforms that were enacted in the 2003 reauthorization of the program were positive, advocates continue to have concerns.
Advocates' concerns with HOPE VI fall into two major categories. The first is what happens to the existing residents of public housing developments that become HOPE VI projects. The second is the contribution that HOPE VI makes to the loss, nationally and locally, of housing that is affordable to the lowest income households. NLIHC and other resident advocates are deeply concerned about the problems associated with HOPE VI.
HOPE VI Reauthorization
In the 109th Congress, Senators Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Christopher Bond (R-MO) introduced S. 1513, a bill that would reauthorize the HOPE VI program through 2011 at $600 million annually.
Advocates had a number of concerns about the bill, mostly centered on its failings in two areas. First, the bill weakened current statutory requirements regarding the right of residents to return to redeveloped units. Second, the bill fell short of providing a clear legal obligation on the part of HUD to ensure that HOPE VI does not result in a net loss of public housing units. Additionally, advocates believe that any HOPE VI reauthorization must include a strict definition of what HUD can consider to be "severely distressed" public housing stock.
Senator Mikulski's S. 1513 did not receive a vote in the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee to which it was referred. In 2007, Senator Mikulski is expected to reintroduce a version of this legislation in the Senate. HOPE VI reauthorization legislation is also expected in the House.
What Advocates Can Do
Advocates should monitor the status of HOPE VI program funding and reauthorization legislation and inform their Members of Congress of their concerns about the program. Public housing is a national asset. The notion that public housing is a failed or ineffective program best remedied by eliminating the public housing stock should be rejected.
At the local level, advocates should keep an eye on local HOPE VI plans and object to elements that place public housing residents at a disadvantage. Insist that residents be involved in decision-making. Advocates should request an objective assessment of the viability of any public housing that is threatened with demolition and should also demand one-for-one replacement of the public housing units that are lost.
Once a HOPE VI project is funded, advocates should work to see that the interests of low income people who face displacement are met. Relocation services and alternative housing should be provided in the project plans, and the PHA should keep track of displaced residents and give them priority for available housing.
For More Information
National Low Income Housing Coalition • 202-662-1530 • http://www.nlihc.org
National Housing Law Project • 510-251-9400 • http://www.nhlp.org
National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC)
727 15th Street NW, 6th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
202/662-1530 | Fax 202/393-1973
contact | site map | terms of use | privacy statement
©2006 National Low Income Housing Coalition.
Tassafaronga & Hope Vl - June 8, Update
The following is for those that are actually following the latest on the Hope Vl proposals in Oakland.
On Friday June 8, 2007 after playing touch tag for days with OHA spokesperson Bronwyn Hogan, I finally gave up and managed to reach OHA's Hope Vl director Phil Neville for a lengthy discussion about the Tassaforanga Hope Vl proposal.
For the record, no offense intended, but it seems pointless to attempt to speak to a so-called spokesperson that may be impossible to reach, or may even lack the indepth knowledge or wealth of expertise needed to fully explain the politics of a Hope Vl process or procedure. Phil Neville was kind enough to spend around an hour bringing me up to date on Oakland's Hope Vl program.
1) No 3rd Hope Vl application has as of yet (June 8, 2007), been filed with HUD for the Tassafaronga Village.
2) The likelyhood of the OHA filing a Hope Vl application with HUD in the near future for Tassafaronga, is a YES.
3) Phil Neville says, "We do hope to get Hope Vl funds again. Unfortunately, there used to be over 500 million in funds available to housing authorities that wanted Hope Vl funds, but now it's down to $100 million being available, and theres around 40 housing authorities competing for the much less available funding.
4) Neville says theres still around 79-80 families residing at Tassafaronga Village, but that at this point they (OHA) no longer are filling vacancies at Tassafaronga in anticipation of the Hope Vl application being granted.
5) According to Neville, Hope Vl applications are granted on a point system, and the most competitive housing authorities receiving the most points, get the Hope Vl grants. The more points received, the better the odds of an authority to receive a Hope Vl grant. In this case, Neville says that if the OHA can manage to remove all the tenants (families) and demolish their housing units at Tassafaronga Village before the Hope Vl application is filed, then the OHA receives more points from HUD towards the Hope Vl application.
Just imagine losing your housing and being forced to move just because someone wants to make more points in the world of leveraged land grabs by the wealthy....
What a fucking world!
This really stunned me when I suddenly realized that displacing poor people from their housing and demolishing their old homes (community) has become part of a point system in the Hope Vl game, being manipulated by HUD (federal government).
