Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Indepth Look: Privatizing Our (Oakland's) Public Housing
[[[The HOPE VI program enabled the Oakland Housing Authority to expand its collaboration with the Mayor’s office, which began with the City’s 1991 campaign to reduce violence and drug trafficking within and around the Coliseum and Lockwood communities.]]]
---Police Action Under Disguise Of Being A Gentrification Project---
Massive Gentrification Projects Have Been Displacing Oakland's Communities Of Color In Easte & West Oakland. Read How A Local Nonprofit Housing Developer (EBALDC) Is Knee Deep In A Gentrification Project That Is Actually One HUge POLICE ACTION Meant To Displace The Poor From Oakland!
---Police Action Under Disguise Of Being A Gentrification Project---
Massive Gentrification Projects Have Been Displacing Oakland's Communities Of Color In Easte & West Oakland. Read How A Local Nonprofit Housing Developer (EBALDC) Is Knee Deep In A Gentrification Project That Is Actually One HUge POLICE ACTION Meant To Displace The Poor From Oakland!
---Privatizing Our Public Housing Units---
An Indepth Look at How The Coliseum Gardens Public Housing Units, Became Privatized
Hope Vl Federal Funding Was Used To Push The Poor From Their Housing In Oakland
by Lynda Carson October 13, 2006
Oakland CA -- What did the 178 families of poor people at Oakland's Coliseum Gardens have in common with a local nonprofit housing developer East Bay Asian Development Corporation (EBALDC), and a SUPER RICH developer (Stephen M. Ross/Related Companies) in New York City?
The poor were booted out of their housing because of a housing development partnership between EBALDC and Related Companies, that used Hope Vl funding to privatize the locations that their housing units were built upon.
How do the rich and the SUPER RICH end up using Hope Vl funding and local tax dollars to get their hands on the peoples public housing units in Oakland, while displacing the poor?
How does a rich fellow in New York City, who is so WEALTHY that he manages to give away $100,000 Million Dollars, end up slumming it in Oakland with a project that displaces 178 poor families from their housing?
Thats a good question...
Other local public housing sites (4 site areas) in the near area have also been demolished, with the tenants being displaced to make way for this massive project. Additionally, there have been two major gentrification sites in West Oakland, displacing the poor with Hope Vl funding. See details below...
The wealthy developers have been quietly gentrifying Oakland as quick as possible, and theres been very little attention being payed to what is going on at Coliseum Gardens/Lion Creek Crossings.
Have you read about what has occurred at the Coliseum Gardens public housing units in Oakland, and how the 178 poor families were displaced (EVICTED) from their housing units, to make way for EBALDC's and the Related Companies new project that is now known as the Lion Creek Crossings?
Feel free to ask EBALDC or Related Companies for any records that are being kept in regards to how many POOR people have been allowed to move back into the property at Coliseum Gardens/Lion Creek Crossings after they were EVICTED.
The City of Oakland is crazy enough to subsidize billionaires, while it displaces the poor people from
their public housing units....
Now that the wealthy developers have privatized the Coliseum Gardens public housing units, see below how they are also trying to privatize Oakland's Police Department to guard their private property... See details bellow...
See how a ($600,000) funding shortfall was covered, by changing policy to allow the developers to charge Market Rate Rents in Section 8 project based units in the new complex... See below...
What a world....
For an indepth look at how Oakland's poor are being displaced, and how Oakland's public housing units have become privatized and end up in the hands of the wealthy, just keep on reading.....
By Lynda Carson
tenantsrule [at] yahoo.com
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
[EBALDC and Related Companies, LLC., created Creekside Housing Partners, L.P., to take control of Oakland's public housing property in East Oakland at the Coliseum Gardens site, now known as Lion Creek Crossings. Chambers Construction will develop the homeownership portion at Lion Creek Crossings with EBALDC and The Related Company jointly responsible for the apartments.]
---Lion Creek Crossing (Coliseum Garden) Now Renting---
http://www.ebaldc.org/realestate_dev.html
The Oakland Housing Authority received a HOPE VI grant to replace its 178 notorious Coliseum Garden apartments with a mixed income development of over 350 apartments and approximately 28 homes for sale. EBALDC assembled a development team, which includes The Related Company of California and Chambers Construction to work with the housing authority. Chambers Construction will develop the homeownership portion with EBALDC and The Related Company jointly responsible for the apartments. The development will surround a revitalized 5 acre City Park and Lion creek, which will also be restored by the city. The first phase of this development includes 115 apartments and 7,500 square feet of space for community services.
Click below for photos and EBALDC contact number...
http://www.ebaldc.org/lion_creek.html
This phase is under construction with a second phase of 146 apartments and another 7,500 square feet scheduled to start late in 2005. Community services anticipated include a Head Start Child Care Center, youth and after school programs, health programs, career counseling and business development opportunities. A third phase is being planned with over a hundred family apartments and townhouses that will overlook the restored Lion creek and city park.
These brand new Lion Creek Crossing apartments are ready for occupants. Contact EBALDC today at (510) 287-5353 for details....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[CHAMBERS CONSTRUCTION]
http://www.chambersconstruction.com/
Carolyn Silva. Chambers, owner of Chambers Construction
CHAIRMAN & C.E.O. CHAMBERS COMMUNICATIONS
Home-86220 DERY Rd or 86054 DERY Rd.
PLEASANT HILL, OREGON 97455 (541) 746-1510 -- (541) 988-5732
(Born September of 1931)
Political Donations (2004) to George W. Bush $2,000 -- $500 contributed to the RNC
Carolyn Silva. Chambers' business empire includes real estate, a construction company, a vineyard, and the crown jewel, Chambers Communications Corp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KEZI -- http://www.cmc.net/~chambers/
Local -- Chambers Construction Co (510) 569-3081 7506 Macarthur Blvd Oakland, CA.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Search Results for Lion Creek Crossing from Related website:
http://tinyurl.co.uk/wwvv
Lion Creek Crossing
Location: 800 69th Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Property Type: Affordable Rental
Multifamily Rentals
Neighborhood Revitalization
Organizations: Related California
---EBALDC Partnership With Related Companies---
EBALDC -- East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation
(Lynette Jung Lee is the Director of EBALDC)
http://www.ebaldc.org/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[Related Companies]
Related Corporate Structure
http://www.related.com/index.asp?model=relatedStructure&view=1&companyid=7
Stephen M. Ross is head/CEO of Related Companies...
STEPHEN M ROSS (Born in May of 1940)
(Home)
956 5TH AVE
NEW YORK, NY 10021
(212) 772-1196 or (212) 772-7659
---Stephen M. Ross resides at 956 Fifth Avenue, in New York---
Home of Stephen M. Ross at 956 Fifth Avenue. This finely detailed building has an unusual and ... by in 1920 the Real Estate Board of New York, the City Club and the Fifth ...
http://www.thecityreview.com/ues/fifave/fif956.htm
_______________
Related of California
http://tinyurl.co.uk/ez7t
RELATED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Stephen M. Ross
Jeff T. Blau
Michael J. Brenner
David J. Wine
************
About Stephen M. Ross / CharterMac
http://www.chartermac.com/?a=sross
Board of Trustees
Stephen M. Ross
Chairman
Stephen M. Ross is non-executive Chairman of the Board of Trustees of CharterMac. Mr. Ross is the founder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Managing General Partner of The Related Companies, L.P. ("TRCLP"). Mr. Ross began his career working for the accounting firm of Coopers & Lybrand in Detroit as a tax attorney. Later, he moved to New York, where he worked for two large Wall Street investment banking firms in their real estate and corporate finance departments before founding TRCLP in 1972. Mr. Ross graduated from The University of Michigan School of Business with a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration and from Wayne State School of Law with a Juris Doctor degree. He then received a Master of Law degree in Taxation from the New York University School of Law. Mr. Ross endowed the "Stephen M. Ross School of Business" at The University of Michigan. Mr. Ross is a member of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Real Estate Board of New York and is a trustee of the National Building Museum. Mr. Ross also serves on the Board of Directors of Kerzner International Ltd. (NYSE: KZL), Equinox Holdings, Inc. (an affiliate of TRCLP), the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Jackie Robinson Foundation and the Guggenheim Museum.
************
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
http://www.ebho.org/calendar.htm
• Lion Creek Crossings Open House of Phase 1 and Groundbreaking of Phase 2
Lion Creek Crossings will create a new community in the blighted and neglected Central East Oakland district and will be the catalyst for revitalizing the entire Coliseum BART station into a Transit Village. This HOPE VI development will provide up to 437 units over four phases of permanent affordable rental housing and 28 for-sale units for first time homebuyers. This is a joint venture between EBALDC, Related Companies of California and the Oakland Housing Authority.
Location: 915 69th Avenue, Oakland Ca, 94621
Time: 11:00 AM – 1:00 PM
Sponsored by: Sponsored by East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC)
For more information: Joyceland 510.287.5353 / jfarrow [at] ebaldc.com
************
---Stephen M. Ross Gives Away $100,000 Million Dollars---
University of Michigan -- (Stephen M. Ross gives away $100,000 million)
New York City real estate developer Stephen M. Ross gives $100 million to University ... chairman and chief executive officer of The Related Companies, LP, ...
http://www.umich.edu/news/?Releases/2004/Sep04/donor/index
************
[Oakland Budget Summary for 2006 - Oakland Redevelopment Agency]
Personnel Services and Related Overhead Costs - FY 2006-07 . ... Lions Creek Crossings (Coliseum Gardens) Phase I. $1,500,000. Lions Creek Crossings (Coliseum ...
http://tinyurl.co.uk/y1jq
************
Page 1)
Executive Off
Oakland Housing Authority MEMORANDUM
http://www.oakha.org/public_announcement/092506VICmemo.pdf
To: Board of Commissioners
From: Jon Gresley, Executive Director
Subject: Resolution Approving Use of Additional Local Funds for Park Construction
at the Lion Creek Crossings HOPE VI Primary Site and Amending the
Predevelopment Services Agreement to Effect the Change
Date: September 19, 2006
This correspondence transmits for your consideration and approval a resolution
authorizing the use of $287,593 in Authority Local Funds for construction of the
preliminary phase replacement park at Lion Creek Crossings. This proposed additional
allocation of funds to the park is part of the $7 million previously approved by the Board
for use in the Lion Creek Crossings redevelopment.
Background:
The Authority was awarded a HOPE VI grant in the amount of $34.5 million in 2000 to
revitalize the 178-unit Coliseum Gardens public housing development. The Board
approved the selection of East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC), The
Related Companies of California (Related) and Chambers Construction Company
(Chambers) as co-developer partners for redevelopment of the original public housing
site and several adjacent or nearby properties (the “Primary Site”), now renamed Lion
Creek Crossings. EBALDC and Related are co-developing the rental portion of the
Primary Site, which will include 157 units of public housing. The total number of rental
units, including public housing, now planned is approximately 440. Twenty-eight (28)
units of for-sale housing are planned to be developed by Chambers. The construction
of new streets and utilities and the reconfiguration of a public park are planned as part
of the rental housing development.
The remaining 21 units of public housing are included in a recently constructed 65-unit
development on Foothill Boulevard in Oakland.
In addition to the rental housing, the project includes the reconfiguration of Coliseum
Gardens Park and the restoration of a portion of Lion Creek. The City of Oakland is
managing the restoration of a portion of the creek that runs through the park. A grant
from the California Pollution Control Finance Authority and the City of Oakland is
providing funds for park planning. Pacific Gas and Electric Company has awarded
$175,000 for park construction. The California Housing and Community Development
Department has awarded the City of Oakland approximately $500,000 which is planned
to be used for park construction. Our developer partners and staff are searching for
additional sources of funding for park construction.
Page 2-
In a Land Exchange Agreement that was executed between the Authority and the City,
the Authority agreed to construct a temporary replacement park during the period when
the existing park is taken out of service. The Developer has received an estimate of
$388,735 from its general contractor for the cost of constructing a temporary
replacement park. The Developer plans to start construction on Phase III of the rental
housing on the site of the existing City park in October, and the temporary park is
required to be in place prior to the start of construction on this phase. The grant funds
described previously are not yet available, but will be in the future.
All park facilities related to the development are to be constructed by the Developer
under the terms of an Amended and Restated Predevelopment Services Agreement
(PSA). The current PSA includes a provision for the use of $101,142 in Authority Local
Funds for park construction. The proposed resolution would authorize the use of an
additional $287,593 in Authority Local Funds for the immediate construction of the
preliminary phase replacement park, for a total of $388,735.
It is expected that the Authority will be reimbursed for the use of this additional
allocation of its Local Funds as the above-described grant funds become available. If
that occurs, the Local Funds will be available for reallocation within the project.
Proposed Action:
It is recommended that the Board of Commissioners adopt the attached resolution
approving the use of an additional $288,593 in Authority Local Funds for construction of
the preliminary phase replacement park at Lion Creek Crossings, and authorizing the
Executive Director to amend the Predevelopment Services Agreement to incorporate
this change, and to take all actions necessary to implement the resolution.
