Loss of Public Housing
From CahlpWiki
As of early 2008, California housing authorities have included in their Annual PHA Plans proposals to dispose of or demolish over 14,000 units of public housing. With the help of the California Coalition for Rural Housing and the National Housing Law Project, CAHLP compiled this summary of proposed dispositions.
Contents |
AB 2818
The Problem in California
The federal government provides hundreds of millions of dollars per year in housing subsidies to California, for some 43,000 housing units owned and operated by public housing authorities. In FY 2007, federal aid for public housing in California totaled $222 million. These units help provide affordable housing to some of California’s poorest residents.
Recently, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) finalized rules that make it easier for public housing authorities to dispose of these units, by sale, demolition, or both, or to convert the fixed units to tenant-based vouchers. In the absence of any action by the local government to replace the units, the new federal scheme will result in a net loss of housing available to lower-income families. Moreover, it may result in fewer federal housing resources flowing to California to help it meet the housing needs of its residents.
In the past year, an increasing number of local public housing authorities have taken the first step to opt out of the public housing program by including in their annual plans to HUD a provision to dispose of or demolish existing public housing units. These plans propose to dispose of at least 14,000 units of public housing in California in the near future, or 1 out of 3 units statewide. In particular, the San Diego Housing Commission converted 1,300 units of public housing without ensuring further affordability of the units, as described in a staff report on the issue, concerning affordable housing advocates, as described in June 2008 media reports.
The Solution
Current law governs how a Public Housing Authority (PHA) can dispose of surplus property owned by the PHA. AB 2818 improves current law by providing standards to guide how a PHA can dispose of property containing units affordable to low and moderate-income households. Pursuant to AB 2818, prior to demolishing or selling such units, the PHA must meet all of the following requirements:
- Provide notice to affected residents and hold public hearings on the proposed disposition;
- Provide relocation assistance to residents, as is commonly required when a government agency displaces residents from their homes; and
- Ensure that the units demolished or sold are replaced with comparable units affordable to the tenants displaced.
These standards will help ensure that the public housing authorities avoid the loss of affordable housing units. It will likewise protect low-income renters—seniors, persons with disabilities and families with children—by ensuring that other affordable units will be made available so that no one is permanently displaced.
California Examples
Dublin
On May 23, 2008, the CAHLP and co-counsel Bay Area Legal Aid won a significant victory from the Court in Arroyo Vista Tenants Association, et al. v. City of Dublin, et al., U.S. Dist. Court, N.D. Cal., Case No. C-07-05794. The case involves a proposal by the Dublin Housing Authority (DHA) to dispose of 150 units of public housing in the Arroyo Vista development. Plaintiffs consist of four residents of the property and the tenants' association, who oppose DHA's proposal to sell the property to a developer who will demolish all the units to construct a replacement project which includes smaller units, at substantially higher rents, on half the property (with the other half redeveloped as market rate for-sale homes). In January 2008, plaintiffs moved the U.S. District Court for a preliminary injunction to enjoin DHA's activities to displace and relocate at least 60 families prior to even completing its application for disposition. However, prior to hearing on the motion, the District Court requested further briefing on the issue of whether plaintiffs have a private right of action. In a well reasoned decision, District Court Judge Marilyn Patel holds that plaintiffs have a private right of action to enforce the resident notice and relocation assistance provisions of the public housing disposition statute, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437p, which proscribes the circumstances under which the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) may approve or must disapprove applications to dispose of public housing. The decision finds that plaintiffs have a right to receive notification of the disposition prior to any relocation or displacement activity, and this right necessarily includes the right to be told that HUD has approved the application. In this case, DHA has yet to even complete its application, much less receive any approval from HUD, so the reasoning of the decision strongly implies that plaintiffs will prevail upon renewing their motion for preliminary injunction. Contact Deborah Collins of the CAHLP or Lisa Greif of Bay Area Legal Aid (510) 663-4744 for pleadings and further information.
Oakland
The Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) proposed to its Board of Commissioners in June 2008 to dispose of all 1,615 units of public housing in its scattered site portfolio. OHA conditions its draft disposition application to HUD on the award of replacement vouchers. Along with Bay Area Legal Aid and the National Housing Law Project, CAHLP provided comments on the proposed disposition application on September 2, 2008. A San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media news article provides some details of the proposal.
Disposition/Demolition Examples Throughout The Country
A collection of examples of public housing disposition and demolition reported on an April 10, 2008 conference call was compiled by the National Housing Law Project. It is reproduced here for further use.
Ohio
Dayton
In five years, PHA has (will?) demolish1500 units and replaced half of inventory. 550 are approved for demolition and another 200 (2 separate applications have been submitted and comments made by advocates but no response by HUD, to date. PHA has not yet submitted an environmental impact statement. HUD encouraged PHA to submit a partial application. Tenants have been moved out with vouchers
Toledo
400 units in two projects are threatened. PHA is not providing much information, as of this time. Comments submitted??
Newark
2800 low rise units will be rehabilitated or demolished. Currently, PHA is studying the issue and meanwhile it is not renting vacant units and is engaged in de facto demolition. PHA says that it will replace with mixed income units. PHA says that there is no reasonable plan of modification, units barely viable as they are 60-70 years old. According to the PHA it may cost $42 million to replace. Background is that there is no land for development, therefore developers are looking to the public housing sites.
Pittsburgh PA
In 1998 all of public housing declared distressed by the PHA. PHA has systematically demolished and replaced, some. [I did not write the numbers in any intelligible fashion.]. There are still a number in the pipeline to be redeveloped.
Richmond VA
PHA is looking to demolish two developments one with 60 units (demolition) and another 120 units (sale) one of which has HUD approval. This is a prelude to the demolition of 783 unit complex.
Advocates have submitted comments to agency plan and proposed demolition proposals to PHA and to the SAC.
There is another development for which PHA sought HOPE VI funding that HUD denied the application as project was not obsolete and did not need to be demolished. Now PHA is seeking alternative financing and claims that they will do one for one replacement.
Weslaco TX
PHA states it will shut down the Public housing and give vouchers to everyone
Kansas City KC
Advocates filed suggestions in opposition to application for $47.5 million to redevelop public housing.
Rockford IL
Complaint filed, settlement PHA could demolish, but would have to pursue one for one within next 5 years and provide housing mobility for those tenants displaced (Housing Choice Partners from Chicago selected). Tenants entitled to counseling for one move after initial move and first priority to move back into the development. Plaintiffs are now seeking $180,000 in attorneys fees.
