Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Oakland Housing Authority creates loophole to use Section 8 funds for public housing
Section 8 voucher holders express concern that the Oakland Housing Authority has created a huge loophole to siphon funding from the Section 8 housing choice voucher program, into it's public housing program and privatized mixed income housing developments!
Oakland Housing Authority creates loophole to use Section 8 funds for public housing
By Lynda Carson -- September 12, 2009
Oakland - The disposition plan for over 1,600 public housing units owned and operated by the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA), signals the end of public housing as we know it if other Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) follow suit and switch to the Section 8 model being promoted by the OHA for it's public housing program.
In a nut shell, the OHA wants to determine which of it's small scattered public housing sites that are occupied with very low-income households, will be sold off, so that the proceeds can be used to build much larger mixed income housing projects for higher income residents, like the Hope Vl mixed income housing projects that have displaced the poor all across the nation.
In addition, the current disposition plan will also be a huge drain on the Section 8 housing choice voucher program established for low-income, elderly and disabled people in the private housing market, because the use of Section 8 housing vouchers have been incorporated into the plan.
"It's my understanding that the OHA received approval from the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) earlier this summer for it's disposition plan, in addition to the plan to give Section 8 housing vouchers to around 1,600 households involved in the disposition plan that reside in Oakland's public housing units," said Adam Gold of Just Cause Oakland.
As for the OHA's plan to dispose of over 1,600 public housing units, in a September 2008 press release from OHA consultant Jo Ann Driscoll around a year ago, it states, "The OHA has been under funded by the federal government for 14 years, creating a significant backlog of maintenance and repair projects. While the federal government cuts its funding of the public housing program, funding for Section 8 vouchers receives strong federal support. The planned disposition will re-position Oaklands scattered site apartments to be funded by Section 8 instead of Public Housing."
"As part of the disposition plan, OHA will transfer ownership of the properties to a registered 501(c)(3) housing organization, that will be affiliated with the Housing Authority. The non-profit affiliate will be responsible for the management and maintenance of all the units on sites scattered throughout the City of Oakland and work closely with the OHA under binding agreements. Any excess cash flow associated with these properties, not needed for operation, maintenance or repair, will be restricted to use by the OHA to develop new low income housing."
The OHA contracts with HUD to provide public housing to low-income households in Oakland and is only reimbursed by HUD for around $500 per unit on a monthly basis, but under the new Section 8 model deviously being crafted, the OHA and their affiliates may be reimbursed by HUD for as much as $900 to $1,000 per unit if the plan works out to their way of thinking.
The obvious drawback of course is that the OHA is going to be intentionally draining precious resources from the Section 8 voucher program, to fund it's public housing program, while using poor public housing tenants to fund their various housing projects in the process.
As John Gresley puts it in a recent Oakland Tribune article, "The extra money will be used to finish rehabilitating the agency's aging and in many cases, blighted and crime-plagued housing stock, which is estimated to cost $100 million. The money will also be used for management of the properties. We're hoping they (public housing tenants with Section 8 vouchers) don't move and stay where they are at, but there will be some who want to leave. There are people who have been living for 10 or 15 years in one community and wanted to leave but couldn't get a voucher in the community where they wanted to move. These (vouchers) are portable so they can be used anywhere in the open private real estate market."
Originally the OHA planned to dispose of around 1,600 occupied public housing units for around $1 dollar per building or per parcel, while offering no safeguards to protect the low-income households from displacement of their housing, but decided to try to get Section 8 housing vouchers for the low-income families after the local community became outraged and concerned over the drastic proposals to privatize around half of Oakland's public housing units.
Regardless of the reasons offered by the OHA for it's disposition plan to privatize half of Oakland's public housing, when congress authorizes federal funding for the annual budget of each of the nations various housing programs, including the public housing program and the Section 8 housing program, there is a very good reason that barriers have been kept in place between each subsidized housing program to ensure that the federal funding reaches it's designated targets.
In this case, the OHA along with HUD's approval has figured out a way to break down the barriers between the established housing programs, so that the OHA can siphon off much needed funding from the low-income tenants in the Section 8 voucher program, to fund it's public housing program and privatized mixed income housing developments.