Attachment: Resolution
************
(7/24/06)
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
http://www.oakha.org/public_announcement/072406VB2reso.pdf
On Motion of Commissioner
Seconded by Commissioner
and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED: NUMBER
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL COMMITMENT FOR AN
INCREASE IN THE HOPE VI FUNDS CONSTRUCTION AND PERMANENT
LOAN FOR THE COLISEUM GARDENS HOPE VI DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
KNOWN AS LION CREEK CROSSINGS, PHASE III BETWEEN OAKLAND
HOUSING AUTHORITY AS LENDER AND CREEKSIDE HOUSING
PARTNERS, L.P. AS BORROWER
WHEREAS, the Oakland Housing Authority (Authority) previously executed a
grant agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) pursuant to its grant of HOPE VI funds for a revitalization plan that
proposed the demolition and redevelopment of Coliseum Gardens and nearby
properties, (collectively the “Primary Site”); and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners approved the selection of East Bay Asian
Local Development Corporation (EBALDC), The Related Companies of California
(Related), and Chambers General Construction (Chambers) as co-developers of
the Primary Site at its meeting on October 21, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the Authority owns the land on which the Coliseum Gardens
revitalization development known as Lion Creek Crossings will be constructed,
and the Authority leases the land to the partnership formed with EBALDC and
Related for each phase of the development, which is known as Lion Creek
Crossings;
WHEREAS, EBALDC and Related (the “Developer”) have joint responsibility for
the development of the family rental housing at the Coliseum Gardens site and
formed a limited partnership known as Creekside Housing Partners, L.P. (CHP)
for the development of Lion Creek Crossings, Phase III, which consists of one
hundred six units of public and affordable family housing; and
Page 2)
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners passed Resolution 3685 authorizing the
execution of the Phase III Disposition and Development Agreement which
included a HOPE VI loan to CHP in the amount of $5,194,638; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commission subsequently passed Resolution 3766
approving closing evidentiaries including HOPE VI loan documents with a lesser
loan to CHP in the amount of $3,350,000; and
WHEREAS; CHP’s financing structure for Phase III included a loan from CalHFA
based on increased rental income from Project-Based Section 8 funds available
through the Authority; and
WHEREAS, the City of Oakland approved a loan amount of $4,600,000 for Phase
III of which $600,000 was intended to offset a HUD rule change decreasing the
value of rents available under the Project-Based Section 8 program; and
WHEREAS, as an MTW participant, the Authority has approved the use of market
rents in its Project-Based Section 8 program, which reduced CHP’s documented
need for $600,000 in City funds; and
WHEREAS, the City may then reduce its loan commitment to CHP by $600,000 as
a result of the Authority’s approval of market rents for Phase III; and
WHEREAS, bids for construction of Phase III are anticipated to be higher than
originally budgeted, creating a funding gap of $600,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA:
THAT, the Authority will provide an increased construction and permanent loan
of HOPE VI funds in the amount of up to $600,000 increasing its previous
commitment of $3,350,000 to $3,950,000 contingent on the City of Oakland
reducing its loan commitment for Phase III by $600,000, and if the construction
bids are such that the funds are needed by CHP as determined by the Authority;
and
THAT, the Executive Director is authorized to take all actions and execute such
other documents as may be necessary and appropriate to implement the
foregoing resolution.
Page 3)
I certify that the foregoing resolution is a full, true and
correct copy of a resolution passed by the
Commissioners of the Housing Authority
of the City of Oakland, California on July __, 2006.
_____________________________________
Secretary / Executive Director
ADOPTED: RESOLUTION NO.
************
09/13/06
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
http://www.oakha.org/public_announcement/091306VCreso1.pdf
On Motion of Commissioner
Seconded by Commissioner
And approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
ABSENT:
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED: NUMBER:
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A PERFORMANCE-BASED
SUB-GRANT AGREEMENT, NOT TO EXCEED $ 218,750 (TWO HUNDRED
EIGHTEEN THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS) FOR ONE YEAR,
WITH THE EAST BAY ASIAN LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (EBALDC) TO
PROVIDE HOPE VI COMMUNITY AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR FAMILIES
RESIDING AT LION CREEK CROSSINGS AND FOOTHILL PLAZA.
WHEREAS, the Authority received HOPE IV revitalization grants for Coliseum Gardens, now
renamed Lion Creek Crossings; and
WHEREAS, the Authority issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) which was mailed directly
to over 65 agencies and organizations and advertised in the Oakland Tribune; and
WHEREAS, EBALDC was selected as a program that best meets the needs of the residents
and the requirements of the Authority for the provision of personal budgeting, consumer
finance education, individual development accounts with matching, peer support groups
and seminars, home buyer training and small business/micro-enterprise development; and
WHEREAS, the original RFP and Board resolution authorized the Executive Director to alter
HOPE VI CSS sub-grant agreement scopes and selection of providers to address changes
in resident services needs; and,
(Page 2)
WHEREAS, EBALDC, as development partner for the Lion Creek Crossings HOPE VI
development, has a daily presence on-site at Lion Creek Crossings, has experience
providing comprehensive resident services at other EBALDC residential sites, and has the
capability of providing all the resident services needs identified during the 2006 Lion Creek
Crossing resident needs assessment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA:
THAT, the Executive Director, on behalf of the Authority, is hereby authorized to execute
a one year performance-based sub-grant agreement not to exceed $218,750 with
EBALDC to provide on-site services for school age youth and workforce development/
self-sufficiency services; and
THAT, the Executive Director, on behalf of the Authority, is hereby authorized to take all
actions necessary to implement the foregoing resolution.
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a full, true and correct
copy of a resolution passed by the Commissioners of the Housing Authority
of the City of Oakland, California on _________________.
________________________________
Secretary / Executive Director
ADOPTED: RESOLUTION NO.
************
08/09/06
Executive Office
Oakland Housing Authority MEMORANDUM
http://www.oakha.org/public_announcement/080906IVBmemo.pdf
To: Board of Commissioners
From: Jon Gresley, Executive Director
Subject: Lion Creek Crossings Security Contract
Date: August 3, 2006
As you are aware, the first phase of Lion Creek Crossings is now housing residents.
Related, the Authority partner and property manager, has contacted the Authority and
has requested increased patrol due to several incidents of criminal activity since the
property has opened. Related employs a private security firm at Lion Creek Crossings,
but many of the problems exceed their capacity for response. OHAPD has been
providing sporadic increased patrol; however, due to the fact that the Authority does
not own the buildings nor manage the property and the Authority passes operating
subsidies to the property for the purpose of subsidizing operating expenses, we have
indicated to Related that the policing of the property is the responsibility of the Oakland
Police Department.
After several meetings between Related and the Oakland Police Department (OPD), as
well as the continuance of increased criminal activity, Related contacted Phillip Neville,
Deputy Executive Director of Real Estate Development, and Carel Duplessis, Chief of
OHAPD, to explore the feasibility of Lion Creek Crossings contracting with the Authority
to supplement OPD’s policing of Lion Creek Crossings with officers from OHAPD.
Through discussions, an agreement has been reached for Related to pay the cost of
two full-time Police Officers for a two year contract.
A written agreement between Related and the Authority is currently being drafted for
OHA’s Board approval at the August 28 Commission meeting. Preparatory to that
meeting staff will brief the Commission at the workshop session of August 9.
Chief Carel Duplessis will provide the briefing and address any questions.
************
[Creekside Housing Partners, L.P. take control of the Coliseum Gardens/Lion Creek Crossings]
(Lion Creek Crossings used to be known as Coliseum Gardens public housing (178 units) of Oakland)
(EBALDC and Related Companies, LLC., created Creekside Housing Partners, L.P., to take control of Oakland's public housing property in Oakland. )
http://www.calhfa.ca.gov/about/publications/ press-releases/2006/pr2006-20.pdf
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Melissa Flores
Phone: 916.324.4647
Fax: 916.322.2345
mflores [at] calhfa.ca.gov
http://www.calhfa.ca.gov
Financing for Affordable Family Housing in Oakland
SACRAMENTO, June 6, 2006 – A new affordable housing project will soon be built in the City
of Oakland’s master planned community, Lion Creek Crossings (formerly known as Coliseum
Gardens), to create rental housing for an additional 106 families. The California Housing
Finance Agency (CalHFA) Board of Directors approved nearly $23 million in construction
financing and $4.8 million in permanent financing for Lion Creek Crossings, a family apartment
community, to be owned by Creekside Housing Partners, L.P., which is a joint venture between
East Bay Asian Local Development and the Related Companies, LLC. The property
management services will be provided by Related Management Company. Cahill Contractors
will begin construction in August 2006 with completion expected in February 2008.
The 106-unit complex is designed to provide affordable rental housing to those with household
incomes at or below 60 percent of the area median income. This project is the third phase in
the master planned community of Lion Creek Crossings. This unique urban infill project is
replacing public housing units developed in the 1940s. CalHFA has provided financing for all
three phases of the master development, creating 367 new affordable housing residences.
- more -
Page 2
The 2.49 acre project site will feature seven buildings with units ranging in size from one to four
bedrooms and styled as flats or town homes. The residents will also enjoy the use of the
master community’s shared common recreational facilities and community rooms currently
available to Phase I residents.
CalHFA will provide nearly $23 million in construction financing with a variable interest rate for
22 months. Upon completion, a permanent loan of $3.815 million will be provided by CalHFA,
as well as, CalHFA subordinate financing for slightly more than $1 million. Other funding
sources include the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s
Multifamily Housing Program, the Housing Authority of the City of Oakland (OHA), HOPE VI
loan from HUD to OHA, the City of Oakland, and the Federal Home Loan Bank’s Affordable
Housing Program.
The California Housing Finance Agency was created in 1975 with the goal of helping more
Californian’s live in a home they can afford. CalHFA’s Multifamily Division has invested more
than $2 billion for the construction and preservation of 36,000 affordable rental housing units
assisting nearly 85,000 very low and low income Californians. More information on Multifamily
Loan Finance programs and the full complement of CalHFA programs, visit http://www.calhfa.ca.gov
or call toll free 877.9.CalHFA (877.922.5432).
# # #
*********
The Related Companies
http://www.related.com/index.asp?model=homeRelated&view=1&companyid=7
Related develops, manages and finances the world's finest real estate developments. Our skills and experience are enhanced by a passion for quality and a unique entrepreneurial spirit. Related properties are more than structures - they are a union of energy, creativity, forward thinking and collaboration. Founded in New York in 1972, we are proud to call this great city our home. For more information on Related, visit our About section.
"THE SWEET LIFE" IS RISING IN MANHATTAN AT THE VENETO, A NEW EAST SIDE LUXURY CONDOMINIUM RESIDENCE FROM RELATED
^^^^^^^^^
Related of California
http://tinyurl.co.uk/ez7t
Related of California was formed in 1989 to focus on the development of multifamily housing in California. It is an affiliate of Related, L.P., a fully integrated real estate firm based in New York City with divisions specializing in development, property management, and financial services.
Since its inception, Related has developed over 6,000 units of housing in California, with properties in San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Bernardino County, San Diego, and San Diego County.
Its projects run the gamut from award-winning apartments for low- and moderate-income seniors and families to a 487-unit high-rise apartment development in downtown San Francisco that is the tallest residential building in the city.
Related's team of professionals brings hands-on experience and expertise in project management, finance, construction, and property management, along with the financial backing of one of the country's premier real estate companies.
Contact Us -- Lion Creek Crossing -- Related Companies:
To forward your questions or comments, simply click below, fill out forms and we'll send your request to the appropriate person.
http://tinyurl.co.uk/5jao
************
Related California Properties in California
http://tinyurl.co.uk/ez7t
************
Lockwood Gardens, Coliseum Gardens and Lower Fruitvale
HOPE VI Site Profile
http://tinyurl.co.uk/43n2
City: Oakland
Official PHA Name: Oakland PHA
Name of Site: Lockwood Gardens, Coliseum Gardens and Lower Fruitvale
HOPE VI Coordinator: Philip J. Neville
Phone: 510-874-1520
Fax: 510-874-1674
E-mail: pneville [at] oakha.org
Address: 1619 Harrison St.
Oakland, CA 94612
Site Profile:
FY 1994 Implementation Grant: $25,510,020
FY 1996 Assistance Award/Amendment Funds: $1,000,000
OHA’s HOPE VI program in East Oakland involves the extensive renovation of 372 out of 550 housing units in two complexes and four scattered sites (consisting of 60 units) located in Lower Fruitvale. Fourteen scattered-site units are scheduled to be demolished and rebuilt. A site-based management strategy is currently being tested at Lockwood Gardens, which has 372 housing units.
The HOPE VI program enabled OHA to expand its collaboration with the Mayor’s office, which began with the City’s 1991 campaign to reduce violence and drug trafficking within and around the Coliseum and Lockwood communities. The Mayor’s Office was very supportive in preparing the original HOPE VI application and has been heavily involved in the effort ever since.
The joint successes from both the Mayor’s program and OHA’s HOPE VI development process have positively impacted the Coliseum and Lockwood sites. There is marked improvement in the environments at both sites. Resident-planted gardens are not vandalized and children and adults can remain outside after dark, which was considered unsafe just a few months earlier. Policing services are provided by the Oakland Police Department to all authority sites. Officers from the Oakland Housing Authority’s Security Services Department supplement the City’s services. To supplement security at Coliseum and Lockwood, iron fences are used to surround the complexes.
OHA was the recipient of several HUD grants in 1995, including a HOPE VI planning grant for the West Oakland area. Additionally, there are two major modernization programs currently in progress in West Oakland.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Coliseum Gardens
HOPE VI Site Profile
http://tinyurl.co.uk/hc04
City: Oakland
Official PHA Name: Oakland PHA
Name of Site: Coliseum Gardens
HOPE VI Coordinator: Philip J. Neville
Phone: 510-874-1510
Fax: 510-874-1674
E-mail: pneville [at] oakha.org
Address: 1619 Harrison St.
Oakland, CA 94612
Site Profile:
FY 2000 grantee in the amount of $34,486,116.
The Housing Authority of the City of Oakland will receive a HOPE VI Revitalization Grant in the amount of $34,486,116 that will enable the Housing Authority to revitalize the Coliseum Gardens public housing development. A total of 178 severely distressed units will be replaced on-site with 30 public housing units, 20 tax credit rental units, and 85 affordable homeownership units. In addition, 148 public housing units and 46 tax credit rental units will be developed on underutilized land and scattered sites nearby. A significant number of the off-site public housing units will be within new housing developments in non-impacted areas. A new park and community center will be the focus of the new, on-site community. The revitalization of Coliseum Gardens, located in the Central East Oakland Target Area within the Coliseum Redevelopment Area, will benefit from a $134 million investment in the Coliseum BAR
An Indepth Look at How The Coliseum Gardens Public Housing Units, Became Privatized
Hope Vl Federal Funding Was Used To Push The Poor From Their Housing In Oakland
by Lynda Carson October 13, 2006
Oakland CA -- What did the 178 families of poor people at Oakland's Coliseum Gardens have in common with a local nonprofit housing developer East Bay Asian Development Corporation (EBALDC), and a SUPER RICH developer (Stephen M. Ross/Related Companies) in New York City?
The poor were booted out of their housing because of a housing development partnership between EBALDC and Related Companies, that used Hope Vl funding to privatize the locations that their housing units were built upon.
How do the rich and the SUPER RICH end up using Hope Vl funding and local tax dollars to get their hands on the peoples public housing units in Oakland, while displacing the poor?
