Stealing Our Low-Income Housing

Stealing Our Low-Income Housing
Resources For The Poor Are Disappearing

By Lynda Carson April 11, 2005

In the world of low-income housing, shockwaves are reverberating across the nation from the Bush administration's recent proposals to destroy the nations low-income housing programs, which house more than 5 million low-income households.

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) officials have submitted a new proposal that creates a huge funding loss for much of the nations public housing sector, which include some of the largest funding cuts being proposed since Congress first started subsidizing housing for low-income renters.

A press release from the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA) accusses HUD of renegging on a recent deal to fund the nations Public Housing Authorities (PHA's), and slams HUD for it's double-crossing proposals that would underfund the public housing program for the poor.

Titled, "HUD’s Proposed Operating Fund Rule Reneges on Negotiated Agreement with Housing Authorities," and partly reads, "The proposed public housing operating fund rule now being reviewed on Capitol Hill substantially alters an agreement carefully negotiated between HUD and the public housing community last year -- leaving the agreement gutted and the proposed rule unworkable."

"The Council of Large Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA), National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO), and Public Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA), call on the administration to publish the rule that was negotiated and agreed to by the negotiated rulemaking committee mandated by Congress on which we served."

If the Bush administration's proposed funding cuts take hold, nearly $480 million or around 14 percent, will be slashed from HUD's $3.4 billion budget to fund the nations 3,100 Public Housing Authorities (PHA's).

Some of the nation's housing agencies already predict that the funding loss proposals will impede their responsibilities to maintain basic services for many of the 3 million low-income renters residing in public housing.

This spells disaster for the nations troubled agencies day to day operations, which are already short of the funding needed to properly maintain and insure their properties, pay their staff and labor, and cover the ever increasing utility bills.

Tim Jones is the Director of Housing Management for the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA), has been with the OHA for over 3 years, and runs the public housing program for the local agency. "We have some legitimate concerns, and are hanging in there as best as we can," Jones said, "but at some time ahead we will reach a breaking point if the funding cutbacks continue. It seems as though they are trying to bleed us and force us out of the housing programs that assist the poor. Even the local nonprofit housing organizations cannot offer housing assistance to the poor, at the level that we do."

"You cannot continue to run these types of housing programs for the poor when the annual allowable expense levels are only being funded at 89 percent of what the operating subsidy should be providing, in accordance to what we are entitled to."

"We are not asking for more than what we are entitled to, but at the least, we need what we are entitled to, so that we may maintain our responsibility to those we serve. The Oakland Housing Authority has over 300 staff, and the funding cuts will require us to make some tough choices. It will take some creative measures to keep the same number of housing units available, and our modernization program will have to be placed on the back burner for now," said Jones.

"Currently the vacancy rate for the public housing units in Oakland are around 2.5 percent, and with the funding losses occurring nationally, it may affect how fast the vacancy rates may be filled, because it will be difficult to maintain the labor force needed to properly maintain the units," said Tim Jones, Director of Housing Management.

As an example of those needing housing assistance, the average family in Oakland that participates in the Section 8 program only earns around 19 percent of the area median income, and last year 83 percent of the new families joining the Section 8 program earned less than 30 percent of the area median income.

The San Francisco Housing Authority already claims to be on the brink of bankruptcy, and this latest round of proposed funding cuts may spell doom for many of the nation's housing agencies that have already deferred maintainence repairs for months at a time or lack the money to repair roof leaks at their properties. Some agencies may even be forced to sell their properties to remain afloat.

During the week of April 7, Senator's Hillary Clinton and Charles E. Schumer blasted HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson for double-crossing the nations housing agencies on a deal that was agreed upon last June, that would have avoided the worst of the cost cutting proposals HUD is currently seeking.

"Of all the knives that HUD has put in New York City's back, this is the longest and deepest," said Senator Schumer. "I've never seen anything like this in the magnitude of the cut and the sneaky way in which it was delivered."

Facing $185 million in budget cuts projected to occur during the next five years, New York would face more cuts in their public housing sector than any other state in the union.

During the past few years, the Bush administration has pushed for a new formula that would change the way the nation's PHA's are being funded, to shift billions of dollars from the older urban areas of the midwest and northeast, to the rural and southern regions of the country. Some housing advocates believe that the Bush administration was actually promoting a political payback scheme in housing dollars to areas of the country that supported his election to office.

Meanwhile, a compromise was made last June, meant to keep the worst of the funding cuts from occurring in most of the PHA's, when the formula change was to take place.

According to housing advocates, last month HUD officials started circulating a proposal to Congressional members that greatly differed from the agreement made last June, and the new proposal being offered contained far deeper funding cuts than what was already agreed upon.

During last June's negotiations, a formula was agreed upon that would provide more money for two-thirds of the nation's public housing authorities, and at worst, one-third of the housing agencies might have received funding cuts that were capped at a 5 percent level of their budgets.

HUD's latest deal being offered to the double-crossed housing agencies removed the 5 percent cap on funding cuts and eliminates other measures meant to minimize further funding losses.

The following figures are telling in regards to what was originally negotiated compared to what HUD is now proposing. HUD's new deal for New York City is 15.8 percent less than what was agreed upon last June, in Washington, D.C., HUD's new deal is 19.5 percent less than agreed upon, in Oakland it is 12.3 percent less than what was agreed upon, and in San Francisco, HUD's new deal is 11.3 percent less than they agreed to last June.

This latest deal being proposed by HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson is what has outraged Senator's Clinton and Schumer, after Secretary Jackson outlined the new proposed funding cuts at a recent Congressional hearing on Capital Hill, during the week of April 7.

The following Demographics are from the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities:

Public housing is home to almost 3 million seniors, people with disabilities and low-income families with children; approximately one million children live in public housing.

More than half (52%) of all public housing residents are elderly or people with disabilities.

About 40% of public housing residents remain in units less than three years.

Another 4.7 million seniors, people with disabilities and low-income families with children use Section 8 housing choice vouchers.

Public housing is severely underfunded:
- The cumulative shortfall in operating subsidies between 1993-2003 to PHAs adds up to more than $1.9 billion.
- The cumulative shortfall in capital improvement funding for the same time frame is more than $20.3 billion.