Press
Release 1
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Past and present articles from our News Letters
Stamford, Connecticut Wins Major Victory:
One-for-One Replacement
In 1995, Congress removed from the books a federal law which said housing
authorities had to replace any federal public housing that they demolished or
sold. It was called the one-for-one replacement rule.
The loss of this law has been devastating. According to data released by HUD,
approximately 11,000 public housing units a year are being “treated” or lost
as a result of funding for revitalization and demolition under HUD’s HOPE VI
program, while only 5,000 public housing units are being created. And of
those 5,000, only 2,000 units are for very low-income households. See more
about HOPE VI on page 10.
But one-for-one is making a come-back. Last October, labor unions, public
housing residents, and clergy in Stamford, Connecticut, won one-for-one
back—locally. The effort was led by the Stamford Community Union, an
AFL-CIO-sponsored organizing venture of the United Auto Workers (UAW), the
Justice for Janitors part of the Service Employees International Union
(SEIU), District 1199-New England (nursing home workers), and Hotel Employees
and Restaurant Employees. The labor-clergy-resident alliance, with paid
organizing staff, had previously stopped the demolition of three public
housing developments. But housing authority documents showed that the housing
authority was still targeting these developments, plus one other, for
demolition—a potential loss of another 736 apartments.
Being one of the wealthiest communities in the country, Stamford is off the
charts in terms of affordability. To rent a 3-bedroom apartment, one has to
earn $35.67 an hour, according to Out of Reach, a report produced by the
National Low Income Housing Coalition. Motivated by the need to hold onto
existing affordable units and the ongoing threat of demolition, the Stamford
Community Union, with assistance from Connecticut Legal Services and the
Civil Liberties Union, crafted a one-for-one ordinance and waged an intensive
local campaign.
After months of lobbying and negotiations, in October 2001, a 40-member city
council passed—by a unanimous vote—Stamford’s One-for-One Housing
Replacement Ordinance (No. 966). The ordinance requires that any unit of
public or subsidized housing that is demolished or converted to other housing
be replaced by the owner at the same rent. If the owner violates the
ordinance, he or she must pay fines of up to $90 per apartment per day.
As Clay Smith, an AFL-CIO organizer with the campaign, said: “We convinced
them by building political power in Stamford over the years before getting
into this fight. That is what shifted the balance of power. We did a lot of
strong, direct organizing—demonstrations, taking over housing authority
meetings, public pressure. We spoke individually with all 40 members of the
council. We got press. And all of this was very persuasive to the council.”
Smith also reported that several weeks after the ordinance was passed, a
public housing resident and a union member were elected to the city council.
For a copy of the ordinance, contact ENPHRONT.
Reported in HOUSING MATTERS #16, February 2002
Labor and Community Groups Fight for Jobs
& Training for Residents
For the past year, public housing residents in New York City, along with the
organizing muscle of labor unions and community groups, have been leading a
major fight that, if successful, has the potential to create thousands of job
and training opportunities for public housing residents.
To carry out this huge task, the groups, part of the Alliance for a Working
Economy (AWE), put together a campaign called TRADES. Building a strong
coalition among labor groups, community groups, and public housing residents,
has been, union organizers say, a goal equally important to winning jobs and
training.
The TRADES campaign is an ambitious one that involves getting the city’s
public housing agency, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), to change
the way it does business with contractors by committing to contract with
companies that participate in state-approved apprenticeship programs. This
strategy is currently being used in cities such as San Francisco and Los
Angeles, and has the potential to spread all across the country.
As far as TRADES is concerned, the idea is a simple one and is a win-win
situation for housing agencies and residents. Because of a federal law
called Section 3, public housing agencies are required to do all they can to
create job and training opportunities in exchange for receiving federal
subsidies.
But while housing agencies have the job slots, more often than not they do
not have the training slots that would prepare residents for the types of
jobs that typically become available when developments undergo major
construction or rehabilitation. Here’s where the TRADES idea takes shape.
