Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
SB 1220, the poverty pimp's affordable housing sham
Poor people and the public at large are being urged to immediately contact the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, to tell the Senators that they should not pass "SB 1220 the HOMeS Act," unless nonprofit housing organizations and nonprofit housing developers in California are banned from imposing minimum income requirements against the poor!
SB 1220, the poverty pimp's affordable housing sham
By Lynda Carson - May 4, 2012
Oakland -- In Oakland, the so-called affordable housing industry is powerful and big business in this town, which includes numerous out of state corporations getting involved in the act, as well as the wealthy local members of the East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO), that own hundreds of affordable housing developments throughout the city.
EBHO's wealthy members include Affordable Housing Associates, Adobe Services/Allied Housing, Alameda Development Corporation, BRIDGE Housing, Satellite Housing, Inc., Community Housing Development Corporation, Christian Church Homes, EAH Housing, East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation, Eden Housing, Habitat for Humanity, Mercy Housing California, Resources for Community Development, and numerous other nonprofit affordable housing organizations.
With voter-approved housing-bond funds from Propositions 46 (2002) and 1C (2006) running out, and California's Redevelopment Agencies being shut down recently, the poverty pimps of the multi-billion dollar affordable housing industry are on the move again to create a new permanent "cash cow," for their so-called affordable housing industry.
New legislation called "SB 1220 - the HOMeS Act," has been introduced by State Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) and Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), along with co-author Assembly member Toni Atkins (D-San Diego). The legislation has the wealthy so-called affordable housing developers scrambling to ensure it's passage. Their goal is the creation of a new permanent funding source for their so-called affordable housing industry, and it would be funded through a $75 document recording fee on real-estate transactions. If passed, the bill is expected to generate an average of $700 million per year for the so-called affordable housing industry.
As public housing is being disposed of at a rapid rate in Oakland and Berkeley, the so-called affordable housing industry have been promoting their own major brand of con-game on the public to promote their own so-called affordable housing projects.
Projects that discriminate against the poor, with what are called minimum income requirements. Projects that are being promoted as something better than public housing, even when these so-called affordable housing projects generally discriminate against the poor.
Poor people on fixed incomes like General Assistance, CalWorks, Social Security, or SSI may as well not even apply to most so-called affordable housing developors for their housing needs, because the so-called affordable housing developers have minimum income requirements, that result in discriminating against the poor.
At Los Medanos Village in Pittsburg, Resources for Community Development (RCD), a local Berkeley 501c3 charity nonprofit housing developer discriminates against the poor at this affordable housing project and others it has developed, but advertises that there are no "minimum income requirements" for the poor people that have Section 8 vouchers.
As another example on how the poor are discriminated against in so-called affordable housing projects, local Oakland 501c3 charity nonprofit housing developer East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC) demands that poor people on a fixed income such as social security or a pension, must earn at least 1.6 times the amount of monthly rent being charged in their so-called affordable housing projects. Those with other income must earn 2 times the monthly rent, and there is no minimum income requirement for those with Section 8 vouchers or similiar subsidies.
Another 501c3 charity nonprofit housing developer called "EAH" in Marin County, demands that a single person that wants to move into it's so-called affordable housing development called Farley Place, must earn a minimum of $31,000, but advertises that there is no minimum income requirement for poor people with Section 8 vouchers.
Bridge Housing Corporation, is one of California's largest so-called nonprofit housing developers. During 2010, at their Oakland housing development project called Ironhorse Central Station, Bridge Housing demanded that a single tenant must have a minimum income stretching between $15,326 - $18,750 annually, and in another instance in Tier 5 of the same project, Bridge Housing was demanding that an individual must have a minimum income of $26,091 - $31,250.
The web archives reveal that nonprofit housing developer Affordable Housing Associates (AHA) of Berkeley, also has minimum income requirements at their properties. In recent years (2007) AHA has been demanding that the poor must earn as much as $8,400 - $14,895 annually to reside in their so-called affordable housing units, however current figures may be much higher at this point in time, and are not available on their website any longer.
Click below for a sampling of how many nonprofit housing developers that are imposing minimum income requirements on the poor in San Francisco, that result in discriminating against the poor...
http://www.selfhelpelderly.org/services/social_services/housing_list.pdf
Fixed income tenants: In Alameda County, the maximum cash grant allowable for low-income tenants on welfare per month (General Assistance) is only $336.00, or annually that would amount to only $4,032 per year.
Other low-income tenants on disability (SSI) only receive $830 a month in payments due to California's state budget cuts, amounting to a small income of only $9,960 per year to live on.
Additionally as another example of low-income tenants, in 2008 the average Social Security payment was only $1,015 for retirees in California, amounting to only $12,180 per year to exist on.
Meanwhile, the so-called 501c3 charity nonprofit affordable housing developers in Alameda County are getting a welfare exemption property tax break on their rental units by renting to people that are earning as much as $45,500 per year. Tenants that can afford to pay market rate rents.