How does a rich fellow in New York City, who is so WEALTHY that he manages to give away $100,000 Million Dollars, end up slumming it in Oakland with a project that displaces 178 poor families from their housing?
Thats a good question...
Other local public housing sites (4 site areas) in the near area have also been demolished, with the tenants being displaced to make way for this massive project. Additionally, there have been two major gentrification sites in West Oakland, displacing the poor with Hope Vl funding. See details below...
The wealthy developers have been quietly gentrifying Oakland as quick as possible, and theres been very little attention being payed to what is going on at Coliseum Gardens/Lion Creek Crossings.
Have you read about what has occurred at the Coliseum Gardens public housing units in Oakland, and how the 178 poor families were displaced (EVICTED) from their housing units, to make way for EBALDC's and the Related Companies new project that is now known as the Lion Creek Crossings?
Feel free to ask EBALDC or Related Companies for any records that are being kept in regards to how many POOR people have been allowed to move back into the property at Coliseum Gardens/Lion Creek Crossings after they were EVICTED.
The City of Oakland is crazy enough to subsidize billionaires, while it displaces the poor people from
their public housing units....
Now that the wealthy developers have privatized the Coliseum Gardens public housing units, see below how they are also trying to privatize Oakland's Police Department to guard their private property... See details bellow...
See how a ($600,000) funding shortfall was covered, by changing policy to allow the developers to charge Market Rate Rents in Section 8 project based units in the new complex... See below...
What a world....
For an indepth look at how Oakland's poor are being displaced, and how Oakland's public housing units have become privatized and end up in the hands of the wealthy, just keep on reading.....
By Lynda Carson
tenantsrule [at] yahoo.com
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
[EBALDC and Related Companies, LLC., created Creekside Housing Partners, L.P., to take control of Oakland's public housing property in East Oakland at the Coliseum Gardens site, now known as Lion Creek Crossings. Chambers Construction will develop the homeownership portion at Lion Creek Crossings with EBALDC and The Related Company jointly responsible for the apartments.]
---Lion Creek Crossing (Coliseum Garden) Now Renting---
http://www.ebaldc.org/realestate_dev.html
The Oakland Housing Authority received a HOPE VI grant to replace its 178 notorious Coliseum Garden apartments with a mixed income development of over 350 apartments and approximately 28 homes for sale. EBALDC assembled a development team, which includes The Related Company of California and Chambers Construction to work with the housing authority. Chambers Construction will develop the homeownership portion with EBALDC and The Related Company jointly responsible for the apartments. The development will surround a revitalized 5 acre City Park and Lion creek, which will also be restored by the city. The first phase of this development includes 115 apartments and 7,500 square feet of space for community services.
Click below for photos and EBALDC contact number...
http://www.ebaldc.org/lion_creek.html
This phase is under construction with a second phase of 146 apartments and another 7,500 square feet scheduled to start late in 2005. Community services anticipated include a Head Start Child Care Center, youth and after school programs, health programs, career counseling and business development opportunities. A third phase is being planned with over a hundred family apartments and townhouses that will overlook the restored Lion creek and city park.
These brand new Lion Creek Crossing apartments are ready for occupants. Contact EBALDC today at (510) 287-5353 for details....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[CHAMBERS CONSTRUCTION]
http://www.chambersconstruction.com/
Carolyn Silva. Chambers, owner of Chambers Construction
CHAIRMAN & C.E.O. CHAMBERS COMMUNICATIONS
Home-86220 DERY Rd or 86054 DERY Rd.
PLEASANT HILL, OREGON 97455 (541) 746-1510 -- (541) 988-5732
(Born September of 1931)
Political Donations (2004) to George W. Bush $2,000 -- $500 contributed to the RNC
Carolyn Silva. Chambers' business empire includes real estate, a construction company, a vineyard, and the crown jewel, Chambers Communications Corp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KEZI -- http://www.cmc.net/~chambers/
Local -- Chambers Construction Co (510) 569-3081 7506 Macarthur Blvd Oakland, CA.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Search Results for Lion Creek Crossing from Related website:
http://tinyurl.co.uk/wwvv
Lion Creek Crossing
Location: 800 69th Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Property Type: Affordable Rental
Multifamily Rentals
Neighborhood Revitalization
Organizations: Related California
---EBALDC Partnership With Related Companies---
EBALDC -- East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation
(Lynette Jung Lee is the Director of EBALDC)
http://www.ebaldc.org/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[Related Companies]
Related Corporate Structure
http://www.related.com/index.asp?model=relatedStructure&view=1&companyid=7
Stephen M. Ross is head/CEO of Related Companies...
STEPHEN M ROSS (Born in May of 1940)
(Home)
956 5TH AVE
NEW YORK, NY 10021
(212) 772-1196 or (212) 772-7659
---Stephen M. Ross resides at 956 Fifth Avenue, in New York---
Home of Stephen M. Ross at 956 Fifth Avenue. This finely detailed building has an unusual and ... by in 1920 the Real Estate Board of New York, the City Club and the Fifth ...
http://www.thecityreview.com/ues/fifave/fif956.htm
_______________
Related of California
http://tinyurl.co.uk/ez7t
RELATED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Stephen M. Ross
Jeff T. Blau
Michael J. Brenner
David J. Wine
************
About Stephen M. Ross / CharterMac
http://www.chartermac.com/?a=sross
Board of Trustees
Stephen M. Ross
Chairman
Stephen M. Ross is non-executive Chairman of the Board of Trustees of CharterMac. Mr. Ross is the founder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Managing General Partner of The Related Companies, L.P. ("TRCLP"). Mr. Ross began his career working for the accounting firm of Coopers & Lybrand in Detroit as a tax attorney. Later, he moved to New York, where he worked for two large Wall Street investment banking firms in their real estate and corporate finance departments before founding TRCLP in 1972. Mr. Ross graduated from The University of Michigan School of Business with a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration and from Wayne State School of Law with a Juris Doctor degree. He then received a Master of Law degree in Taxation from the New York University School of Law. Mr. Ross endowed the "Stephen M. Ross School of Business" at The University of Michigan. Mr. Ross is a member of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Real Estate Board of New York and is a trustee of the National Building Museum. Mr. Ross also serves on the Board of Directors of Kerzner International Ltd. (NYSE: KZL), Equinox Holdings, Inc. (an affiliate of TRCLP), the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Jackie Robinson Foundation and the Guggenheim Museum.
************
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
http://www.ebho.org/calendar.htm
• Lion Creek Crossings Open House of Phase 1 and Groundbreaking of Phase 2
Lion Creek Crossings will create a new community in the blighted and neglected Central East Oakland district and will be the catalyst for revitalizing the entire Coliseum BART station into a Transit Village. This HOPE VI development will provide up to 437 units over four phases of permanent affordable rental housing and 28 for-sale units for first time homebuyers. This is a joint venture between EBALDC, Related Companies of California and the Oakland Housing Authority.
Location: 915 69th Avenue, Oakland Ca, 94621
Time: 11:00 AM – 1:00 PM
Sponsored by: Sponsored by East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC)
For more information: Joyceland 510.287.5353 / jfarrow [at] ebaldc.com
************
---Stephen M. Ross Gives Away $100,000 Million Dollars---
University of Michigan -- (Stephen M. Ross gives away $100,000 million)
New York City real estate developer Stephen M. Ross gives $100 million to University ... chairman and chief executive officer of The Related Companies, LP, ...
http://www.umich.edu/news/?Releases/2004/Sep04/donor/index
************
[Oakland Budget Summary for 2006 - Oakland Redevelopment Agency]
Personnel Services and Related Overhead Costs - FY 2006-07 . ... Lions Creek Crossings (Coliseum Gardens) Phase I. $1,500,000. Lions Creek Crossings (Coliseum ...
http://tinyurl.co.uk/y1jq
************
Page 1)
Executive Off
Oakland Housing Authority MEMORANDUM
http://www.oakha.org/public_announcement/092506VICmemo.pdf
To: Board of Commissioners
From: Jon Gresley, Executive Director
Subject: Resolution Approving Use of Additional Local Funds for Park Construction
at the Lion Creek Crossings HOPE VI Primary Site and Amending the
Predevelopment Services Agreement to Effect the Change
Date: September 19, 2006
This correspondence transmits for your consideration and approval a resolution
authorizing the use of $287,593 in Authority Local Funds for construction of the
preliminary phase replacement park at Lion Creek Crossings. This proposed additional
allocation of funds to the park is part of the $7 million previously approved by the Board
for use in the Lion Creek Crossings redevelopment.
Background:
The Authority was awarded a HOPE VI grant in the amount of $34.5 million in 2000 to
revitalize the 178-unit Coliseum Gardens public housing development. The Board
approved the selection of East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC), The
Related Companies of California (Related) and Chambers Construction Company
(Chambers) as co-developer partners for redevelopment of the original public housing
site and several adjacent or nearby properties (the “Primary Site”), now renamed Lion
Creek Crossings. EBALDC and Related are co-developing the rental portion of the
Primary Site, which will include 157 units of public housing. The total number of rental
units, including public housing, now planned is approximately 440. Twenty-eight (28)
units of for-sale housing are planned to be developed by Chambers. The construction
of new streets and utilities and the reconfiguration of a public park are planned as part
of the rental housing development.
The remaining 21 units of public housing are included in a recently constructed 65-unit
development on Foothill Boulevard in Oakland.
In addition to the rental housing, the project includes the reconfiguration of Coliseum
Gardens Park and the restoration of a portion of Lion Creek. The City of Oakland is
managing the restoration of a portion of the creek that runs through the park. A grant
from the California Pollution Control Finance Authority and the City of Oakland is
providing funds for park planning. Pacific Gas and Electric Company has awarded
$175,000 for park construction. The California Housing and Community Development
Department has awarded the City of Oakland approximately $500,000 which is planned
to be used for park construction. Our developer partners and staff are searching for
additional sources of funding for park construction.
Page 2-
In a Land Exchange Agreement that was executed between the Authority and the City,
the Authority agreed to construct a temporary replacement park during the period when
the existing park is taken out of service. The Developer has received an estimate of
$388,735 from its general contractor for the cost of constructing a temporary
replacement park. The Developer plans to start construction on Phase III of the rental
housing on the site of the existing City park in October, and the temporary park is
required to be in place prior to the start of construction on this phase. The grant funds
described previously are not yet available, but will be in the future.
All park facilities related to the development are to be constructed by the Developer
under the terms of an Amended and Restated Predevelopment Services Agreement
(PSA). The current PSA includes a provision for the use of $101,142 in Authority Local
Funds for park construction. The proposed resolution would authorize the use of an
additional $287,593 in Authority Local Funds for the immediate construction of the
preliminary phase replacement park, for a total of $388,735.
It is expected that the Authority will be reimbursed for the use of this additional
allocation of its Local Funds as the above-described grant funds become available. If
that occurs, the Local Funds will be available for reallocation within the project.
Proposed Action:
It is recommended that the Board of Commissioners adopt the attached resolution
approving the use of an additional $288,593 in Authority Local Funds for construction of
the preliminary phase replacement park at Lion Creek Crossings, and authorizing the
Executive Director to amend the Predevelopment Services Agreement to incorporate
this change, and to take all actions necessary to implement the resolution.
Attachment: Resolution
************
(7/24/06)
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
http://www.oakha.org/public_announcement/072406VB2reso.pdf
On Motion of Commissioner
Seconded by Commissioner
and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED: NUMBER
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL COMMITMENT FOR AN
INCREASE IN THE HOPE VI FUNDS CONSTRUCTION AND PERMANENT
LOAN FOR THE COLISEUM GARDENS HOPE VI DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
KNOWN AS LION CREEK CROSSINGS, PHASE III BETWEEN OAKLAND
HOUSING AUTHORITY AS LENDER AND CREEKSIDE HOUSING
PARTNERS, L.P. AS BORROWER
WHEREAS, the Oakland Housing Authority (Authority) previously executed a
grant agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) pursuant to its grant of HOPE VI funds for a revitalization plan that
proposed the demolition and redevelopment of Coliseum Gardens and nearby
properties, (collectively the “Primary Site”); and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners approved the selection of East Bay Asian
Local Development Corporation (EBALDC), The Related Companies of California
(Related), and Chambers General Construction (Chambers) as co-developers of
the Primary Site at its meeting on October 21, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the Authority owns the land on which the Coliseum Gardens
revitalization development known as Lion Creek Crossings will be constructed,
and the Authority leases the land to the partnership formed with EBALDC and
Related for each phase of the development, which is known as Lion Creek
Crossings;
WHEREAS, EBALDC and Related (the “Developer”) have joint responsibility for
the development of the family rental housing at the Coliseum Gardens site and
formed a limited partnership known as Creekside Housing Partners, L.P. (CHP)
for the development of Lion Creek Crossings, Phase III, which consists of one
hundred six units of public and affordable family housing; and
Page 2)
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners passed Resolution 3685 authorizing the
execution of the Phase III Disposition and Development Agreement which
included a HOPE VI loan to CHP in the amount of $5,194,638; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commission subsequently passed Resolution 3766
approving closing evidentiaries including HOPE VI loan documents with a lesser
loan to CHP in the amount of $3,350,000; and
WHEREAS; CHP’s financing structure for Phase III included a loan from CalHFA
based on increased rental income from Project-Based Section 8 funds available
through the Authority; and
WHEREAS, the City of Oakland approved a loan amount of $4,600,000 for Phase
III of which $600,000 was intended to offset a HUD rule change decreasing the
value of rents available under the Project-Based Section 8 program; and
WHEREAS, as an MTW participant, the Authority has approved the use of market
rents in its Project-Based Section 8 program, which reduced CHP’s documented
need for $600,000 in City funds; and
WHEREAS, the City may then reduce its loan commitment to CHP by $600,000 as
a result of the Authority’s approval of market rents for Phase III; and
WHEREAS, bids for construction of Phase III are anticipated to be higher than
originally budgeted, creating a funding gap of $600,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA:
THAT, the Authority will provide an increased construction and permanent loan
of HOPE VI funds in the amount of up to $600,000 increasing its previous
commitment of $3,350,000 to $3,950,000 contingent on the City of Oakland
reducing its loan commitment for Phase III by $600,000, and if the construction
bids are such that the funds are needed by CHP as determined by the Authority;
and
THAT, the Executive Director is authorized to take all actions and execute such
other documents as may be necessary and appropriate to implement the
foregoing resolution.