Win-Win-Win
If the New York City Housing Authority were to change its contracting
practices so that it contracted solely or predominantly with contractors who
had in place state-approved apprenticeship programs, the contractors and the
unions they belong to would, in turn, commit to train and employ a
significant number of public housing residents.
With the TRADES idea, everybody gets something. Public housing residents get
paid training that has the potential to lead to a living-wage career in the
construction trades. Also, through the apprenticeship program, residents get
access to a system that allows them to seek and obtain future work on
construction jobs beyond their public housing site. Contractors committed to
training low-income, unemployed or unskilled residents get increased access
to housing agency contracts. And the New York City Housing Authority gets to
satisfy its Section 3 obligation.
Removing the Legal Barrier
In order for its idea to be a reality, TRADES is pushing a two-part agenda.
The first part of the agenda was getting New York State Governor Pataki to
amend the New York State Labor Law to make it okay for state agencies to
contract solely with contractors affiliated with state-approved
apprenticeship programs. This was done and won through letter writing,
demonstrations and other grassroots organizing strategies. This legislative
victory is significant because NYCHA claimed to support the apprenticeship
training proposal; but believed that state law prevented it from doing so.
Changing Business as Usual
Now that it is clear that there is no legal barrier, TRADES is addressing the
second part of its agenda—getting NYCHA to change its contracting practices
(which means ensuring that contractors have in place state-approved
apprenticeship programs). To help make this happen, TRADES is campaigning to
get newly elected Mayor Bloomberg of New York City, as well as the housing
authority’s board, to pledge support for the apprenticeship concept.
Furthermore, in addition to requesting that the housing agency change the way
it does business with contractors, TRADES is asking NYCHA to invest resources
into developing a pre-apprenticeship training program to ensure that
residents make it through the rigorous apprenticeship training.
Sparking a New Approach
The TRADES idea, along with the partnership between residents and labor
that’s behind it, is one that can be used in cities across the country.
TRADES members encourage resident leaders to reach out to local unions in
their area and not be discouraged if they don’t get an open door or a
handshake. The important part of bringing the labor-community-resident
coalition together, organizers say, is building trust. Once you have trust
established, things begin to take off from there. As one union organizer
said: “Once you come together as a group, your campaign will start to grow on
its own. You start to find common ground, something that is a common
denominator that’s holding everybody together.”
Reported by Dushaw Hockett for HOUSING MATTERS #16, February 2002
False HOPE Report Released
For years, HUD has promoted the success stories about its HOPE VI program for
public housing demolition and redevelopment. Congress has given considerable
support to HOPE VI—perhaps in response to these stories. But, as a new report
makes clear—there have been serious shortcomings and inconsistencies with the
HOPE VI program.
The report, entitled False HOPE, was prepared by the National Housing Law
Project, together with ENPHRONT, Sherwood
Research Associates, and the
Poverty & Race Research Action Council. It is released at a key political
moment, as Congress decides whether to continue (reauthorize) the HOPE VI
program.
The Origins of HOPE VI
In 1992, an independent commission created by Congress developed a national
action plan to address the needs of the most “severely distressed” public
housing. The commission estimated that 86,000 public housing units were
“severely distressed.”
The plan sought to address resident services, management issues, and physical
conditions, not just through demolition, but through investment in human
services and modernization. The HOPE VI program was created in response to
this plan.
Serious Problems
Now, 10 years later, as False HOPE states: “It is nearly impossible to
determine whether HOPE VI is making progress in solving the problem
identified by the [commission]." As the report details:
- HUD was supposed to publish a list of “severely distressed” public housing
developments in the first year of the HOPE VI program. It failed to do so.
- The term “severely distressed” has been changed a half a dozen times and
never concretely defined. As administered by HUD, virtually any family public
housing development can meet the definition of “severe distress.”