HUD dangles funds to convince a housing authority to dump their public housing tenants onto the streets and to demolish their housing, just to tempt the housing authorities to play the Hope Vl game... Pretty fucking wild!!!!!
The worst part is now knowing that even if all the families have been displaced and their housing has been demolished by a housing authority seeking a Hope Vl grant, there is no guarentee that a Hope Vl grant will be given.
It's all about the possibility of leveraging some local funds in hopes of leveraging even more funding sources, until millions upon millions more are sucked up into the leveraged Hope Vl deal.
Once a Hope Vl process gets going, a few million in local dollars being invested into the leverage game, may finally be leveraged into pulling in up to $200 million in funds from other investors that are willing to play this game.
It's all about leverage says, Neville.
The tragic part is that the poor are always the ones being sacrificed and leveraged out of their low-income public housing so that wealthy investors can make a bundle out of the wealthier income tenants who are later lured into the newly rebuilt and privatized Hope Vl communities.
Sounds like monopoly on steroids.
Start up funds on a local level such as in Oakland to play this Hope Vl game, means that the funding comes from other housing programs originally designed for the poor, which are then siphoned off and diverted into the game of promoting a Hope Vl application.
Hope Vl projects do not displace wealthy communities, only the poor low-income communities are displaced by Hope Vl schemes.
Section 8 Reserve Slush Fund:
In regards to the millions in Section 8 Reserves and the Section 8 Administrative Fee Reserves being siphoned off into a huge slush fund in Oakland, in which the millions of dollars are diverted into Hope Vl projects, the following is true.
Theres a huge battle going on between the OHA and HUD over the the unspent Section 8 reserves, and HUD is trying to get it's hands on the Section 8 reserves that rightly belong to the OHA, and other housing authorities across the nation.
As long as the unspent Section 8 reserve funds are liquid and are still sitting in bank deposits/accounts, HUD can grab the money and return it back to the Treasury Department.
But once the Section 8 reserves are actually invested into properties, such as for a Hope Vl project, the funds no longer can be grabbed by HUD, and are then secured by the housing authority in perpituity...
With the War Criminal Bush administration breathing down their back, it makes sense for all of the nations housing authorities to lock up their unspent Section 8 reserves as quick as possible in land deals so that the Bush administration does not grab the money and use the funds in the war machine which will end up killing more people around the planet in the name of the ruling elites empire.
Below is more info about the Hope Vl program...
Sincerely,
Lynda Carson
**************
National Low-Income Housing Coalition Hope Vl Information:
HOPE VI
March 1, 2007
http://www.nlihc.org/detail/article.cfm?article_id=2772&id=46
In 1993, Congress created the HOPE VI program through the VA-HUD-IA Appropriations Act to revitalize dilapidated public housing units. Funds allocated to the HOPE VI program are used for eligible activities under the program, including demolishing public housing units, rehabilitating units and relocating residents. In the FY07 budget, HUD again proposed the elimination of the HOPE VI program and the rescission of prior year funds.
Program History
In 1989, Congress established the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing. The Commission was charged with identifying severely distressed public housing and devising a plan to address the problem. The Commission submitted its findings to Congress in 1992. The Commission found that 6% of public housing units, or 86,000 units, were severely distressed and recommended that Congress create a revitalization plan; as a result, Congress created the HOPE VI program. Advocates have been troubled that under the HOPE VI program, Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) have demolished viable units and displaced families.
In 2003, Congress reauthorized the program through 2006. At that time, protections were added for tenants, such as requiring the HUD Secretary to involve affected public housing residents at the beginning and during the planning process. In addition, during the grant selection process, a criterion was added to reward minimizing the permanent displacement of current residents of public housing and prioritizing tenants of the existing developments to return to the revitalized development. There is also assistance available for smaller communities in order to develop affordable housing for low income families in connection with a main street revitalization or redevelopment project.
Legislation reauthorizing the program beyond September 2006 was introduced in the 109th Congress, but the bill died in committee. The program, as of September 2006, has expired. It is likely that reauthorization legislation will be introduced again, early in the 110th Congress. Funding for HOPE VI in FY07 will be determined by the FY07 joint funding resolution (see section on FY07 joint funding resolution).
Program Beneficiaries
The HOPE VI program is intended to benefit the current residents of severely distressed public housing, residents of the revitalized units and communities surrounding the revitalized sites. The program is supposed to improve families' quality of life by moving them closer to jobs and better quality schools, which has occurred for some families. But the HOPE VI program has not been beneficial to everyone. Approximately 30% of residents surveyed continue to live in high-poverty and high-crime neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, many families are being displaced and low income housing units are being lost under the HOPE VI program. As of September 2005, HOPE VI grantees planned to replace approximately half of the public housing units demolished. The remaining redeveloped units are intended for higher income residents who can pay more in rent or purchase some of the redeveloped units.