Page 3)
I certify that the foregoing resolution is a full, true and
correct copy of a resolution passed by the
Commissioners of the Housing Authority
of the City of Oakland, California on July __, 2006.
_____________________________________
Secretary / Executive Director
ADOPTED: RESOLUTION NO.
************
09/13/06
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
http://www.oakha.org/public_announcement/091306VCreso1.pdf
On Motion of Commissioner
Seconded by Commissioner
And approved by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
ABSENT:
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED: NUMBER:
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A PERFORMANCE-BASED
SUB-GRANT AGREEMENT, NOT TO EXCEED $ 218,750 (TWO HUNDRED
EIGHTEEN THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS) FOR ONE YEAR,
WITH THE EAST BAY ASIAN LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (EBALDC) TO
PROVIDE HOPE VI COMMUNITY AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR FAMILIES
RESIDING AT LION CREEK CROSSINGS AND FOOTHILL PLAZA.
WHEREAS, the Authority received HOPE IV revitalization grants for Coliseum Gardens, now
renamed Lion Creek Crossings; and
WHEREAS, the Authority issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) which was mailed directly
to over 65 agencies and organizations and advertised in the Oakland Tribune; and
WHEREAS, EBALDC was selected as a program that best meets the needs of the residents
and the requirements of the Authority for the provision of personal budgeting, consumer
finance education, individual development accounts with matching, peer support groups
and seminars, home buyer training and small business/micro-enterprise development; and
WHEREAS, the original RFP and Board resolution authorized the Executive Director to alter
HOPE VI CSS sub-grant agreement scopes and selection of providers to address changes
in resident services needs; and,
(Page 2)
WHEREAS, EBALDC, as development partner for the Lion Creek Crossings HOPE VI
development, has a daily presence on-site at Lion Creek Crossings, has experience
providing comprehensive resident services at other EBALDC residential sites, and has the
capability of providing all the resident services needs identified during the 2006 Lion Creek
Crossing resident needs assessment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA:
THAT, the Executive Director, on behalf of the Authority, is hereby authorized to execute
a one year performance-based sub-grant agreement not to exceed $218,750 with
EBALDC to provide on-site services for school age youth and workforce development/
self-sufficiency services; and
THAT, the Executive Director, on behalf of the Authority, is hereby authorized to take all
actions necessary to implement the foregoing resolution.
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a full, true and correct
copy of a resolution passed by the Commissioners of the Housing Authority
of the City of Oakland, California on _________________.
________________________________
Secretary / Executive Director
ADOPTED: RESOLUTION NO.
************
08/09/06
Executive Office
Oakland Housing Authority MEMORANDUM
http://www.oakha.org/public_announcement/080906IVBmemo.pdf
To: Board of Commissioners
From: Jon Gresley, Executive Director
Subject: Lion Creek Crossings Security Contract
Date: August 3, 2006
As you are aware, the first phase of Lion Creek Crossings is now housing residents.
Related, the Authority partner and property manager, has contacted the Authority and
has requested increased patrol due to several incidents of criminal activity since the
property has opened. Related employs a private security firm at Lion Creek Crossings,
but many of the problems exceed their capacity for response. OHAPD has been
providing sporadic increased patrol; however, due to the fact that the Authority does
not own the buildings nor manage the property and the Authority passes operating
subsidies to the property for the purpose of subsidizing operating expenses, we have
indicated to Related that the policing of the property is the responsibility of the Oakland
Police Department.
After several meetings between Related and the Oakland Police Department (OPD), as
well as the continuance of increased criminal activity, Related contacted Phillip Neville,
Deputy Executive Director of Real Estate Development, and Carel Duplessis, Chief of
OHAPD, to explore the feasibility of Lion Creek Crossings contracting with the Authority
to supplement OPD’s policing of Lion Creek Crossings with officers from OHAPD.
Through discussions, an agreement has been reached for Related to pay the cost of
two full-time Police Officers for a two year contract.
A written agreement between Related and the Authority is currently being drafted for
OHA’s Board approval at the August 28 Commission meeting. Preparatory to that
meeting staff will brief the Commission at the workshop session of August 9.
Chief Carel Duplessis will provide the briefing and address any questions.
************
[Creekside Housing Partners, L.P. take control of the Coliseum Gardens/Lion Creek Crossings]
(Lion Creek Crossings used to be known as Coliseum Gardens public housing (178 units) of Oakland)
(EBALDC and Related Companies, LLC., created Creekside Housing Partners, L.P., to take control of Oakland's public housing property in Oakland. )
http://www.calhfa.ca.gov/about/publications/ press-releases/2006/pr2006-20.pdf
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Melissa Flores
Phone: 916.324.4647
Fax: 916.322.2345
mflores [at] calhfa.ca.gov
http://www.calhfa.ca.gov
Financing for Affordable Family Housing in Oakland
SACRAMENTO, June 6, 2006 – A new affordable housing project will soon be built in the City
of Oakland’s master planned community, Lion Creek Crossings (formerly known as Coliseum
Gardens), to create rental housing for an additional 106 families. The California Housing
Finance Agency (CalHFA) Board of Directors approved nearly $23 million in construction
financing and $4.8 million in permanent financing for Lion Creek Crossings, a family apartment
community, to be owned by Creekside Housing Partners, L.P., which is a joint venture between
East Bay Asian Local Development and the Related Companies, LLC. The property
management services will be provided by Related Management Company. Cahill Contractors
will begin construction in August 2006 with completion expected in February 2008.
The 106-unit complex is designed to provide affordable rental housing to those with household
incomes at or below 60 percent of the area median income. This project is the third phase in
the master planned community of Lion Creek Crossings. This unique urban infill project is
replacing public housing units developed in the 1940s. CalHFA has provided financing for all
three phases of the master development, creating 367 new affordable housing residences.
- more -
Page 2
The 2.49 acre project site will feature seven buildings with units ranging in size from one to four
bedrooms and styled as flats or town homes. The residents will also enjoy the use of the
master community’s shared common recreational facilities and community rooms currently
available to Phase I residents.
CalHFA will provide nearly $23 million in construction financing with a variable interest rate for
22 months. Upon completion, a permanent loan of $3.815 million will be provided by CalHFA,
as well as, CalHFA subordinate financing for slightly more than $1 million. Other funding
sources include the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s
Multifamily Housing Program, the Housing Authority of the City of Oakland (OHA), HOPE VI
loan from HUD to OHA, the City of Oakland, and the Federal Home Loan Bank’s Affordable
Housing Program.
The California Housing Finance Agency was created in 1975 with the goal of helping more
Californian’s live in a home they can afford. CalHFA’s Multifamily Division has invested more
than $2 billion for the construction and preservation of 36,000 affordable rental housing units
assisting nearly 85,000 very low and low income Californians. More information on Multifamily
Loan Finance programs and the full complement of CalHFA programs, visit http://www.calhfa.ca.gov
or call toll free 877.9.CalHFA (877.922.5432).
# # #
*********
The Related Companies
http://www.related.com/index.asp?model=homeRelated&view=1&companyid=7
Related develops, manages and finances the world's finest real estate developments. Our skills and experience are enhanced by a passion for quality and a unique entrepreneurial spirit. Related properties are more than structures - they are a union of energy, creativity, forward thinking and collaboration. Founded in New York in 1972, we are proud to call this great city our home. For more information on Related, visit our About section.
"THE SWEET LIFE" IS RISING IN MANHATTAN AT THE VENETO, A NEW EAST SIDE LUXURY CONDOMINIUM RESIDENCE FROM RELATED
^^^^^^^^^
Related of California
http://tinyurl.co.uk/ez7t
Related of California was formed in 1989 to focus on the development of multifamily housing in California. It is an affiliate of Related, L.P., a fully integrated real estate firm based in New York City with divisions specializing in development, property management, and financial services.
Since its inception, Related has developed over 6,000 units of housing in California, with properties in San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Bernardino County, San Diego, and San Diego County.
Its projects run the gamut from award-winning apartments for low- and moderate-income seniors and families to a 487-unit high-rise apartment development in downtown San Francisco that is the tallest residential building in the city.
Related's team of professionals brings hands-on experience and expertise in project management, finance, construction, and property management, along with the financial backing of one of the country's premier real estate companies.
Contact Us -- Lion Creek Crossing -- Related Companies:
To forward your questions or comments, simply click below, fill out forms and we'll send your request to the appropriate person.
http://tinyurl.co.uk/5jao
************
Related California Properties in California
http://tinyurl.co.uk/ez7t
************
Lockwood Gardens, Coliseum Gardens and Lower Fruitvale
HOPE VI Site Profile
http://tinyurl.co.uk/43n2
City: Oakland
Official PHA Name: Oakland PHA
Name of Site: Lockwood Gardens, Coliseum Gardens and Lower Fruitvale
HOPE VI Coordinator: Philip J. Neville
Phone: 510-874-1520
Fax: 510-874-1674
E-mail: pneville [at] oakha.org
Address: 1619 Harrison St.
Oakland, CA 94612
Site Profile:
FY 1994 Implementation Grant: $25,510,020
FY 1996 Assistance Award/Amendment Funds: $1,000,000
OHA’s HOPE VI program in East Oakland involves the extensive renovation of 372 out of 550 housing units in two complexes and four scattered sites (consisting of 60 units) located in Lower Fruitvale. Fourteen scattered-site units are scheduled to be demolished and rebuilt. A site-based management strategy is currently being tested at Lockwood Gardens, which has 372 housing units.
The HOPE VI program enabled OHA to expand its collaboration with the Mayor’s office, which began with the City’s 1991 campaign to reduce violence and drug trafficking within and around the Coliseum and Lockwood communities. The Mayor’s Office was very supportive in preparing the original HOPE VI application and has been heavily involved in the effort ever since.
The joint successes from both the Mayor’s program and OHA’s HOPE VI development process have positively impacted the Coliseum and Lockwood sites. There is marked improvement in the environments at both sites. Resident-planted gardens are not vandalized and children and adults can remain outside after dark, which was considered unsafe just a few months earlier. Policing services are provided by the Oakland Police Department to all authority sites. Officers from the Oakland Housing Authority’s Security Services Department supplement the City’s services. To supplement security at Coliseum and Lockwood, iron fences are used to surround the complexes.
OHA was the recipient of several HUD grants in 1995, including a HOPE VI planning grant for the West Oakland area. Additionally, there are two major modernization programs currently in progress in West Oakland.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Coliseum Gardens
HOPE VI Site Profile
http://tinyurl.co.uk/hc04
City: Oakland
Official PHA Name: Oakland PHA
Name of Site: Coliseum Gardens
HOPE VI Coordinator: Philip J. Neville
Phone: 510-874-1510
Fax: 510-874-1674
E-mail: pneville [at] oakha.org
Address: 1619 Harrison St.
Oakland, CA 94612
Site Profile:
FY 2000 grantee in the amount of $34,486,116.
The Housing Authority of the City of Oakland will receive a HOPE VI Revitalization Grant in the amount of $34,486,116 that will enable the Housing Authority to revitalize the Coliseum Gardens public housing development. A total of 178 severely distressed units will be replaced on-site with 30 public housing units, 20 tax credit rental units, and 85 affordable homeownership units. In addition, 148 public housing units and 46 tax credit rental units will be developed on underutilized land and scattered sites nearby. A significant number of the off-site public housing units will be within new housing developments in non-impacted areas. A new park and community center will be the focus of the new, on-site community. The revitalization of Coliseum Gardens, located in the Central East Oakland Target Area within the Coliseum Redevelopment Area, will benefit from a $134 million investment in the Coliseum BAR
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
[THE HOPE VI NIGHTMARE]
---Privatizing Our Public Housing---
Part 2 - By Lynda Carson
We are paying a fortune to wealthy developers to STEAL OUR public housing away from us.
We are forever losing our public housing communities to wealthy private corporations.
Hundreds of thousands are being displaced in the process, free rents for the elderly, disabled and the poorest of the poor are being lost in the process.
Wake up America...
Lynda Carson
Public Housing in the USA and Elsewhere...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Public housing or project homes is a form of housing tenure in which the property is owned by a government authority, which may be central or local. Although the common goal is to maintain affordable housing, the details of the arrangements differ between countries, and so does the terminology.
1 Australia
2 France
3 Germany
4 Netherlands
5 Ireland
6 Israel
7 Hong Kong
8 New Zealand
9 Singapore
10 Sweden
11 United Kingdom
12 Spain
13 United States and Canada
14 See also
*************
---HOPE VI FACTS---
More than 120000 units of Public Housing have been demolished under HOPE VI since its inception.
Less than 12% of tenants displaced from a Hope VI project are allowed to move back into the newly rebuilt housing units, that replaced the public housing units lost by demolitions.
*************
[Hope VI Program Kills Communities Of Color]
Public Housing Redevelopment Sparks Multi-City Protest & Lawsuit
By Christopher Tidmore, Political Columnist
July 3, 2006
On last Tuesday, at ten o'clock in the morning, in three separate cities, New Orleanians protested the decision to demolish 5000 public housing buildings in the Crescent City and demanded the right of immediate return to those properties of the former residents.
The demonstrations led to the filing of a civil rights lawsuit later that afternoon alleging that the Housing Authority of New Orleans and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development are preventing low-income black families from returning to the city.
The protest and the subsequent lawsuit comes in the wake of the decision of the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development to demolish St. Bernard, C.J Peete, B.W. Cooper and Lafitte housing developments and replace them with 'mixed-income" housing, a combination of public housing, rental housing and single-family homes. The public housing properties have been fenced off and shuttered in the months after Katrina.
This protest followed a similar gathering on Saturday June 18th in the Garden District. At that demonstration, housing residents and activists charged that "mixed-income" housing provides too few units for low-income people. They cited as an example, The St. Thomas Housing Development which in 2000 was demolished and replaced by HRs River Garden. Before the demolition, St. Thomas was home to approximately 900 public housing families. Only 200 units located in the River Gardens are now allocated to public housing residents, according to Housing activist Elizabeth Cook.
"We are tired of seeing our neighborhoods demolished and replaced by housing for wealthier people", Pamela Mahogany, resident of the St. Bernard Housing Development who is trying to return home, told Weekly.