Poor people cannot afford to reside in so-called affordable housing developments because minimum income requirements discriminate against them, unless they have a Section 8 voucher or the equivalent, to subsidize their housing needs.
SB 1220, the poverty pimp's affordable housing sham
SB 1220 - the HOMeS Act (The poverty pimp's affordable housing sham), may sound good on paper, but there is nothing in the legislation that would prohibit the so-called affordable housing developers from discriminating against the poor with minimum income requirements. Requirements that would keep poor people from moving into their so-called affordable housing developments, unless they have a Section 8 voucher or the equivalent.
As recent as Tuesday April 24, there were over one hundred poverty pimps & lobbyists from the so-called affordable housing industry that descended on the State Capitol to pack the Senate Housing and Transportation Committee hearings, to demand passage of SB 1220 a.k.a., "the poverty pimp's affordable housing sham." People making $120,000 a year and some making as much as $250,000 a year in salary and wage compensation, for running the so-called affordable housing developments across the State of California.
These were not poor people demanding housing for themselves and their families. These were the wealthy so-called affordable housing developers, so-called nonprofit housing organizations, and the poverty pimps that became rich from their so-called affordable housing developments, that discriminate against the poor with minimum income requirements. They were all seeking a new cash cow, to continue to build their empires bigger, and bigger.
SB 1220 has already gone before the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, and the Senate Governance and Finance Committee. It is expected next to go before the Senate Appropriations Committee, and SB 1220 must pass from the Senate Appropriations Committee by the end of a May 25 deadline, to be able to reach the Senate floor for a full vote, and passage.
Poor people and the public at large are being urged to immediately contact the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, to tell the Senators that they should not pass "SB 1220 the HOMeS Act," unless nonprofit housing organizations and nonprofit housing developers in California are banned from imposing minimum income requirements against the poor.
Affordable housing developers and nonprofit housing organizations should not be allowed to discriminate against the poor with minimum income requirements, while at the same time demanding huge salaries and wage compensation of $120,000 a year to $250,000 a year, for the executives of their nonprofit housing organizations.
Contact information below, to demand an end to minimum income requirements, before "SB 1220 the HOMeS Act," is voted into law...
Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee
Senator Christine Kehoe (Chair) senator.kehoe [at] sen.ca.gov -- Phone: (916) 651-4039
Senator Mimi Walters (Vice Chair) Phone: (916) 651-4033 -- senator.walters [at] sen.ca.gov
Senator Elaine Alquist -- 916/651-4013 -- senator.alquist [at] sen.ca.gov
Senator Bob Dutton -- Phone: (916) 651-4031 -- senator.dutton [at] sen.ca.gov
Senator Ted W. Lieu -- Phone: (916) 651-4028 -- senator.lieu [at] sen.ca.gov
Senator Curren Price -- senator.price [at] senate.ca.gov -- (916) 651-4026
Senator Darrell Steinberg -- (916) 651-4006 -- senator.steinberg [at] sen.ca.gov
Lynda Carson may be reached at tenantsrule [at] yahoo.com
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I read with much interest Ms Lynda Carson's article on SB 1220. As usual, I compliment Ms Carson's depth of your research and clear presentation of the issues.
At the bottom of Ms Carson's (and my) well-versed concerns for the lack of housing for the poor is the abject failure of the federal government in its almost complete abdication of the plethora of previously funded and functioning public housing programs. The federal pullout started under Reagan, but was accelerated by Bill Clinton, and continued to deteriorate under each succeeding administration. Despite the fact that Roosevelt established government as the "houser of last resort" and promised a roof over every American family, the Democrat Clinton proclaimed that he would "remove the federal government from being the nation's largest landlord" -- and pretty much did just that, reducing what were formerly about 185 various HUD programs to about 5 now current.
For all practical purposes, no new federally funded public housing has been authorized and constructed since 1985 (Berkeley's 61-unit scattered sites large family housing was among HUDs last development grants.).
Non-profit developers do not have unlimited funds and must administer their housing developments with least subsidy. N-P boards are mandated to maintain minimum operating budgets and required fund reserves for replacement and repair. Ms Carson makes a legitimate point that N-P executive salaries have gotten out of hand. These need to be better managed. However to meet expenses and operating costs, and maintain State-required budgets, N-P developments must have a basic amount of income -- which for most projects is always precarious.
The ONLY remaining program that can serve people of lowest incomes (50% and less of the Area Median Income standard -- the former threshold for public housing) is the Section 8 voucher program where HUD pays the difference between the actual rent amount and 30% of the income of the low income tenant. (I formerly served on a number of N-P boards and became intimately familiar with the challenges of managing developments while attempting to keep the rents as low as possible.)
Even the Section 8 voucher program is not a certainty. Under the Clinton administration, the program was changed to be at the whim of Congress by requiring that the program must receive "annual Congressional re-certification." Each year since, Congress has reduced the number of additional vouchers that can be allocated, and who knows how soon it may be that Congress will refuse to fund the voucher program at all.