Eleanor Walden resides in a rental unit subsidized by the Section 8 program, and has been struggling for years to support her family while surviving on a very modest income, and said, "The basis of my disagreement with the housing authority is that they are pitting one group of poor people against another by grabbing funding from the Section 8 voucher program, to fund their public housing program. The capitalist system has been pitting the poor against one another since day one, and this is just another variation of the same old theme of robbing Peter, to pay Paul."
During this past August, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has pumped around an extra $130 million into the nations Section 8 voucher program due to the huge funding shortfalls occurring in around 15% of the nations 2,400 Public Housing Authorities (PHAs), and HUD is currently trying to release an additional $400 million to assist section 8 programs across the nation to keep thousands of low-income families from being dumped out of the program and made homeless. However, HUD needs permission from congress to release the additional $400 million and would need some modification of it's authority beforehand, to do so beforehand.
As recent as Tuesday September 8, the housing authority of Glendale, California, voted to oppose reduced federal funding in the housing program that is forcing the city to freeze a portion of it's low-income Section 8 vouchers during a time that over 7,000 applicants are on the Section 8 voucher waiting list.
Another concern about the OHA plan to give Section 8 housing vouchers to around 1,600 public housing households, is that those who have spent years on Oakland's Section 8 voucher waiting list may have to wait much longer, while housing vouchers will be handed over to people already residing in federally subsidized housing.
Recently the Section 8 voucher funding crisis has become so extreme nationwide, housing authorities have had to spend around $750 million in reserves to save thousands of low-income families from becoming evicted or homeless during such hard economic times.
OHA consultants Ann Dunn and Jo Ann Driscoll were not very helpful when I reached them in the past few days to seek information about the new program moving forward that does not appear to even have a name, but breaks down the barriers between the Section 8 voucher program and public housing program.
Low-income Section 8 voucher holder, Nasira S. Abdul-Aleem, says, "Whoever it was in HUD that allowed the OHA to break down the barriers in the housing assistance programs so it can divert funding from the Section 8 voucher program, into it's public housing program, should be held accountable."
This new program, whatever it will be called in the future, raises a lot of questions that no one seems to want to address in great detail.
Individuals from Bay Area Legal Aid, National Housing Law Project and the Public Interest Law Project, have been among those that have been interested and have been trying to figure out how this new program will affect the nearly 1,600 public housing households in the buildings being disposed of by the OHA, and what the restrictions on the use of the Section 8 housing vouchers may be.
OHA consultants are expected to meet with small groups of the public housing households soon, to help them figure out their options.
Lynda Carson may be reached at, tenantsrule [at] yahoo.com
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
$100 million for Section 8 housing crisis falls short
by Lynda Carson
Monday Aug 24th, 2009 10:02 PM
$100 million in extra federal funding helps to save the nation's Section 8 housing program in Berkeley, Alameda, San Jose, Los Angeles and elsewhere! According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), a whopping 15% of 2,400 Public Housing Authorities nationwide, are currently experiencing funding shortfalls in the Section 8 Housing Voucher Program! HUD is currently trying to release an additional $400 million to assist section 8 programs across the nation. See full list of troubled Public Housing Authorities, further below!
Click below for full story...
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/08/24/18619041.php
by Lynda Carson
Monday Aug 24th, 2009 10:02 PM
$100 million in extra federal funding helps to save the nation's Section 8 housing program in Berkeley, Alameda, San Jose, Los Angeles and elsewhere! According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), a whopping 15% of 2,400 Public Housing Authorities nationwide, are currently experiencing funding shortfalls in the Section 8 Housing Voucher Program! HUD is currently trying to release an additional $400 million to assist section 8 programs across the nation. See full list of troubled Public Housing Authorities, further below!
Click below for full story...
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/08/24/18619041.php
OHA's Disposition Plan
I oppose the use of Section 8 vouchers in Public Housing!
I am opposed to the end of public housing as we know it, as is being proposed by those promoting the Disposition Plan in Oakland, for around 1,600 occupied public housing units!
Based upon information and belief, I am totally opposed to the concept and plan to transition (privatize) around 1,600 occupied public housing units to the so-called Section 8 model being promoted by OHA Director Jon Gressley, OHA consultant Jo Ann Driscoll and others wanting to exploit the Section 8 Voucher Program, because they believe the federal funding shortfalls in the public housing program cannot be addressed by seeking more funding from congress for the public housing program.