"By tearing down developments you're not giving me the choice to come back home to New Orleans, where I was forced to leave," said Cherlynn Gaynor, 42, who grew up in the Lafitte.
Click below for full report...
http://www.louisianaweekly.com/weekly/news/articlegate.pl?20060703b
*************
[[[For almost every resident in a new HOPE VI low-income housing unit, a past public housing resident has been evicted.]]]
Hope VI: HUD’s Program of False Hope
False Hope
Two main flaws inherent in the reasoning of HUD officials and others who support HOPE VI.
First, HOPE VI immediately displaces the residents of existing housing units wherever such projects are undertaken. The initial phase of the initiative is to destroy a significant number of existing housing projects. The evicted residents receive no meaningful compensation for this displacement and are relocated to other public housing units or left to their own devices to scrounge for any available private housing. Either way, HOPE VI imposes substantial costs on those families and individuals who are presumably supposed to be helped by HUD’s programs.
Click below for more...
http://www.acton.org/publicat/randl/article.php?id=436
*************
[THE HOPE VI NIGHTMARE IN DETAIL]
New Report on HOPE VI:
HOPE Unseen: Voices from the Other Side
http://www.communitychange.org/issues/housing/publications/?page=hopeiv
HOPE VI gets a lot of favorable coverage in the media. However, too often, only one side of the HOPE VI story is told. Usually, the genuine voices of most public housing residents affected by HOPE VI get edited out of the story.
Local Public Housing Authorities (PHAs), the media, and HUD (the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) often give the impression that everyone benefits from the HOPE VI program. There is a sense that every public housing resident either gets a nice new townhouse or the opportunity to move into a nice apartment using a housing voucher. However, most of the residents interviewed for this study had different experiences.
Download the report below. Printed version will be available late September, 2003.
HOPE Unseen (full report, 108 pages, MS Word)
Hope Unseen (Executive Summary, 18 pages, MS Word)
Report available in sections, for quicker downloading. (MS Word)
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
A Net Loss of Public Housing Units Affordable to Low-Income Families
Deception Regarding Reoccupancy of the Revitalized Public Housing Property
Challenges with Resident Relocation
HOPE VI and the Housing Voucher Program
Other Harmful Impacts Experienced with HOPE VI
Has HOPE VI Provided a Better Living Situation for Residents?
Were the Public Housing Properties “Severely Distressed?”
Barriers to Accessing or Effectively Utilizing Community and Supportive Services
Challenges to Effective Resident Participation in Grant Planning and Implementation
Appendix A -- Description of the Seven HOPE VI Sites
Appendix B -- Definition of “Severely Distressed”
Appendix C -- Analysis of HOPE VI grantees that may be engaged in activities worthy of further examination and, possibly, replication in the areas of replacement housing and reoccupancy
http://www.communitychange.org/issues/housing/publications/?page=hopeiv
***********
[Whta's Gone Wrong With Hope VI In Seattle?]
---An Indepth Look At The Hope VI Program---
Architecture and HOPE VI
Building Housing or Barriers to Housing?
http://www.zipcon.com/~jvf4119/hopeVIjohn.htm
This glowing AIA description of an award-winning Public Housing redevelopment doesn’t mention that of the 462 units destroyed, only 297 were built in their place, of which only 185 were Public Housing, producing a net loss of 60 percent in Public Housing units.[2] The article also doesn’t mention the federal subsidy commitment that vanished forever with the lost units. Nor does it explore what happened to the displaced tenants and those on the waiting lists. Not to mention that, as one former resident of the community said, the whole place “could have been renovated. They had [previously] modernized the kitchens and bathrooms. They had put in new windows, screens, and screen doors. They had put in a new boiler and thermostats. They were good, steady buildings.”[3]
The same pattern of Public Housing demolition, accompanied by a steady stream of accolades from trade and professional organizations and mainstream media, has been occurring nationwide as the result of a housing “revitalization” program called HOPE VI. While the “HOPE” in HOPE VI stands for “Home Ownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere”, the program as it is being implemented will produce a nationwide net loss of over 50,000 Public Housing units once affordable to low-income families desperately in need of this resource.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, in 1992, the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) and a number of other City and County agencies conducted a series of charrettes on the larger Public Housing garden communities in the area. The results were summarized in a report entitled “Breaking Down the Barriers”[4]. This document showed how the garden communities, comprising well over 2,000 units of Public Housing in Seattle alone, could have been revitalized in ways that would have increased security and generated a greater sense of ownership and pride in the communities, while also preserving 100% of the existing Public Housing units.
http://www.zipcon.com/~jvf4119/hopeVIjohn.htm
*************
How HUD's HOPE VI Program is Destroying a Historic Houston Neighborhood
Houston, the nation's fourth largest city, is home to the south's largest black community , and Fourth Ward is Houston's oldest and most historically significant black neighborhood.
Click below for full report...
http://www.utexas.edu/academic/uip/research/docstuds/coll/mcghee.html
*************
The War on the Poor in Public Housing
http://www.cpsr.cs.uchicago.edu/countermedia/briefings/pubhous.html
CounterMedia Briefing
"They kicking us out, they telling us, `This is no longer your neighborhood. Forget the times, and the friends, and the years you spent here. We changing this. You gotta go.'" - grandson of a woman moved out of Horner Homes
It's been more than a year since HUD took over a scandal-ridden Chicago Housing Authority (CHA), promising a great many improvements. So, it's likely that during the four day orgy of self-congratulations known as the Democratic National Convention, Clinton will boast of public housing successes or maybe sneak a photo-op in the nearby Horner Homes projects. However, what is certain is that neither he nor any other politico will admit the true nature of their housing agenda - shared by Democrat and Republic an alike: that government efforts to "end public housing as we know it" constitute nothing less than a war against the poorest of the poor.
The basics:
Large scale budget cuts while making public housing more "cost efficient"; demolishing thousands of units of public housing while bringing in families with higher incomes to replace the very poor; increasing control over those residents who remain - from new rules and regulations to police and guards. What follows is a brief look at how this agenda plays out in Chicago.
Here comes the wrecking ball:
With three down so far, up to half of the buildings at Horner Homes are to be leveled via a 6 year court-ordered "revitalization program." At Cabrini Green, the CHA and the Mayor have proposed the demolition of 1,300 units - nearly 40% of the entire project. Four buildings have already fallen. Additional demolitions are both planned and in progress at other CHA developments.
An increased opportunity to be homeless:
Promises for replacement housing are often inadequate and full of loopholes. "One-for-one" replacement requirement is now repealed and demolitions will result in a net loss of very low income housing. The plan for Cabrini Green calls for 2,000 units of new housing, but the vast majority of these homes will be "market rate" and geared for the upper income families who live in neighboring areas. Further, under the "mixed income strategy," only half of the roughly 600 "public housing" replacement units will be set aside for families surviving on a welfare check or a minimum wage income.
What we say ain't what you get:
Twice last fall at Henry Horner, the Chicago Housing Authority violated their own court ordered agreements by using deception, threats and outright force to relocate public housing residents from their apartments. For resisting these tactics, one older woman and her family were targeted, with two dozen police brought out to ensure she moved.
Few carrots but lots of sticks:
In the name of "security," CHA residents have been subjected to arbitrary and vicious acts of brutality by police and guards. In June, gun wielding guards terrorized residents of one Horner building, beating one man bloody in full view of an outraged crowd. During the recent massive mobilization for the Bulls basketball victory, city cops locked down a Robert Taylor Homes high rise, clubbing and macing people. For hours, no resident was allowed in or out.
Again and again, residents have expressed their opposition to this treatment. There have been vocal objections raised to officials at packed meetings and individual determination not to be treated like cattle. They have picketed demolition sites and marched to city hall. While officials have attempted to slight and downplay this sentiment, it can't be ignored.
"I mean all they got to do next is bring the ball and chain along and we'd be back in slavery. And that ain't gonna happen, cuz they'd have to kill me first." - woman from Horner Homes
Additional information: V.X., c/o RCP Publications, 312/ 227-4066; or c/o CounterMedia, 312/670-9673, xmediax [at] ripco.com.
For more on the disaster of privatizing public housing, click below for A Great Chicago Land Grab...
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/apr97peterson.html
***********
[Hope VI Program Displaces The Poor]
Mixed-income plan tests an urban vision- The Scott and Carver public housing units will come down in a major federal overhaul of housing for the poor.
10/5/03 - Miami Herald
Across the country, some HOPE VI projects have been criticized for delivering little or no benefits to public housing tenants. In most cases, HOPE VI projects yield fewer public housing units than existed before. There is no guarantee that every former tenant will be able to live in the new developments. And education, job training and other promised services are not always provided.
Numbers paint a bleak economic picture of the current residents. More than 75 percent of families are considered extremely low-income, earning less than 30 percent of the Miami's area median income of $43,140. About 68 percent of families receive some type of public assistance, such as food stamps or welfare. A similar percentage of households are headed by someone who is unemployed.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which administers the HOPE VI program, gives the misleading impression, through local housing agencies, that all public housing tenants will be able to buy a house or rent a better apartment, critics say. In reality, they say, many end up in other public housing developments and are no better off than before.
Also, in trying to build single-family homes, housing authorities destroy valuable units that cannot be replaced. More than 44,000 public housing units will be eliminated when HOPE VI projects nationwide are completed, according to a report by the Center for Community Change, a housing advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.
At Scott/Carver, only 30 percent of on-site units will be public housing.
Worries about how many former residents will actually benefit from the new HOPE VI projects were reflected in interviews with public housing tenants across the country, including some at Scott, conducted for the report of the Center for Community Change.
''Our concern is that over the last 10 years, the program is about making properties look pretty, but not dealing with people's lives,'' said Dashaw Hockett, a policy analyst for the center, who interviewed Scott residents.
Mary Reese, a plaintiff in a federal suit claiming that Miami-Dade County is illegally forcing residents to move, said the $35 million in federal funds to improve conditions at Scott/ Carver should benefit the original tenants.
''A lot of people have got fat off us, and we haven't gotten anything,'' Reese said.
Click below for full story...
http://www.floridacdc.org/articles/031003-1.htm
***********
USA Tenants Fight to Save Social Housing
File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML
More than 120000 units of Public Housing have been demolished under HOPE VI since its inception. In their place, fewer than 40000 new units of “mixed ...
http://www.iut.nu/Tillfalliga_artiklar/USA%20NAHT.doc
***********
New Orleans To Demolish Most Public Housing Units
June 16, 2006
In New Orleans, officials have announced plans to tear down much of the city’s public housing units. The units suffered extensive damage during Hurricane Katrina. Rebuilding plans call for much of the public housing to be replaced by mixed-income units. The move will greatly reduce the number of available public housing units in New Orleans. Just 1,000 of the more than 5,000 families who lived in public housing have been able to return to their homes since Katrina struck last August. Curtis Muhammad, a housing advocate with the People's Organizing Committee, criticized the plan, saying: "These are the people who were left in New Orleans to die, who were locked up in the Superdome and the Convention Center [and now] the government wants to get rid of any housing for them.”
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/16/1355211
**********
Housing complex sale worries some
Housing advocates say the $12.3-million deal for Graham-Rogall Park will put affordable housing for the elderly, disabled and handicapped at risk.
http://sptimes.com/2006/09/27/Neighborhoodtimes/Housing_complex_sale_.shtml
By WAVENEY ANN MOORE, Times Staff Writer
Published September 27, 2006
ST. PETERSBURG - The long-planned sale of the Graham-Rogall Park public housing complex near Tropicana Field is nearing completion.
The St. Petersburg Housing Authority is selling the property to Vector Realty & Management Inc. for $12.3-million. Closing is not expected to take place for several months.
Affordable housing advocates are concerned about the sale of the complex that provides housing for the elderly, disabled and handicapped.
Jane Trocheck Walker, executive director of Daystar Life Center, which distributes USDA food to Graham-Rogall residents, is skeptical that the plan will work. "There's nothing that says (the new owners) have to accept vouchers. It's like having money from another country, but where are you going to spend it. I want to see a solid plan. I want to see some guarantees," she said."
Walker, whose downtown agency assists the needy, said she is concerned about what will happen if residents have to move. "They are going to have to go out and find a place that's taking housing vouchers and then they're going to have to make the physical move and we're dealing with people with limited capacity," she said.
"If there's no housing available, what are they going to do? We already know that there's an affordable housing crisis, so where are they going to go and who's going to help them find housing?"
The Rev. Manuel Sykes said there's a problem with privatizing public housing and keeping it affordable, especially when it involves seniors. Sykes is vice chairman of FAST, or Faith and Action for Strength Together, an interfaith Pinellas County effort to tackle social justice issues.
The Baptist minister and president of St. Petersburg Theological Seminary said he is worried that a move will disrupt the lives of those who live at Graham-Rogall.
"They are a vertical community with long-term residents that they have learned to live with for a long time," Sykes said.
"You're displacing people from a community that's not going to be readily replaced. It's a link to sanity, emotional well being. It's something that I think needs to be thought out on all levels if you want to do this thing in a way that's humane."
PUBLIC HOUSING
ST. PETERSBURG
Public housing developments owned by the St. Petersburg Housing Authority:
* Graham-Rogall Park, 325 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. St. S, consists of two apartment buildings. Graham: 336 units, studios, 1 and 2 bedrooms. Rogall: 150 studios and 1 bedrooms.
* Clearview Park, 3200 37th Ave. N, 22 units, 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms.
* Disston Place, 3940 55th St. N, 33 Units, 2 bedrooms.
* Jordan Park, 1245 Jordan Park St. S, 237 units, 1, 2, 3, and 4 bedrooms.
* Romayne Apartments, 8601 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. St. N, 20 units, 1 and 2 bedrooms.
PINELLAS COUNTY
Public housing in Pinellas County:
* 1,731, public housing units in the county, 649 in St. Petersburg.
* 6,837 housing choice vouchers available in the county, 2,760 in St. Petersburg.
* 1,662 additional affordable housing units owned by housing authorities, none in St. Petersburg, 236 units at Crystal Lake Manor in Pinellas Park for people 62 and over.
[Last modified September 27, 2006, 06:35:12]
************
Perpetuity key to public housing sale
Sunday, August 27, 2006
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Aug/27/op/FP608270309.html
If Honolulu wants to privatize all of the city's public housing units, there's only one way to do it properly: The city should make sure any sale includes a provision to keep all 1,250 of these units affordable in perpetuity.