- In the mid-1990s, federal government auditors (U.S. General Accounting
Office and HUD’s Office of Inspector General) noted that HOPE VI increasingly
appeared to be putting money not into the most severely distressed housing,
but into sites that had potential to attract private investors or become
higher-income developments.
- While HUD has emphasized the “crucial” importance of resident
participation throughout the HOPE VI process, HUD has never issued
regulations for the program. HOPE VI is a program without rules. Not having
rules has deprived residents of a legally enforceable right to participate.
- According to HUD’s own figures, on average only 11.4% of the original
residents have returned or are expected to return to HOPE VI redeveloped
sites. HUD has suggested that residents do not return because they “choose”
not to. But other reasons for residents not returning include new
unreasonably strict re-admission screening criteria, harassment, and
inadequate relocation services.
Reforms Needed
False HOPE sends a message to Congress that HOPE VI needs reforming.
It recommends that:
- A new definition of “severe distress” should be created in collaboration
with public housing residents, advocates, housing experts, and others.
- HUD must be required to publish an updated list of housing that meets a new
definition of “severe distress.”
- All public housing units subject to demolition or redevelopment under HOPE
VI be replaced one-for-one.
- HUD should be required to issue regulations that provide an enforceable
right to residents to participate.
- Public housing residents affected by HOPE VI should be guaranteed the right
to occupy units redeveloped under HOPE VI.
For a copy of the report False HOPE go to
www.NHLP.org.
HOPE VI Needs Reforms
U.S. Senator Mikulski’s Reaction to False HOPE
On June 25th, the report False HOPE was released. On June 28th, the Baltimore
Sun published the following reaction to the report (bold text is our
emphasis):
“U.S. Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, the Maryland Democrat frequently credited as
one of the creators of the [HOPE VI] program, says that HUD will have to
provide more information on HOPE VI and come up with needed reforms before
Congress will reauthorize the program. She said that thus far her requests
for additional information have not been answered.
Calling some of the findings "shocking and unacceptable," Mikulski said the
reforms must ensure that current public housing tenants are not "displaced,
dispersed and dumped. Reauthorization must be coupled with reform."
What Are Residents Saying about HOPE VI?
ENPHRONT and the Center for Community Change
are currently conducting
research about the harm that residents who have faced a HOPE VI redevelopment
have experienced. Research teams are conducting in-depth interviews with 10
families in 10 cities across the country, asking residents: What has been
your experience with HOPE VI? What is happening to your community? Children?
Seniors?
Interviews are showing patterns of how residents have been pushed out,
divided, excluded from the planning process, misled, left in worse housing,
and forced to deal with the traumas that being uprooted from one’s community
causes. As one person interviewed said:
[The development] had 129 units of senior housing before HOPE VI. The PHA
played games, saying that the senior building would be remodeled. [N]ow all
of the seniors are relocated. For many, the stress and uncertainty was too
much—so many have died since then.
Not surprising to ENPHRONT, but perhaps to
Congress, is that the interviews
reveal how much people value their public housing communities—communities
that are being ripped apart under HOPE VI. Except for the lucky few who get
to return to the newly developed site, residents of demolished properties who
have been displaced say that where they once felt “safe” in their public
housing communities, now they feel insecure and isolated—just the opposite of
one of HOPE VI’s stated purposes.
Reported in HOUSING MATTERS #17, July 2002
Where Will They Go?
Is the Right Question for the Press to Ask
Few news stories give voice to public housing residents’ concerns about the
widespread demolition that is occurring across the country. Public housing
leaders are often discredited by housing authorities. Residents displaced by
demolition are difficult to find and afraid to talk. And reporters aren’t
finding (and may not be looking for) the untold stories of people whose
housing situations have been made worse by demolition.
This past spring, the Times-Dispatch of Richmond, Virginia ran a two-part
series that began to tell some of the hidden stories about the impact of HOPE
VI demolition on residents’ lives.