The above mentioned public housing units already receive federal funding to subsidize the rents of the occupied units.
Diversion of Section 8 Vouchers
A) I believe the disposition plan and plan to transfer public housing into a Section 8 model, will be a huge drain on the Section 8 voucher program, and will result in Section 8 voucher holders paying a higher portion of rents as a result in the future.
B) I believe the plan will be a huge hardship for those already on the current public housing waiting list in Oakland.
C) I believe that the plan to give Section 8 vouchers to public housing households mean that those already on the Section 8 waiting list in Oakland will have to wait, perhaps years longer to receive a Section 8 voucher as a result of the drastic "Disposition Plan" currently unfolding in the OHA, which will divert Section 8 vouchers away from those already on the Section 8 voucher waiting list, to those who already reside in subsidized public housing units.
D) Oakland will receive less federal funding to it's public housing program if the disposition plan occurrs, and if the public housing tenants port away from the City of Oakland with their Section 8 vouchers, Oakland losses even more in federal funding to it's desperately needed housing programs.
I am opposed to the Disposition Plan and the plan to convert public housing over to the Section 8 model being promoted by the OHA.
I oppose the use of Section 8 vouchers in Public Housing!
See the comments below from the Legal Aid Society in New York, regarding a similiar plan to give Section 8 vouchers to public housing households, that occurred in New York City a few years ago.
Sincerely,
Lynda Carson
510/763-1085
tenantsrule [at] yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
1 Comments by The Legal Aid Society on
the New York City Housing Authoritys
Section 8 Voluntary Transition Program
October 10, 2006
Interest and Expertise of the Legal Aid Society
The Legal Aid Society is one of the oldest and largest providers of legal assistance to the
poor in the United States. The Societys Civil Practice operates 14 neighborhood offices and
city-wide units serving residents of all five boroughs of New York City providing
comprehensive legal assistance in housing, public assistance, and other civil areas of primary
concern to the poor. The Society is counsel on numerous class-action cases concerning the
rights of public housing residents and is counsel to the New York City Public Housing Resident
Alliance. We work closely with the Community Service Society on public housing issues. The
New York City Public Housing Resident Alliance seeks to inform and network with residents, so
that they can have a strong and effective voice and secure greater accountability in local, state
and federal policy decisions that affect public housing in New York City.
Diversion of Section 8 Vouchers
NYCHA proposes to use 8,400 Section 8 vouchers over the next three years in its
city/state developments (containing 21,000 units) to help meet the $80 million annual operating
deficit they incur due to the lack of ongoing city/state operational support. While NYCHA
claims this is a necessary fiscal measure, it means that 8,400 fewer vouchers will be available to
the 135,000 families now on the Section 8 waiting list. This represents a loss of limited Section
8 voucher funds originally intended to assist low-income families seeking housing in the open
rental market. Instead, the 8,400 vouchers will be used to support occupied public housing units.
2 The program could well result in diverting even more than the 8,400 Section 8 vouchers
proposed, depending on how many voucher holders use the "portability" option to move out of
NYCHA housing. If, for instance, a household in a city/state unit takes its voucher to a private
rental, NYCHA says it plans to extend an additional voucher to the next tenant of the vacated
city/state unit. If so, the program will result in the use of two or more vouchers to support the
originally vouchered unit. (In a separate proposal, NYCHA plans to apply to HUD for
designation as a Moving-to-Work jurisdiction in order to use and additional $150 million in
Section 8 voucher funds for general operational support for its public housing.)
We oppose the use of Section 8 vouchers in public housing. The diversion of critical
Section 8 resources will be a loss for hundreds of thousands of families on the Section 8 waiting
list.
Protection of Vouchered Households with Fluctuating Incomes
Some vouchered households experience rising incomes that exceed Section 8 eligibility
limits. Normally, these households lose their Section 8 vouchers after a grace period of 6
months, after which there is no assurance they will receive another voucher if their income falls
back within the eligible range. Once they lose their voucher, they are responsible for the full
rent. In contrast, public housing tenants have continuing affordability protections under the
Brooke amendment, limiting rent to 30-percent of household income regardless of changing
income levels.