Perpetuity, of course, means forever. But that's the required detail needed in any future contract with a potential buyer. In fact, even the meaning of the word "affordable" must be clearly negotiated up front.
A 10-, 15- or 20-year commitment to affordability is not enough.
If any deal falls short of forever, we all should have a real problem with the city getting out of the affordable-housing business.
To date, there have been discussions between the City Council and Carmel Partners, a group that is in the process of buying the privately owned Kukui Gardens, an affordable rental project in Chinatown. Carmel's talks with the city must be taken seriously. Mayor Mufi Hannemann is on record saying he would agree to a sale of the city's 12 affordable housing properties as long as the units stayed affordable and tenants were not kicked out.
Sounds good. But it would all be more reassuring if the city would place even greater emphasis on that all-important detail: perpetuity.
Without that detail, the city puts into question whether it is seeking privatization for the right reasons.
The fact is public housing has been an investment made by the city with taxpayer dollars. The city may feel it should sell these units because it lacks the ability (or will) to maintain and run public housing as a business.
But that doesn't erase the need for affordable public housing in the community. With the need for affordable housing growing throughout all economic sectors in Honolulu, we have more than a compelling reason to make sure the investment the city has already made in public housing is passed on and remains affordable.
A clause in any sales contract that protects affordability in perpetuity would certainly impact the price the city could command, which could make the city think twice about any deal. But without such a clause, any short-term gain for the city's coffers is likely to result in real long-term problems.
Any sale should protect affordability forever. If it's serious about privatizing public housing, the city must demand that level of commitment to the public good from any potential buyer.
**************
Housing-Related Program
HOPE VI
In 1993, Congress created the HOPE VI program through the VA-HUD-IA Appropriations Act to revitalize dilapidated public housing units.
But the HOPE VI program has not been beneficial to everyone. Approximately 30% of residents surveyed continue to live in high-poverty and high-crime neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, many families are being displaced and low income housing units are being lost under the HOPE VI program. As of September 2005, HOPE VI grantees planned to replace approximately half of the public housing units demolished. The remaining redeveloped units are intended for higher income residents who can pay more in rent or purchase some of the redeveloped units.
http://www.nlihc.org/advocates/hopevi.htm
---Privatizing Our Public Housing---
Part 2 - By Lynda Carson
We are paying a fortune to wealthy developers to STEAL OUR public housing away from us.
We are forever losing our public housing communities to wealthy private corporations.
Hundreds of thousands are being displaced in the process, free rents for the elderly, disabled and the poorest of the poor are being lost in the process.
Wake up America...
Lynda Carson
Public Housing in the USA and Elsewhere...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Public housing or project homes is a form of housing tenure in which the property is owned by a government authority, which may be central or local. Although the common goal is to maintain affordable housing, the details of the arrangements differ between countries, and so does the terminology.
1 Australia
2 France
3 Germany
4 Netherlands
5 Ireland
6 Israel
7 Hong Kong
8 New Zealand
9 Singapore
10 Sweden
11 United Kingdom
12 Spain
13 United States and Canada
14 See also
*************
---HOPE VI FACTS---
More than 120000 units of Public Housing have been demolished under HOPE VI since its inception.
Less than 12% of tenants displaced from a Hope VI project are allowed to move back into the newly rebuilt housing units, that replaced the public housing units lost by demolitions.
*************
[Hope VI Program Kills Communities Of Color]
Public Housing Redevelopment Sparks Multi-City Protest & Lawsuit
By Christopher Tidmore, Political Columnist
July 3, 2006
On last Tuesday, at ten o'clock in the morning, in three separate cities, New Orleanians protested the decision to demolish 5000 public housing buildings in the Crescent City and demanded the right of immediate return to those properties of the former residents.
The demonstrations led to the filing of a civil rights lawsuit later that afternoon alleging that the Housing Authority of New Orleans and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development are preventing low-income black families from returning to the city.
The protest and the subsequent lawsuit comes in the wake of the decision of the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development to demolish St. Bernard, C.J Peete, B.W. Cooper and Lafitte housing developments and replace them with 'mixed-income" housing, a combination of public housing, rental housing and single-family homes. The public housing properties have been fenced off and shuttered in the months after Katrina.
This protest followed a similar gathering on Saturday June 18th in the Garden District. At that demonstration, housing residents and activists charged that "mixed-income" housing provides too few units for low-income people. They cited as an example, The St. Thomas Housing Development which in 2000 was demolished and replaced by HRs River Garden. Before the demolition, St. Thomas was home to approximately 900 public housing families. Only 200 units located in the River Gardens are now allocated to public housing residents, according to Housing activist Elizabeth Cook.
"We are tired of seeing our neighborhoods demolished and replaced by housing for wealthier people", Pamela Mahogany, resident of the St. Bernard Housing Development who is trying to return home, told Weekly.
"By tearing down developments you're not giving me the choice to come back home to New Orleans, where I was forced to leave," said Cherlynn Gaynor, 42, who grew up in the Lafitte.
Click below for full report...
http://www.louisianaweekly.com/weekly/news/articlegate.pl?20060703b
*************
[[[For almost every resident in a new HOPE VI low-income housing unit, a past public housing resident has been evicted.]]]
Hope VI: HUD’s Program of False Hope
False Hope
Two main flaws inherent in the reasoning of HUD officials and others who support HOPE VI.
First, HOPE VI immediately displaces the residents of existing housing units wherever such projects are undertaken. The initial phase of the initiative is to destroy a significant number of existing housing projects. The evicted residents receive no meaningful compensation for this displacement and are relocated to other public housing units or left to their own devices to scrounge for any available private housing. Either way, HOPE VI imposes substantial costs on those families and individuals who are presumably supposed to be helped by HUD’s programs.
Click below for more...
http://www.acton.org/publicat/randl/article.php?id=436
*************
[THE HOPE VI NIGHTMARE IN DETAIL]
New Report on HOPE VI:
HOPE Unseen: Voices from the Other Side
http://www.communitychange.org/issues/housing/publications/?page=hopeiv
HOPE VI gets a lot of favorable coverage in the media. However, too often, only one side of the HOPE VI story is told. Usually, the genuine voices of most public housing residents affected by HOPE VI get edited out of the story.
Local Public Housing Authorities (PHAs), the media, and HUD (the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) often give the impression that everyone benefits from the HOPE VI program. There is a sense that every public housing resident either gets a nice new townhouse or the opportunity to move into a nice apartment using a housing voucher. However, most of the residents interviewed for this study had different experiences.
Download the report below. Printed version will be available late September, 2003.
HOPE Unseen (full report, 108 pages, MS Word)
Hope Unseen (Executive Summary, 18 pages, MS Word)
Report available in sections, for quicker downloading. (MS Word)
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
A Net Loss of Public Housing Units Affordable to Low-Income Families
Deception Regarding Reoccupancy of the Revitalized Public Housing Property
Challenges with Resident Relocation
HOPE VI and the Housing Voucher Program
Other Harmful Impacts Experienced with HOPE VI
Has HOPE VI Provided a Better Living Situation for Residents?
Were the Public Housing Properties “Severely Distressed?”
Barriers to Accessing or Effectively Utilizing Community and Supportive Services
Challenges to Effective Resident Participation in Grant Planning and Implementation
Appendix A -- Description of the Seven HOPE VI Sites
Appendix B -- Definition of “Severely Distressed”
Appendix C -- Analysis of HOPE VI grantees that may be engaged in activities worthy of further examination and, possibly, replication in the areas of replacement housing and reoccupancy
http://www.communitychange.org/issues/housing/publications/?page=hopeiv
***********
[Whta's Gone Wrong With Hope VI In Seattle?]
---An Indepth Look At The Hope VI Program---
Architecture and HOPE VI
Building Housing or Barriers to Housing?
http://www.zipcon.com/~jvf4119/hopeVIjohn.htm
This glowing AIA description of an award-winning Public Housing redevelopment doesn’t mention that of the 462 units destroyed, only 297 were built in their place, of which only 185 were Public Housing, producing a net loss of 60 percent in Public Housing units.[2] The article also doesn’t mention the federal subsidy commitment that vanished forever with the lost units. Nor does it explore what happened to the displaced tenants and those on the waiting lists. Not to mention that, as one former resident of the community said, the whole place “could have been renovated. They had [previously] modernized the kitchens and bathrooms. They had put in new windows, screens, and screen doors. They had put in a new boiler and thermostats. They were good, steady buildings.”[3]
The same pattern of Public Housing demolition, accompanied by a steady stream of accolades from trade and professional organizations and mainstream media, has been occurring nationwide as the result of a housing “revitalization” program called HOPE VI. While the “HOPE” in HOPE VI stands for “Home Ownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere”, the program as it is being implemented will produce a nationwide net loss of over 50,000 Public Housing units once affordable to low-income families desperately in need of this resource.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, in 1992, the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) and a number of other City and County agencies conducted a series of charrettes on the larger Public Housing garden communities in the area. The results were summarized in a report entitled “Breaking Down the Barriers”[4]. This document showed how the garden communities, comprising well over 2,000 units of Public Housing in Seattle alone, could have been revitalized in ways that would have increased security and generated a greater sense of ownership and pride in the communities, while also preserving 100% of the existing Public Housing units.
http://www.zipcon.com/~jvf4119/hopeVIjohn.htm
*************
How HUD's HOPE VI Program is Destroying a Historic Houston Neighborhood
Houston, the nation's fourth largest city, is home to the south's largest black community , and Fourth Ward is Houston's oldest and most historically significant black neighborhood.
Click below for full report...
http://www.utexas.edu/academic/uip/research/docstuds/coll/mcghee.html
*************
The War on the Poor in Public Housing
http://www.cpsr.cs.uchicago.edu/countermedia/briefings/pubhous.html
CounterMedia Briefing
"They kicking us out, they telling us, `This is no longer your neighborhood. Forget the times, and the friends, and the years you spent here. We changing this. You gotta go.'" - grandson of a woman moved out of Horner Homes
It's been more than a year since HUD took over a scandal-ridden Chicago Housing Authority (CHA), promising a great many improvements. So, it's likely that during the four day orgy of self-congratulations known as the Democratic National Convention, Clinton will boast of public housing successes or maybe sneak a photo-op in the nearby Horner Homes projects. However, what is certain is that neither he nor any other politico will admit the true nature of their housing agenda - shared by Democrat and Republic an alike: that government efforts to "end public housing as we know it" constitute nothing less than a war against the poorest of the poor.
The basics:
Large scale budget cuts while making public housing more "cost efficient"; demolishing thousands of units of public housing while bringing in families with higher incomes to replace the very poor; increasing control over those residents who remain - from new rules and regulations to police and guards. What follows is a brief look at how this agenda plays out in Chicago.
Here comes the wrecking ball:
With three down so far, up to half of the buildings at Horner Homes are to be leveled via a 6 year court-ordered "revitalization program." At Cabrini Green, the CHA and the Mayor have proposed the demolition of 1,300 units - nearly 40% of the entire project. Four buildings have already fallen. Additional demolitions are both planned and in progress at other CHA developments.
An increased opportunity to be homeless:
Promises for replacement housing are often inadequate and full of loopholes. "One-for-one" replacement requirement is now repealed and demolitions will result in a net loss of very low income housing. The plan for Cabrini Green calls for 2,000 units of new housing, but the vast majority of these homes will be "market rate" and geared for the upper income families who live in neighboring areas. Further, under the "mixed income strategy," only half of the roughly 600 "public housing" replacement units will be set aside for families surviving on a welfare check or a minimum wage income.
What we say ain't what you get:
Twice last fall at Henry Horner, the Chicago Housing Authority violated their own court ordered agreements by using deception, threats and outright force to relocate public housing residents from their apartments. For resisting these tactics, one older woman and her family were targeted, with two dozen police brought out to ensure she moved.
Few carrots but lots of sticks:
In the name of "security," CHA residents have been subjected to arbitrary and vicious acts of brutality by police and guards. In June, gun wielding guards terrorized residents of one Horner building, beating one man bloody in full view of an outraged crowd. During the recent massive mobilization for the Bulls basketball victory, city cops locked down a Robert Taylor Homes high rise, clubbing and macing people. For hours, no resident was allowed in or out.
Again and again, residents have expressed their opposition to this treatment. There have been vocal objections raised to officials at packed meetings and individual determination not to be treated like cattle. They have picketed demolition sites and marched to city hall. While officials have attempted to slight and downplay this sentiment, it can't be ignored.
"I mean all they got to do next is bring the ball and chain along and we'd be back in slavery. And that ain't gonna happen, cuz they'd have to kill me first." - woman from Horner Homes
Additional information: V.X., c/o RCP Publications, 312/ 227-4066; or c/o CounterMedia, 312/670-9673, xmediax [at] ripco.com.
For more on the disaster of privatizing public housing, click below for A Great Chicago Land Grab...
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/apr97peterson.html
***********
[Hope VI Program Displaces The Poor]
Mixed-income plan tests an urban vision- The Scott and Carver public housing units will come down in a major federal overhaul of housing for the poor.
10/5/03 - Miami Herald
Across the country, some HOPE VI projects have been criticized for delivering little or no benefits to public housing tenants. In most cases, HOPE VI projects yield fewer public housing units than existed before. There is no guarantee that every former tenant will be able to live in the new developments. And education, job training and other promised services are not always provided.
Numbers paint a bleak economic picture of the current residents. More than 75 percent of families are considered extremely low-income, earning less than 30 percent of the Miami's area median income of $43,140. About 68 percent of families receive some type of public assistance, such as food stamps or welfare. A similar percentage of households are headed by someone who is unemployed.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which administers the HOPE VI program, gives the misleading impression, through local housing agencies, that all public housing tenants will be able to buy a house or rent a better apartment, critics say. In reality, they say, many end up in other public housing developments and are no better off than before.
Also, in trying to build single-family homes, housing authorities destroy valuable units that cannot be replaced. More than 44,000 public housing units will be eliminated when HOPE VI projects nationwide are completed, according to a report by the Center for Community Change, a housing advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.
At Scott/Carver, only 30 percent of on-site units will be public housing.
Worries about how many former residents will actually benefit from the new HOPE VI projects were reflected in interviews with public housing tenants across the country, including some at Scott, conducted for the report of the Center for Community Change.