“This was the first time that the mainstream press covered what is happening
to public housing and public housing residents in Richmond,” said Sheila
Weir, a member of the Richmond Tenants Organization, Chair of the Central
Virginia Legal Aid Client Counsel, and an ENPHRONT
State Point Person.
“Last year, when the housing authority held public hearings, the reporter
wasn’t buying what we were saying,” said Weir. “But that changed when an
attorney representing a resident gave the reporter information about the
early stages of the demolition at the Blackwell development. We also gave the
reporter information about where to get information, like useful websites.
The reporter then began to do her own research and realized that the housing
authority wasn’t telling her the whole story. And she began to research for
the truth.”
To date, the Richmond Redevelopment Housing Authority has razed
438 of the 440 apartments at the Blackwell development, and several more
demolitions are being proposed. Richmond’s waiting list for public housing
has 3,400 households on it.
“I wanted to know where all those people were going to go,” said Lea Setegn,
the reporter who spent a year researching the articles in the Times-Dispatch.
Part of Setegn’s research included filing a request to access public records
under Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act. “Filing a Freedom of
Information Act request can be tricky,” said Setegn, “because you can’t go
on a fishing expedition. You have to be specific.” Setegn asked for financial
records about the transfer of funds related to the HOPE VI project; any
payments made to or from any internal or external contractors, including the
city of Richmond, HUD or any other public or private entity; and any bids
received for any part of the project.
“We almost had to take the housing authority to court,” said Setegn,
“because they were not responding within the time frames that the Freedom of
Information law sets out.” Her request led her to residents who had been
affected by HOPE VI.
“Getting in touch with residents was difficult. You can find activists. You
can find success stories—the housing authority hooked me up with the success
stories. But what’s not easy is finding the regular people. I had to go find
the disgruntled.”
“Some residents spoke off the record because they feared retaliation,” said
Setegn. “They didn’t want their names used in the article. And even though
people don’t want to talk to the media—as a reporter, if you hear the story
several times, you know you are on the right track. Newspapers need to take
responsibility and look for the untold story. “
“The big message I have for residents,” said Setegn, “is develop a good
relationship with a reporter. That’s the best way to get your story heard.
Judge each reporter as they come to you, not the paper as a whole.
I understand housing authorities have public relations people and know how to
use them and that real people don’t have public relations people. But what
happens is—it’s easy for reporters to quote the housing authority because
they are easy to reach. Invite reporters to neighborhood meetings. Let the
reporters see firsthand how many people are concerned, and let those people
voice their concerns for themselves.”
By A.R. Duke for HOUSING MATTERS #17, July 2002
Useful Websites to Give to Reporters
Below are some websites to refer reporters for their research on HOPE VI and
how it is affecting your community. For more information contact Dushaw
Hockett at 202-339-3906.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/
HUD’s most recent Notice of Funding Availability usually at
www.hud.gov/hope6
National Housing Law Project, False HOPE report
www.NHLP.org
National Fair Housing Advocate (based in Tennessee)
www.fairhousing.com
National Low Income Housing Coalition (housing affordability data by state)
www.nlihc.org/advocates/hopevi.htm
Housing Research Foundation (for site profiles and other HOPE VI documents)
www.housingresearch.org
HOPE VI: Progress and Problems in Revitalizing Distressed Public Housing
www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces160.shtml (search title field)
General Guidance on Resident and Community Involvement
www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/css/guidance.cfm
One strike and who’s out?
Possibly Innocent Residents
On March 26, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that HUD’s “one-strike” law
gives housing authorities the power to evict an entire family because one
member of the family or a guest was involved in drug-related activity. Under
the Supreme Court’s decision in HUD v. Rucker, even if a resident does not
know about the activity, took steps to stop it, or the activity took place
away from the development—it’s one-strike-and-you’re-out.