The NYCHA materials do not provide assurances in the event of such income
fluctuations: "If their income subsequently declines they may be restored to the Section 8
Program." In response to CSS questions about this concern, NYCHA responded: "That option
3 [to recover the voucher] will be available to the family continuing to reside in a City/State
apartment for as long as the tenancy continues. Where the family uses Section 8 assistance to
obtain a unit on the private market, they will be accorded the one year reinstatement period that
is allowed to other Section 8 participants."
We recommend that NYCHA explicitly incorporate the above assurances in its final
program submission.
Increased Delays for Families on the Public Housing Waiting List
The NYCHA Section 8 Transition Program changes the priorities and procedures under
which units are offered to public housing waiting list families. Residents in city/state
developments are given priority transfers to federal developments, thereby filling units that
would normally be accessible to the at-large waiting list. Waiting list families interested in the
City/State developments would be required to accept Section 8 vouchersÑif they rejected the
option, there might be delays in offering them alternative public housing choices. The program
will produce increased friction in the placement process that will inevitably slow it down.
Lack of Clarity about Portability Options and Procedures
Some residents of City/State developments may opt for the voucher, on the assumption
that it will provide an opportunity to move out of NYCHA housing to a private rental located in
the city or in another jurisdiction. Our observation is that tenants (and many of their advocates)
are not well-informed about obstacles to portability within the city, or about the procedural
complications of working out portable voucher arrangements, particularly in another jurisdiction.
(For instance, does one have to apply/wait for a transfer? If a household is income-eligible in
NYC, does it mean they will be eligible in other jurisdictions?) The lack of clear information
4 about how portability works may create unreal expectations among families who are considering
the voucher option, with negative consequences that they can not predict at the start.
We recommend that NYCHA provide residents with clear, accurate, readable materials
describing portability options and procedures so that residents can make informed choices. We
also recommend that NYCHA give City/State residents who opt for the voucher a grace period
of one year during which they are free to relinquish the voucher and resume their standing as
public housing tenants.
Tenants Need to Make Informed Choices about Their Options
The NYCHA Section 8 Transition ProgramÑincluding its plans for each City/State
developmentÑwas launched just days before NYCHA started to hold its first resident briefings
on September 13th, 2006. Elected officials were not briefed until September 21st, for some
officials after the briefings were conducted in their districts. There are many open questions
about the Program that were not fully or satisfactorily answered, for tenants, their advocates, and
their elected representatives. At some resident briefings, NYCHA responses were observed to be
inconsistent or incomplete. In short, there has not been enough time to develop sound,
independent information for affected residents, on the basis of which they can make informed
choices about their options.
We recommend that NYCHA not submit or implement the Transition Program proposal
until affected residents are in a better position to make informed choices about their options.
NYCHA should see that residents are provided with clear, accurate, readable materials
describing their options and the likely consequences. We strongly recommend that NYCHA give
5 City/State residents who opt for the voucher a grace period of one year during which they are
free to relinquish the voucher and resume their standing as public housing tenants.
Review and Public Hearing Prior to NYCHA Submission of Proposal to HUD
These comments, and those of other individuals and organizations, may result in
revisions to the NYCHA Section 8 Voluntary Transition proposal. In addition, some
clarifications in the materials NYCHA has already distributed may be advisable. There should be
an opportunity for affected residents and the concerned public to review the final proposal, and
to offer public comment at an open hearing, prior to HUD submission.
We recommend that NYCHA prepare and distribute its final proposal to HUD for public
review, and that it hold a public hearing to obtain open comments on the proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven Banks, Esq.
Attorney in Chief
Adriene Holder, Esq.
Attorney in Charge
Civil Practice
The Legal Aid Society
Scott Rosenberg, Esq.
Director of Litigation
Law Reform Unit
Judith Goldiner, of counsel
199 Water Street
New York, New York 10038
(212) 577 3332
I oppose the use of Section 8 vouchers in Public Housing!
I am opposed to the end of public housing as we know it, as is being proposed by those promoting the Disposition Plan in Oakland, for around 1,600 occupied public housing units!