Structure
HOPE VI grants are awarded annually on a competitive basis through HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing. HUD evaluates grants based on four factors: demonstrated need for revitalization assistance, capacity of applicants to use grants effectively, quality of proposed revitalization plans and potential for applicants to use grants to leverage funds from other sources.
Any PHA that operates public housing units is eligible for a HOPE VI grant. HOPE VI grants are used for the capital costs of demolition, construction, rehabilitation and other physical improvements, development of replacement housing, and community and supportive services. PHAs administer the program and can use the grants in conjunction with modernization funds or other HUD funds, as well as municipal and state contributions, public and private loans and Low Income Housing Tax Credit equity.
While most of the funds are to be used for capital costs, a portion of the grant may be used for community and supportive services. HOPE VI increases private investment in communities and creates mixed-income housing. But critics point to the loss of housing stock affordable and available to the lowest income people.
Funding
For four consecutive fiscal years, the Administration has proposed the elimination of funding for the HOPE VI program.
Prior to FY04, HOPE VI was funded at more than $570 million. Due to bipartisan support, Congress has not acquiesced to the Administration's proposal to eliminate the program. However, funding for the program has been drastically reduced. In FY05, Congress appropriated $143 million for the program. The final FY06 budget allocates only $100 million to HOPE VI. For FY07, the President proposed rescinding $99 million from FY06 and providing no funds for FY07. Funding for HOPE VI in FY07 will be determined by the FY07 joint funding resolution (see section on FY07 joint funding resolution).
PHAs are constantly struggling to address public housing needs with inadequate appropriations from Congress. While the Administration is proposing to eliminate HOPE VI, there is no proposal to reallocate the HOPE VI funds to other public housing accounts. HOPE VI dollars could be reallocated to address the approximate $20 billion capital funds backlog.
Issues
Public housing is in desperate need of increased capital and operating funds. The HOPE VI program as it currently exists has negative consequences for low income households that must be addressed if the program is to be reauthorized. While the reforms that were enacted in the 2003 reauthorization of the program were positive, advocates continue to have concerns.
Advocates' concerns with HOPE VI fall into two major categories. The first is what happens to the existing residents of public housing developments that become HOPE VI projects. The second is the contribution that HOPE VI makes to the loss, nationally and locally, of housing that is affordable to the lowest income households. NLIHC and other resident advocates are deeply concerned about the problems associated with HOPE VI.
HOPE VI Reauthorization
In the 109th Congress, Senators Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Christopher Bond (R-MO) introduced S. 1513, a bill that would reauthorize the HOPE VI program through 2011 at $600 million annually.
Advocates had a number of concerns about the bill, mostly centered on its failings in two areas. First, the bill weakened current statutory requirements regarding the right of residents to return to redeveloped units. Second, the bill fell short of providing a clear legal obligation on the part of HUD to ensure that HOPE VI does not result in a net loss of public housing units. Additionally, advocates believe that any HOPE VI reauthorization must include a strict definition of what HUD can consider to be "severely distressed" public housing stock.
Senator Mikulski's S. 1513 did not receive a vote in the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee to which it was referred. In 2007, Senator Mikulski is expected to reintroduce a version of this legislation in the Senate. HOPE VI reauthorization legislation is also expected in the House.
What Advocates Can Do
Advocates should monitor the status of HOPE VI program funding and reauthorization legislation and inform their Members of Congress of their concerns about the program. Public housing is a national asset. The notion that public housing is a failed or ineffective program best remedied by eliminating the public housing stock should be rejected.
At the local level, advocates should keep an eye on local HOPE VI plans and object to elements that place public housing residents at a disadvantage. Insist that residents be involved in decision-making. Advocates should request an objective assessment of the viability of any public housing that is threatened with demolition and should also demand one-for-one replacement of the public housing units that are lost.
Once a HOPE VI project is funded, advocates should work to see that the interests of low income people who face displacement are met. Relocation services and alternative housing should be provided in the project plans, and the PHA should keep track of displaced residents and give them priority for available housing.
For More Information
National Low Income Housing Coalition • 202-662-1530 • http://www.nlihc.org
National Housing Law Project • 510-251-9400 • http://www.nhlp.org
National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC)
727 15th Street NW, 6th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
202/662-1530 | Fax 202/393-1973
contact | site map | terms of use | privacy statement
©2006 National Low Income Housing Coalition.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$320.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network