Even in HOPE 6 projects -- which rehabilitate and reduce the density (number of units) of former public housing developments -- that once completed, a HOPE 6 development of a former public housing project is no longer public housing, but is transformed to be either privately-owned, or nonprofit-owned housing, and that NO MORE than 50% of the rehabilitated units can be made available to people of low income (those formerly eligible for public housing who qualify for Section 8 vouchers).
Since the early 1990s, and the end of new public housing developments, HOPE 6 projects and demolitions of faulty public housing developments have resulted in the loss of between 300,000 - 600,000 units of public housing for the poor across the country with no replacements whatsoever. Cities and counties were hood-winked into funding local matching share contributions to HOPE 6 developments on the false promise that the improvements would benefit housing for low income people. The real result, however, is that the public housing that was formerly ONLY for the poor became housing for the so-called middle class pushing millions of low income tenants into homelessness. To this day, this basic truth remains hidden -- one of the dark secrets of federal betrayal !
The real culprit in the abandonment of housing for poor people is the federal government. Simply by the numbers, no private developer or nonprofit producer of housing can build, operate, and properly maintain housing for those of lowest incomes without additional subsidies. Those needed subsidies from the federal government are fast disappearing, and urban cities almost without exception are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.
The critical need is a massive, pro-active movement to force the federal government to re-institute its rightful role as the "houser of last resort." When considering the critical unmet housing needs of the poor, there is no alternative.
James E Vann, Cofounder
Oakland Tenants Union
At the bottom of Ms Carson's (and my) well-versed concerns for the lack of housing for the poor is the abject failure of the federal government in its almost complete abdication of the plethora of previously funded and functioning public housing programs. The federal pullout started under Reagan, but was accelerated by Bill Clinton, and continued to deteriorate under each succeeding administration. Despite the fact that Roosevelt established government as the "houser of last resort" and promised a roof over every American family, the Democrat Clinton proclaimed that he would "remove the federal government from being the nation's largest landlord" -- and pretty much did just that, reducing what were formerly about 185 various HUD programs to about 5 now current.
For all practical purposes, no new federally funded public housing has been authorized and constructed since 1985 (Berkeley's 61-unit scattered sites large family housing was among HUDs last development grants.).
Non-profit developers do not have unlimited funds and must administer their housing developments with least subsidy. N-P boards are mandated to maintain minimum operating budgets and required fund reserves for replacement and repair. Ms Carson makes a legitimate point that N-P executive salaries have gotten out of hand. These need to be better managed. However to meet expenses and operating costs, and maintain State-required budgets, N-P developments must have a basic amount of income -- which for most projects is always precarious.
The ONLY remaining program that can serve people of lowest incomes (50% and less of the Area Median Income standard -- the former threshold for public housing) is the Section 8 voucher program where HUD pays the difference between the actual rent amount and 30% of the income of the low income tenant. (I formerly served on a number of N-P boards and became intimately familiar with the challenges of managing developments while attempting to keep the rents as low as possible.)
Even the Section 8 voucher program is not a certainty. Under the Clinton administration, the program was changed to be at the whim of Congress by requiring that the program must receive "annual Congressional re-certification." Each year since, Congress has reduced the number of additional vouchers that can be allocated, and who knows how soon it may be that Congress will refuse to fund the voucher program at all.
Even in HOPE 6 projects -- which rehabilitate and reduce the density (number of units) of former public housing developments -- that once completed, a HOPE 6 development of a former public housing project is no longer public housing, but is transformed to be either privately-owned, or nonprofit-owned housing, and that NO MORE than 50% of the rehabilitated units can be made available to people of low income (those formerly eligible for public housing who qualify for Section 8 vouchers).
Since the early 1990s, and the end of new public housing developments, HOPE 6 projects and demolitions of faulty public housing developments have resulted in the loss of between 300,000 - 600,000 units of public housing for the poor across the country with no replacements whatsoever. Cities and counties were hood-winked into funding local matching share contributions to HOPE 6 developments on the false promise that the improvements would benefit housing for low income people. The real result, however, is that the public housing that was formerly ONLY for the poor became housing for the so-called middle class pushing millions of low income tenants into homelessness. To this day, this basic truth remains hidden -- one of the dark secrets of federal betrayal !
The real culprit in the abandonment of housing for poor people is the federal government. Simply by the numbers, no private developer or nonprofit producer of housing can build, operate, and properly maintain housing for those of lowest incomes without additional subsidies. Those needed subsidies from the federal government are fast disappearing, and urban cities almost without exception are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.
The critical need is a massive, pro-active movement to force the federal government to re-institute its rightful role as the "houser of last resort." When considering the critical unmet housing needs of the poor, there is no alternative.
James E Vann, Cofounder
Oakland Tenants Union
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