''Our concern is that over the last 10 years, the program is about making properties look pretty, but not dealing with people's lives,'' said Dashaw Hockett, a policy analyst for the center, who interviewed Scott residents.
Mary Reese, a plaintiff in a federal suit claiming that Miami-Dade County is illegally forcing residents to move, said the $35 million in federal funds to improve conditions at Scott/ Carver should benefit the original tenants.
''A lot of people have got fat off us, and we haven't gotten anything,'' Reese said.
Click below for full story...
http://www.floridacdc.org/articles/031003-1.htm
***********
USA Tenants Fight to Save Social Housing
File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML
More than 120000 units of Public Housing have been demolished under HOPE VI since its inception. In their place, fewer than 40000 new units of “mixed ...
http://www.iut.nu/Tillfalliga_artiklar/USA%20NAHT.doc
***********
New Orleans To Demolish Most Public Housing Units
June 16, 2006
In New Orleans, officials have announced plans to tear down much of the city’s public housing units. The units suffered extensive damage during Hurricane Katrina. Rebuilding plans call for much of the public housing to be replaced by mixed-income units. The move will greatly reduce the number of available public housing units in New Orleans. Just 1,000 of the more than 5,000 families who lived in public housing have been able to return to their homes since Katrina struck last August. Curtis Muhammad, a housing advocate with the People's Organizing Committee, criticized the plan, saying: "These are the people who were left in New Orleans to die, who were locked up in the Superdome and the Convention Center [and now] the government wants to get rid of any housing for them.”
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/16/1355211
**********
Housing complex sale worries some
Housing advocates say the $12.3-million deal for Graham-Rogall Park will put affordable housing for the elderly, disabled and handicapped at risk.
http://sptimes.com/2006/09/27/Neighborhoodtimes/Housing_complex_sale_.shtml
By WAVENEY ANN MOORE, Times Staff Writer
Published September 27, 2006
ST. PETERSBURG - The long-planned sale of the Graham-Rogall Park public housing complex near Tropicana Field is nearing completion.
The St. Petersburg Housing Authority is selling the property to Vector Realty & Management Inc. for $12.3-million. Closing is not expected to take place for several months.
Affordable housing advocates are concerned about the sale of the complex that provides housing for the elderly, disabled and handicapped.
Jane Trocheck Walker, executive director of Daystar Life Center, which distributes USDA food to Graham-Rogall residents, is skeptical that the plan will work. "There's nothing that says (the new owners) have to accept vouchers. It's like having money from another country, but where are you going to spend it. I want to see a solid plan. I want to see some guarantees," she said."
Walker, whose downtown agency assists the needy, said she is concerned about what will happen if residents have to move. "They are going to have to go out and find a place that's taking housing vouchers and then they're going to have to make the physical move and we're dealing with people with limited capacity," she said.
"If there's no housing available, what are they going to do? We already know that there's an affordable housing crisis, so where are they going to go and who's going to help them find housing?"
The Rev. Manuel Sykes said there's a problem with privatizing public housing and keeping it affordable, especially when it involves seniors. Sykes is vice chairman of FAST, or Faith and Action for Strength Together, an interfaith Pinellas County effort to tackle social justice issues.
The Baptist minister and president of St. Petersburg Theological Seminary said he is worried that a move will disrupt the lives of those who live at Graham-Rogall.
"They are a vertical community with long-term residents that they have learned to live with for a long time," Sykes said.
"You're displacing people from a community that's not going to be readily replaced. It's a link to sanity, emotional well being. It's something that I think needs to be thought out on all levels if you want to do this thing in a way that's humane."
PUBLIC HOUSING
ST. PETERSBURG
Public housing developments owned by the St. Petersburg Housing Authority:
* Graham-Rogall Park, 325 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. St. S, consists of two apartment buildings. Graham: 336 units, studios, 1 and 2 bedrooms. Rogall: 150 studios and 1 bedrooms.
* Clearview Park, 3200 37th Ave. N, 22 units, 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms.
* Disston Place, 3940 55th St. N, 33 Units, 2 bedrooms.
* Jordan Park, 1245 Jordan Park St. S, 237 units, 1, 2, 3, and 4 bedrooms.
* Romayne Apartments, 8601 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. St. N, 20 units, 1 and 2 bedrooms.
PINELLAS COUNTY
Public housing in Pinellas County:
* 1,731, public housing units in the county, 649 in St. Petersburg.
* 6,837 housing choice vouchers available in the county, 2,760 in St. Petersburg.
* 1,662 additional affordable housing units owned by housing authorities, none in St. Petersburg, 236 units at Crystal Lake Manor in Pinellas Park for people 62 and over.
[Last modified September 27, 2006, 06:35:12]
************
Perpetuity key to public housing sale
Sunday, August 27, 2006
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Aug/27/op/FP608270309.html
If Honolulu wants to privatize all of the city's public housing units, there's only one way to do it properly: The city should make sure any sale includes a provision to keep all 1,250 of these units affordable in perpetuity.
Perpetuity, of course, means forever. But that's the required detail needed in any future contract with a potential buyer. In fact, even the meaning of the word "affordable" must be clearly negotiated up front.
A 10-, 15- or 20-year commitment to affordability is not enough.
If any deal falls short of forever, we all should have a real problem with the city getting out of the affordable-housing business.
To date, there have been discussions between the City Council and Carmel Partners, a group that is in the process of buying the privately owned Kukui Gardens, an affordable rental project in Chinatown. Carmel's talks with the city must be taken seriously. Mayor Mufi Hannemann is on record saying he would agree to a sale of the city's 12 affordable housing properties as long as the units stayed affordable and tenants were not kicked out.
Sounds good. But it would all be more reassuring if the city would place even greater emphasis on that all-important detail: perpetuity.
Without that detail, the city puts into question whether it is seeking privatization for the right reasons.
The fact is public housing has been an investment made by the city with taxpayer dollars. The city may feel it should sell these units because it lacks the ability (or will) to maintain and run public housing as a business.
But that doesn't erase the need for affordable public housing in the community. With the need for affordable housing growing throughout all economic sectors in Honolulu, we have more than a compelling reason to make sure the investment the city has already made in public housing is passed on and remains affordable.
A clause in any sales contract that protects affordability in perpetuity would certainly impact the price the city could command, which could make the city think twice about any deal. But without such a clause, any short-term gain for the city's coffers is likely to result in real long-term problems.
Any sale should protect affordability forever. If it's serious about privatizing public housing, the city must demand that level of commitment to the public good from any potential buyer.
**************
Housing-Related Program
HOPE VI
In 1993, Congress created the HOPE VI program through the VA-HUD-IA Appropriations Act to revitalize dilapidated public housing units.
But the HOPE VI program has not been beneficial to everyone. Approximately 30% of residents surveyed continue to live in high-poverty and high-crime neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, many families are being displaced and low income housing units are being lost under the HOPE VI program. As of September 2005, HOPE VI grantees planned to replace approximately half of the public housing units demolished. The remaining redeveloped units are intended for higher income residents who can pay more in rent or purchase some of the redeveloped units.
http://www.nlihc.org/advocates/hopevi.htm
[HOPE VI PROGRAM IS DEVASTATING TO PEOPLE OF COLOR]
False HOPE
Click below for full report...
http://www.nhlp.org/html/pubhsg/FalseHOPE.pdf
Urban Renewal, HOPE VI, and Civil Rights
While the scale of Urban Renewal clearance was larger than that of HOPE VI, both
programs involve the displacement of very large numbers of low income households of
color. The Urban Renewal program, concentrating as it did on inner-city areas, soon bore
the informal title “Negro removal” — reflecting the fact that some two-thirds of dis-placees
were minority, overwhelmingly African Americans.6
The Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 7 was passed with Urban
Renewal experiences and other examples of inattention to civil rights in federal housing
policy fresh in mind.8 Section 808 of the Act imposed a special requirement upon HUD
to “administer the programs and activities relating to housing and urban development in a
manner affirmatively to further” fair housing.9 This duty has been interpreted by the
courts to mean that HUD must shed its “bureaucratic myopia” to the effect of its pro-grams
on civil rights 10 and “must utilize some institutionalized method whereby … it has
before it the relevant racial and socio-economic information necessary” to further the
purposes of the Fair Housing Act.11
Despite the over thirty years since the passage of the Fair Housing Act, HUD routinely
violates its affirmative fair housing duties in the administration of its programs. HUD
essentially never takes any account of the racial and socioeconomic effects of its program
administration decisions. Decisions to permit the demolition of public housing units and
the affordable housing they provide, both inside and outside of the HOPE VI program,
are no exception.12
HUD has no mechanism for assessing the racial impact of its HOPE VI funding and grant
administration decisions. HUD’s HOPE VI application attachment forms do not request
even the most basic racial demographic data — much request data on more complex
issues, such as the existence of any special housing needs that may disproportionately
affect families of color in applicants’ jurisdictions.13
Indications are that the HOPE VI program has a dramatic effect on families of color, who
rely on the public housing program to a disproportionate extent.14 Based on available
HUD data, the fiscal year 2001 HOPE VI redevelopment awards alone will result in the
displacement of an estimated 6,046 families.15 Ninety-five percent of these estimated
displacees are families of color; 79 percent are African American families.16 In some
cities — San Francisco and Washington, D.C. being notable examples — there has been
an absolute and relative loss of African American populations, to which the HOPE VI
program has likely contributed.17
HUD has remained stubbornly myopic in its administration of HOPE VI even in the face
of egregious fair housing violations. In 1996, HUD awarded a HOPE VI grant to the
Housing Authority of Baltimore City to redevelop its Hollander Ridge public housing
site. The site, which is predominantly occupied by African American families, “abuts the
predominately white residential neighborhood of Rosedale.”18 For many years, the
Hollander Ridge was separated from Rosedale by “a chain link fence.”19 Rather than
remove this fence during the revitalization, in 1998 the city began to “replac[e the] chain
link fence with a wrought iron fence to completely surround Hollander Ridge, save for
the lone entrance at the end of Hollander Ridge farthest away from Rosedale.
***********
False HOPE/Page 1)
IV. The Exclusion of Public Housing Residents from
HOPE VI Opportunities
[The public housing commissioner] told us to dream, dream about what
this neighborhood could be [but] he didn’t tell us … that the dream meant
we wouldn’t be included.1
While the first purpose set forth under the HOPE VI statute is to “[i]mprove the living
environment for public housing residents of severely distressed public housing projects,”
HOPE VI is doing little to improve the lives of the majority of public housing families it
affects. 2
A. Very Few Residents Return to HOPE VI Redevelopment Sites
Given the lack of concrete information about program outcomes,3 it is difficult to say for
certain, but it appears that the housing developed under HOPE VI has generally been of
high quality.4 The problem is that few public housing residents can expect to live in this
high quality housing. According to HUD figures for fiscal year 1993 to 1999 HOPE VI
revitalization awards, only 2,568 (11.4 percent) of the total 22,500 displaced public
housing residents were slated for “re-occupancy” in HOPE VI sites after redevelopment.5
HUD has provided little explanation as to why so few residents return to HOPE VI sites.
Most of HUD’s materials and announcements hardly acknowledge the issue. In fact,
HUD’s press releases generally suggest that public housing residents are to be the princi-pal
beneficiaries of the new housing and infrastructure to be constructed under HOPE VI.
For example, according to a press release announcing a fiscal year 1999 redevelopment
award for the Scott and Carver Homes site in Miami, the HOPE VI program
goes far beyond improving housing opportunities in Miami-Dade [County,
Florida] — it actually allows [the public housing authority] to turn public
housing units into true communities that provide a comprehensive networkof services. The residents of Scott and Carver Homes will now have a
greater opportunity to become self-sufficient homeowners, productive em-ployees
and residents who can be proud of their neighborhood.6
To the extent that HUD has recognized that residents do not always return to HOPE VI
sites, it has generally claimed that this is because residents “choose” not to do so.7
However, the ability of residents to return to revitalization sites is significantly con-strained
in ways that HUD has not openly acknowledged.
1. Lack of Housing Affordable to Former Residents in Redeveloped HOPE VI Sites
HOPE VI redevelopment activity is resulting in a net loss of public housing units.8
HUD’s latest round of revitalization awards will involve the net loss of 3,092 public
housing units — of the 7,961 units affected, only 4,869 will be replaced with public
housing rental units, a 38.8 percent reduction overall.9 Because public housing units are
generally the only units affordable to public housing residents,10 reductions in these units
tend to result in public housing families being “priced out” of housing at HOPE VI
sites.11
The Miami-Dade HOPE VI plan mentioned in the press release excerpt above calls for
the demolition of 850 units of rental public housing. These units are to be replaced with
only 80 units of rental public housing and 382 homeownership units of various kinds.12
The bulk of these homeownership units, while described as “affordable,” are well beyond
the means of current Scott and Carver Homes residents. According to the Miami-Dade
HOPE VI application, the minimum qualifying income levels for these homeownership
6 HUD No. 99-162 (Aug. 25, 1999) (“Cuomo Announces $78.3 Million in HOPE VI Grants to Miami-Dade,
Lakeland, and Bradenton, Florida to Transform Public Housing”), available on-line at
http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf18/pressrel/pr99-162.html. 7 See, e.g., U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HOPE VI: Building Communities,
Transforming Lives, 10 (Dec. 1999) (“Housing authorities today are moving aggressively to ensure that
public housing residents relocating from HOPE VI sites during the redevelopment process are able to
choose homes and the neighborhoods that suit their needs.”), available on-line at
http://www.huduser.org/publications/pubasst/bldgcomm.html. 8 See Part II, supra. 9 See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, National Fact Sheet: FY 2001 HOPE VI
Revitalization Grant Awards (2002), available on-line at
http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/grants/fy01/natl_factsheet.pdf. 10 See Part II.A., supra. According to the latest available HUD figures, the average annual median income
for public housing households is $10,091, 18.5 percent of the estimated national median income for fiscal
year 2002. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Multifamily Tenant Characteristics
System, Resident Characteristics Report, Public Housing, National (data retrieved Jun. 13, 2002), available
on-line at pic.hud.gov/pic/RCRPublic/rcrmain.asp; HUD Notice PDR-2002-01 (Jan. 31, 2002) (“Estimated
Median Family Incomes for FY 2002”), available on-line at
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/fmr02/medians.pdf. 11 In some instances, additional restrictions may be attached to replacement public housing units. Occu-pancy
may be restricted to households with incomes above a certain level or to households with elderly or
disabled members. Such restrictions may further limit the ability of residents to return to revitalization sites. 12 See Miami-Dade Housing County, 1999 HOPE VI Grant Application, Exh. A (May 17, 1999).