Based upon information and belief, I am totally opposed to the concept and plan to transition (privatize) around 1,600 occupied public housing units to the so-called Section 8 model being promoted by OHA Director Jon Gressley, OHA consultant Jo Ann Driscoll and others wanting to exploit the Section 8 Voucher Program, because they believe the federal funding shortfalls in the public housing program cannot be addressed by seeking more funding from congress for the public housing program.
The above mentioned public housing units already receive federal funding to subsidize the rents of the occupied units.
Diversion of Section 8 Vouchers
A) I believe the disposition plan and plan to transfer public housing into a Section 8 model, will be a huge drain on the Section 8 voucher program, and will result in Section 8 voucher holders paying a higher portion of rents as a result in the future.
B) I believe the plan will be a huge hardship for those already on the current public housing waiting list in Oakland.
C) I believe that the plan to give Section 8 vouchers to public housing households mean that those already on the Section 8 waiting list in Oakland will have to wait, perhaps years longer to receive a Section 8 voucher as a result of the drastic "Disposition Plan" currently unfolding in the OHA, which will divert Section 8 vouchers away from those already on the Section 8 voucher waiting list, to those who already reside in subsidized public housing units.
D) Oakland will receive less federal funding to it's public housing program if the disposition plan occurrs, and if the public housing tenants port away from the City of Oakland with their Section 8 vouchers, Oakland losses even more in federal funding to it's desperately needed housing programs.
I am opposed to the Disposition Plan and the plan to convert public housing over to the Section 8 model being promoted by the OHA.
I oppose the use of Section 8 vouchers in Public Housing!
See the comments below from the Legal Aid Society in New York, regarding a similiar plan to give Section 8 vouchers to public housing households, that occurred in New York City a few years ago.
Sincerely,
Lynda Carson
510/763-1085
tenantsrule [at] yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
1 Comments by The Legal Aid Society on
the New York City Housing Authoritys
Section 8 Voluntary Transition Program
October 10, 2006
Interest and Expertise of the Legal Aid Society
The Legal Aid Society is one of the oldest and largest providers of legal assistance to the
poor in the United States. The Societys Civil Practice operates 14 neighborhood offices and
city-wide units serving residents of all five boroughs of New York City providing
comprehensive legal assistance in housing, public assistance, and other civil areas of primary
concern to the poor. The Society is counsel on numerous class-action cases concerning the
rights of public housing residents and is counsel to the New York City Public Housing Resident
Alliance. We work closely with the Community Service Society on public housing issues. The
New York City Public Housing Resident Alliance seeks to inform and network with residents, so
that they can have a strong and effective voice and secure greater accountability in local, state
and federal policy decisions that affect public housing in New York City.
Diversion of Section 8 Vouchers
NYCHA proposes to use 8,400 Section 8 vouchers over the next three years in its
city/state developments (containing 21,000 units) to help meet the $80 million annual operating
deficit they incur due to the lack of ongoing city/state operational support. While NYCHA
claims this is a necessary fiscal measure, it means that 8,400 fewer vouchers will be available to
the 135,000 families now on the Section 8 waiting list. This represents a loss of limited Section
8 voucher funds originally intended to assist low-income families seeking housing in the open
rental market. Instead, the 8,400 vouchers will be used to support occupied public housing units.
2 The program could well result in diverting even more than the 8,400 Section 8 vouchers
proposed, depending on how many voucher holders use the "portability" option to move out of
NYCHA housing. If, for instance, a household in a city/state unit takes its voucher to a private
rental, NYCHA says it plans to extend an additional voucher to the next tenant of the vacated
city/state unit. If so, the program will result in the use of two or more vouchers to support the
originally vouchered unit. (In a separate proposal, NYCHA plans to apply to HUD for
designation as a Moving-to-Work jurisdiction in order to use and additional $150 million in
Section 8 voucher funds for general operational support for its public housing.)
We oppose the use of Section 8 vouchers in public housing. The diversion of critical
Section 8 resources will be a loss for hundreds of thousands of families on the Section 8 waiting
list.