”[L]aw-abiding public housing residents across the country continue to walk
on pins and needles wondering if they will be evicted for a drug-related
crime perpetrated by a family member or a guest. . . ,” wrote the Chicago
Residents’ Journal, after the Supreme Court issued its decision.
“There’s a double standard that if you are poor and it’s related to drugs,
you have no rights. . . . In Florida, Gov. (Jeb) Bush’s daughter has a drug
problem and you don’t see anyone trying to revoke his mortgage. . . ,” wrote
the San Francisco Chronicle, quoting Paul Renne, the attorney who argued the
case before the Supreme Court on behalf of four residents who faced eviction
in the Rucker case—all of whom were over 60 years of age.
Compassion and Common Sense
The federal law at issue in the Rucker case requires public housing leases
to have a clause saying “drug-related criminal activity engaged in on or
off the premises by any tenant, member of the tenant’s household or
guest . . . is grounds for the PHA to terminate the tenancy.”
On April 16, 2002, in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Rucker
case, Secretary of HUD Mel Martinez issued a letter to all housing
authorities directing them not to abuse their one-strike power. He wrote:
[I] would like to urge you, as public housing administrators, to be guided by
compassion and common sense in responding to cases involving the use of
illegal drugs. Evictions should be the last option explored, after all others
have been exhausted.
About two months later, on June 6, 2002, the Assistant Secretary of HUD’s
Public Housing Office, Michael Lui, issued a second letter to housing
authorities, clarifying that, as the law is written, housing authorities have
the discretion to evict under the one-strike law, but are “not required to
evict an entire household—or, for that matter, anyone—every time a violation
of the lease occurs.”
To get a copies of Secretary Martinez’s and Assistant Secretary Lui’s
letters, go to:
www.nhlp.org./html/new/index.htm and scroll down to Public Housing.
What Can You Do Locally?
Meet with Your Housing Authority
Meet with your housing authority director. Make sure that he or she (as well
as the commissioners) received the letters from HUD Secretary Martinez and
Assistant Secretary Lui. Ask that they put these words into practice and into
their policies.
Negotiate Fair Lease Terms and Plan Policies
Influence your public housing authority’s policies through the lease
negotiation process and during the yearly plan process.
Get Your Partners Involved
Get a lawyer to help you analyze and renegotiate your lease, as well as
develop recommendations for the planning process.
Consider All the Circumstances
Include a lease term that says the housing authority "must" (not “may”)
consider all relevant circumstances. Require the housing authority to
consider the factors that the federal rules (24 Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 966(l)(5)(vii)(B)) say that they can, such as: how serious the criminal
activity was, what steps were taken to prevent the activity, what the impact
of eviction would be on the family, and changed circumstances.
Negotiate a Right to a Legal Defense
Negotiate into your lease, such as residents in Chicago did, that a resident
has the right to raise a legal defense to an eviction where he or she did not
know about, nor should they have known about the criminal activity at issue;
and that if they are successful, the housing authority cannot evict them.
Don't Evict Victims
Include in the lease that victims of violence, such as domestic violence,
won’t be evicted because of criminal acts of others and placed in a worse
situation than they already are in.
Negotiate a 2-Strike Policy
Negotiate a 2-strike policy for less serious offenses. Give residents a
chance to correct a less serious offense before a housing authority proceeds
with an eviction.
Define What Is Serious Enough to Be 1-Strike
Work with the housing authority to define what types of criminal activity
would warrant a 1-strike approach, and what types of activity warrant a
2-strike or other approach.
Negotiate a Right to Grievance Hearing
Negotiate a grievance procedure, such as residents in Kansas City, Missouri
did, which gives all residents, including residents facing an eviction
because of drug-related activity, the right to a grievance hearing.
Reported in HOUSING MATTERS #17, July 2002
For More Information Contact:
ENPHRONT
c/o Battalion
Pentecostal Assembly
454 Beach 67th Street
Arverne, N.Y. 11692
E-mail: EnphrontII@enphront.orgCompanyEmail
|