24 Part IV
***********
False HOPE
B. HUD’s Failure to Allow Residents to Enforce Its HOPE VI Participation
Policies
While HUD’s HOPE VI policies appear to be very supportive of resident and community
participation on their face, HUD has provided few mechanisms to allow public housing
residents and other community members actually to enforce these policies. One of the
main reasons for this is that HUD has never issued regulations for the HOPE VI pro-gram.5 Instead of regulations, HUD has administered the HOPE VI program primarily
through NOFAs and grant agreements 6 — and by sub-regulatory “guidances” and “work
plans” in recent years, some of which exist only in “draft” form.7
HUD’s stated reason for refusing to issue regulations is that regulations would be “diffi-cult
to modify” as necessary to reflect the requirements of annual HOPE VI appropria-tions
acts.8 However, since the fiscal year 1995 act, there have been few changes in the
requirements imposed by the annual appropriations acts.9 The principal changes since
1995 have had to do with specific funding levels for certain activities.10 None of these
changes would have prevented HUD from issuing regulations clarifying day-to-day
administration of the program.
HUD’s refusal to issue formal regulations has frustrated public participation in the HOPE
VI program. A lack of regulations has meant that there has been a lack of clear rules for
the program. This lack of rules has impeded public understanding of the way in which to
program operates and has shielded HUD and public housing authorities (PHAs) from
accountability for their activities under HOPE VI.
HUD’s refusal to issue HOPE VI regulations has also excluded the public from having
input into HUD’s standards for the administration of the program. By refusing to issue
regulations, HUD has violated its own policies regarding public rulemaking.11 HUD’s
generally applicable regulations on rulemaking in its programs state that “[i]t is the policy
of [HUD] to provide for public participation in rulemaking with respect to all HUD
programs and functions, including matters that relate to public property, loans, grants,
benefits, or contracts.”12 HUD’s policy requires it to publish proposed program rules for
5 See U.S. General Accounting Office, HOPE VI: Progress and Problems in Revitalizing Distressed Public
Housing, GAO/RCED-98-187 at 17 (Jul. 1998), available on-line at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces160.shtml. HUD was required under the original HOPE VI statute
to issue regulations governing the award of HOPE VI funds, but failed to do so. See Section 24 of the U.S.
Housing Act of 1937, Pub. L. No. 102-550, Tit. I, § 120 (Oct. 28, 1992), codified at 42 U.S.C.A. §
1437v(d)(4) (West 1994), available on-line at thomas.loc.gov/. 6 See HOPE VI: Progress and Problems, supra n. 5, at 17, 19. 7 For current HOPE VI guidances and work plans, see
http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/index.cfm. 8 See HOPE VI: Progress and Problems, supra n. 5, at 17. 9 See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HOPE VI Appropriations (2002) (text of fiscal
year 1993 to 2002 appropriations acts), available on-line at
http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/about/approp.pdf. 10 See, e.g., id at 6 (fiscal year 1996 appropriation act, Pub. L. No. 104-134 (Apr. 26, 1995), permitting
HUD to use up to 0.67 percent of the total annual appropriation for “technical assistance” purposes). 11 See 24 C.F.R. Part 10 (2001), available on-line at at http://www.hudclips.org/sub_nonhud/cgi/hudclips.cgi. 12 Id.
18 Part III
False HOPE
Click below for full report...
http://www.nhlp.org/html/pubhsg/FalseHOPE.pdf
Urban Renewal, HOPE VI, and Civil Rights
While the scale of Urban Renewal clearance was larger than that of HOPE VI, both
programs involve the displacement of very large numbers of low income households of
color. The Urban Renewal program, concentrating as it did on inner-city areas, soon bore
the informal title “Negro removal” — reflecting the fact that some two-thirds of dis-placees
were minority, overwhelmingly African Americans.6
The Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 7 was passed with Urban
Renewal experiences and other examples of inattention to civil rights in federal housing
policy fresh in mind.8 Section 808 of the Act imposed a special requirement upon HUD
to “administer the programs and activities relating to housing and urban development in a
manner affirmatively to further” fair housing.9 This duty has been interpreted by the
courts to mean that HUD must shed its “bureaucratic myopia” to the effect of its pro-grams
on civil rights 10 and “must utilize some institutionalized method whereby … it has
before it the relevant racial and socio-economic information necessary” to further the
purposes of the Fair Housing Act.11
Despite the over thirty years since the passage of the Fair Housing Act, HUD routinely
violates its affirmative fair housing duties in the administration of its programs. HUD
essentially never takes any account of the racial and socioeconomic effects of its program
administration decisions. Decisions to permit the demolition of public housing units and
the affordable housing they provide, both inside and outside of the HOPE VI program,
are no exception.12
HUD has no mechanism for assessing the racial impact of its HOPE VI funding and grant
administration decisions. HUD’s HOPE VI application attachment forms do not request
even the most basic racial demographic data — much request data on more complex
issues, such as the existence of any special housing needs that may disproportionately
affect families of color in applicants’ jurisdictions.13
Indications are that the HOPE VI program has a dramatic effect on families of color, who
rely on the public housing program to a disproportionate extent.14 Based on available
HUD data, the fiscal year 2001 HOPE VI redevelopment awards alone will result in the
displacement of an estimated 6,046 families.15 Ninety-five percent of these estimated
displacees are families of color; 79 percent are African American families.16 In some
cities — San Francisco and Washington, D.C. being notable examples — there has been
an absolute and relative loss of African American populations, to which the HOPE VI
program has likely contributed.17
HUD has remained stubbornly myopic in its administration of HOPE VI even in the face
of egregious fair housing violations. In 1996, HUD awarded a HOPE VI grant to the
Housing Authority of Baltimore City to redevelop its Hollander Ridge public housing
site. The site, which is predominantly occupied by African American families, “abuts the
predominately white residential neighborhood of Rosedale.”18 For many years, the
Hollander Ridge was separated from Rosedale by “a chain link fence.”19 Rather than
remove this fence during the revitalization, in 1998 the city began to “replac[e the] chain
link fence with a wrought iron fence to completely surround Hollander Ridge, save for
the lone entrance at the end of Hollander Ridge farthest away from Rosedale.
***********
False HOPE/Page 1)
IV. The Exclusion of Public Housing Residents from
HOPE VI Opportunities
[The public housing commissioner] told us to dream, dream about what
this neighborhood could be [but] he didn’t tell us … that the dream meant
we wouldn’t be included.1
While the first purpose set forth under the HOPE VI statute is to “[i]mprove the living
environment for public housing residents of severely distressed public housing projects,”
HOPE VI is doing little to improve the lives of the majority of public housing families it
affects. 2
A. Very Few Residents Return to HOPE VI Redevelopment Sites
Given the lack of concrete information about program outcomes,3 it is difficult to say for
certain, but it appears that the housing developed under HOPE VI has generally been of
high quality.4 The problem is that few public housing residents can expect to live in this
high quality housing. According to HUD figures for fiscal year 1993 to 1999 HOPE VI
revitalization awards, only 2,568 (11.4 percent) of the total 22,500 displaced public
housing residents were slated for “re-occupancy” in HOPE VI sites after redevelopment.5
HUD has provided little explanation as to why so few residents return to HOPE VI sites.
Most of HUD’s materials and announcements hardly acknowledge the issue. In fact,
HUD’s press releases generally suggest that public housing residents are to be the princi-pal
beneficiaries of the new housing and infrastructure to be constructed under HOPE VI.
For example, according to a press release announcing a fiscal year 1999 redevelopment
award for the Scott and Carver Homes site in Miami, the HOPE VI program
goes far beyond improving housing opportunities in Miami-Dade [County,
Florida] — it actually allows [the public housing authority] to turn public
housing units into true communities that provide a comprehensive networkof services. The residents of Scott and Carver Homes will now have a
greater opportunity to become self-sufficient homeowners, productive em-ployees
and residents who can be proud of their neighborhood.6
To the extent that HUD has recognized that residents do not always return to HOPE VI
sites, it has generally claimed that this is because residents “choose” not to do so.7
However, the ability of residents to return to revitalization sites is significantly con-strained
in ways that HUD has not openly acknowledged.
1. Lack of Housing Affordable to Former Residents in Redeveloped HOPE VI Sites
HOPE VI redevelopment activity is resulting in a net loss of public housing units.8
HUD’s latest round of revitalization awards will involve the net loss of 3,092 public
housing units — of the 7,961 units affected, only 4,869 will be replaced with public
housing rental units, a 38.8 percent reduction overall.9 Because public housing units are
generally the only units affordable to public housing residents,10 reductions in these units
tend to result in public housing families being “priced out” of housing at HOPE VI
sites.11
The Miami-Dade HOPE VI plan mentioned in the press release excerpt above calls for
the demolition of 850 units of rental public housing. These units are to be replaced with
only 80 units of rental public housing and 382 homeownership units of various kinds.12
The bulk of these homeownership units, while described as “affordable,” are well beyond
the means of current Scott and Carver Homes residents. According to the Miami-Dade
HOPE VI application, the minimum qualifying income levels for these homeownership
6 HUD No. 99-162 (Aug. 25, 1999) (“Cuomo Announces $78.3 Million in HOPE VI Grants to Miami-Dade,
Lakeland, and Bradenton, Florida to Transform Public Housing”), available on-line at
http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf18/pressrel/pr99-162.html. 7 See, e.g., U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HOPE VI: Building Communities,
Transforming Lives, 10 (Dec. 1999) (“Housing authorities today are moving aggressively to ensure that
public housing residents relocating from HOPE VI sites during the redevelopment process are able to
choose homes and the neighborhoods that suit their needs.”), available on-line at
http://www.huduser.org/publications/pubasst/bldgcomm.html. 8 See Part II, supra. 9 See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, National Fact Sheet: FY 2001 HOPE VI
Revitalization Grant Awards (2002), available on-line at
http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/grants/fy01/natl_factsheet.pdf. 10 See Part II.A., supra. According to the latest available HUD figures, the average annual median income
for public housing households is $10,091, 18.5 percent of the estimated national median income for fiscal
year 2002. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Multifamily Tenant Characteristics
System, Resident Characteristics Report, Public Housing, National (data retrieved Jun. 13, 2002), available
on-line at pic.hud.gov/pic/RCRPublic/rcrmain.asp; HUD Notice PDR-2002-01 (Jan. 31, 2002) (“Estimated
Median Family Incomes for FY 2002”), available on-line at
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/fmr02/medians.pdf. 11 In some instances, additional restrictions may be attached to replacement public housing units. Occu-pancy
may be restricted to households with incomes above a certain level or to households with elderly or
disabled members. Such restrictions may further limit the ability of residents to return to revitalization sites. 12 See Miami-Dade Housing County, 1999 HOPE VI Grant Application, Exh. A (May 17, 1999).
24 Part IV
***********
False HOPE
B. HUD’s Failure to Allow Residents to Enforce Its HOPE VI Participation
Policies
While HUD’s HOPE VI policies appear to be very supportive of resident and community
participation on their face, HUD has provided few mechanisms to allow public housing
residents and other community members actually to enforce these policies. One of the
main reasons for this is that HUD has never issued regulations for the HOPE VI pro-gram.5 Instead of regulations, HUD has administered the HOPE VI program primarily
through NOFAs and grant agreements 6 — and by sub-regulatory “guidances” and “work
plans” in recent years, some of which exist only in “draft” form.7
HUD’s stated reason for refusing to issue regulations is that regulations would be “diffi-cult
to modify” as necessary to reflect the requirements of annual HOPE VI appropria-tions
acts.8 However, since the fiscal year 1995 act, there have been few changes in the
requirements imposed by the annual appropriations acts.9 The principal changes since
1995 have had to do with specific funding levels for certain activities.10 None of these
changes would have prevented HUD from issuing regulations clarifying day-to-day
administration of the program.
HUD’s refusal to issue formal regulations has frustrated public participation in the HOPE
VI program. A lack of regulations has meant that there has been a lack of clear rules for
the program. This lack of rules has impeded public understanding of the way in which to
program operates and has shielded HUD and public housing authorities (PHAs) from
accountability for their activities under HOPE VI.
HUD’s refusal to issue HOPE VI regulations has also excluded the public from having
input into HUD’s standards for the administration of the program. By refusing to issue
regulations, HUD has violated its own policies regarding public rulemaking.11 HUD’s
generally applicable regulations on rulemaking in its programs state that “[i]t is the policy
of [HUD] to provide for public participation in rulemaking with respect to all HUD
programs and functions, including matters that relate to public property, loans, grants,
benefits, or contracts.”12 HUD’s policy requires it to publish proposed program rules for
5 See U.S. General Accounting Office, HOPE VI: Progress and Problems in Revitalizing Distressed Public
Housing, GAO/RCED-98-187 at 17 (Jul. 1998), available on-line at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces160.shtml. HUD was required under the original HOPE VI statute
to issue regulations governing the award of HOPE VI funds, but failed to do so. See Section 24 of the U.S.
Housing Act of 1937, Pub. L. No. 102-550, Tit. I, § 120 (Oct. 28, 1992), codified at 42 U.S.C.A. §
1437v(d)(4) (West 1994), available on-line at thomas.loc.gov/. 6 See HOPE VI: Progress and Problems, supra n. 5, at 17, 19. 7 For current HOPE VI guidances and work plans, see
http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/index.cfm. 8 See HOPE VI: Progress and Problems, supra n. 5, at 17. 9 See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HOPE VI Appropriations (2002) (text of fiscal
year 1993 to 2002 appropriations acts), available on-line at
http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/about/approp.pdf. 10 See, e.g., id at 6 (fiscal year 1996 appropriation act, Pub. L. No. 104-134 (Apr. 26, 1995), permitting
HUD to use up to 0.67 percent of the total annual appropriation for “technical assistance” purposes). 11 See 24 C.F.R. Part 10 (2001), available on-line at at http://www.hudclips.org/sub_nonhud/cgi/hudclips.cgi. 12 Id.
18 Part III
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 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