Protection of Vouchered Households with Fluctuating Incomes
Some vouchered households experience rising incomes that exceed Section 8 eligibility
limits. Normally, these households lose their Section 8 vouchers after a grace period of 6
months, after which there is no assurance they will receive another voucher if their income falls
back within the eligible range. Once they lose their voucher, they are responsible for the full
rent. In contrast, public housing tenants have continuing affordability protections under the
Brooke amendment, limiting rent to 30-percent of household income regardless of changing
income levels.
The NYCHA materials do not provide assurances in the event of such income
fluctuations: "If their income subsequently declines they may be restored to the Section 8
Program." In response to CSS questions about this concern, NYCHA responded: "That option
3 [to recover the voucher] will be available to the family continuing to reside in a City/State
apartment for as long as the tenancy continues. Where the family uses Section 8 assistance to
obtain a unit on the private market, they will be accorded the one year reinstatement period that
is allowed to other Section 8 participants."
We recommend that NYCHA explicitly incorporate the above assurances in its final
program submission.
Increased Delays for Families on the Public Housing Waiting List
The NYCHA Section 8 Transition Program changes the priorities and procedures under
which units are offered to public housing waiting list families. Residents in city/state
developments are given priority transfers to federal developments, thereby filling units that
would normally be accessible to the at-large waiting list. Waiting list families interested in the
City/State developments would be required to accept Section 8 vouchersÑif they rejected the
option, there might be delays in offering them alternative public housing choices. The program
will produce increased friction in the placement process that will inevitably slow it down.
Lack of Clarity about Portability Options and Procedures
Some residents of City/State developments may opt for the voucher, on the assumption
that it will provide an opportunity to move out of NYCHA housing to a private rental located in
the city or in another jurisdiction. Our observation is that tenants (and many of their advocates)
are not well-informed about obstacles to portability within the city, or about the procedural
complications of working out portable voucher arrangements, particularly in another jurisdiction.
(For instance, does one have to apply/wait for a transfer? If a household is income-eligible in
NYC, does it mean they will be eligible in other jurisdictions?) The lack of clear information
4 about how portability works may create unreal expectations among families who are considering
the voucher option, with negative consequences that they can not predict at the start.
We recommend that NYCHA provide residents with clear, accurate, readable materials
describing portability options and procedures so that residents can make informed choices. We
also recommend that NYCHA give City/State residents who opt for the voucher a grace period
of one year during which they are free to relinquish the voucher and resume their standing as
public housing tenants.
Tenants Need to Make Informed Choices about Their Options
The NYCHA Section 8 Transition ProgramÑincluding its plans for each City/State
developmentÑwas launched just days before NYCHA started to hold its first resident briefings
on September 13th, 2006. Elected officials were not briefed until September 21st, for some
officials after the briefings were conducted in their districts. There are many open questions
about the Program that were not fully or satisfactorily answered, for tenants, their advocates, and
their elected representatives. At some resident briefings, NYCHA responses were observed to be
inconsistent or incomplete. In short, there has not been enough time to develop sound,
independent information for affected residents, on the basis of which they can make informed
choices about their options.
We recommend that NYCHA not submit or implement the Transition Program proposal
until affected residents are in a better position to make informed choices about their options.
NYCHA should see that residents are provided with clear, accurate, readable materials
describing their options and the likely consequences. We strongly recommend that NYCHA give
5 City/State residents who opt for the voucher a grace period of one year during which they are
free to relinquish the voucher and resume their standing as public housing tenants.
Review and Public Hearing Prior to NYCHA Submission of Proposal to HUD
These comments, and those of other individuals and organizations, may result in
revisions to the NYCHA Section 8 Voluntary Transition proposal. In addition, some
clarifications in the materials NYCHA has already distributed may be advisable. There should be
an opportunity for affected residents and the concerned public to review the final proposal, and
to offer public comment at an open hearing, prior to HUD submission.
We recommend that NYCHA prepare and distribute its final proposal to HUD for public
review, and that it hold a public hearing to obtain open comments on the proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven Banks, Esq.
Attorney in Chief
Adriene Holder, Esq.
Attorney in Charge
Civil Practice
The Legal Aid Society
Scott Rosenberg, Esq.
Director of Litigation
Law Reform Unit
Judith Goldiner, of counsel
199 Water Street
New York, New York 10038
(212) 577 3332
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 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