Sunday, March 13, 2016

Close to Home - Don't Sell Chanate Short!

Press Democrat 'Close to Home' by the Housing Advocacy Group:

Housing advocates welcome the initial steps taken last week by Sonoma County supervisors to increase the availability of affordable housing.
But we’re concerned by the request for proposals issued last month by the county for its 100-plus-acre site on Chanate Road in Santa Rosa. If the supervisors select the proposal submitted by the highest bidder, we’ll likely see dozens more million-dollar homes there. Will the supervisors walk their talk and come up with a development plan that helps address this unprecedented housing shortage?
For a century, the county land at Chanate has been devoted to serving the health and housing needs of economically disadvantaged residents. There are many perfectly usable buildings on the site. Most, like the mental health facilities, the Wellness Center and the well-designed shelter for women and children, are currently in use. County officials claim the two former Sutter hospital buildings are not earthquake safe and want them demolished. But earthquake standards for hospitals are much stricter than they are for residential uses. Repurposing older buildings is normally vastly less expensive than tearing them down and starting from scratch. (more)

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Excellent editorial from the Aug. 12, 2014 NY Times... integration of our neighborhoods, schools and communities is so important:

The Death of Michael Brown - Racial History Behind the Ferguson Protests:
The F.B.I. may be able to answer the many questions surrounding the death of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old black student from Ferguson, Mo., who was a few days from heading off to college when he was shot by a police officer on Saturday. The shooting of Mr. Brown, who was unarmed, led to three days of protest, some of it violent, and several tense confrontations between residents of the St. Louis suburban town of 21,000 and the police.
But it doesn’t take a federal investigation to understand the history of racial segregation, economic inequality and overbearing law enforcement that produced so much of the tension now evident on the streets. St. Louis has long been one of the nation’s most segregated metropolitan areas, and there remains a high wall between black residents — who overwhelmingly have lower incomes — and the white power structure that dominates City Councils and police departments like the ones in Ferguson.
Until the late 1940s, blacks weren’t allowed to live in most suburban St. Louis County towns, kept out by restrictive covenants that the Supreme Court prohibited in 1948. As whites began to flee the city for the county in the 1950s and ’60s, they used exclusionary zoning tactics — including large, single-family lot requirements that prohibited apartment buildings — to prevent blacks from moving in. Within the city, poverty and unrest grew.
By the 1970s, many blacks started leaving the City of St. Louis as well. Colin Gordon, a professor at the University of Iowa who has carefully mapped the metropolitan area’s residential history, said black families were attracted to older, inner-ring suburbs like Ferguson in the northern part of the county because they were built before restrictive zoning tactics and, therefore, allowed apartments.
As black families moved into Ferguson, the whites fled. In 1980, the town was 85 percent white and 14 percent black; by 2010, it was 29 percent white and 69 percent black. But blacks did not gain political power as their numbers grew. The mayor and the police chief are white, as are five of the six City Council members. The school board consists of six white members and one Hispanic. As Mr. Gordon explains, many black residents, lacking the wealth to buy property, move from apartment to apartment and have not put down political roots.

The disparity is most evident in the Ferguson Police Department, of which only three of 53 officers are black. The largely white force stops black residents far out of proportion to their population, according to statistics kept by the state attorney general. Blacks account for 86 percent of the traffic stops in the city, and 93 percent of the arrests after those stops. Similar problems exist around St. Louis County, where earlier this year the state chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. filed a federal civil rights complaint alleging widespread racial profiling by police departments.
The circumstances of Mr. Brown’s death are, inevitably, in dispute. Witnesses said he was walking home from a convenience store when stopped by an officer for walking in the middle of the street, and they accused the officer of shooting him multiple times when his hands were raised over his head. The police said Mr. Brown had hit the officer. State and federal investigators are trying to sort out the truth.
What is not in dispute is the sense of permanent grievance held by many residents and shared in segregated urban areas around the country. Though nothing excuses violence and looting, it is clear that local governments have not dispensed justice equally. The death of Mr. Brown is “heartbreaking,” as President Obama said Tuesday, but it is also a reminder of a toxic racial legacy that still infects cities and suburbs across America.

Friday, June 20, 2014

New Federal Regs re Duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing - Atlanta Journal Constitution

Good news:

By Ariel Hart - The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Forty-six years after the Fair Housing Act took aim at racial segregation and poverty in America, the federal government has declared the effort half-hearted and is setting out to fix it.

Within months, the Obama administration is expected to require local governments to devise new strategies to give people in poor, racially segregated areas better access to jobs, transportation and, particularly, good schools.

At stake locally are tens of millions of dollars in federal grants distributed across the region, from Atlanta to Marietta to Gwinnett County. If governments fail to satisfy the mandate, they could lose that money.

To date, few outside of Washington have even heard of the proposal. Where it is known, it tends to draw sharp reactions across the political spectrum: Liberals, who have waited decades for an administration with moxie enough to confront the issue, cheer it; others blast it as an assault on local communities.

"It's really a major coup, provided that it has some teeth in it," said Gail Williams, executive director of Metro Fair Housing Services in Atlanta, an advocacy group that helps local governments comply with such rules. "I?ll wait and see," said Cobb County Commission Chairman Tim Lee, although he added that from what little he has heard, "I think it flies in the face of local control and home rule." If the feds use grant money to try to force change, he said, "they can take their money and put it somewhere else."

Officials at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ? who would only talk about the new rule anonymously ? insisted that they merely want to provide better demographic data for local jurisdictions to plan with. They said they?re only formalizing a process to achieve what the law promised decades ago.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 was one of that decade?s signature civil rights laws. Its intent, confirmed in some subsequent court decisions, was not just to prevent obvious discrimination, such as refusing to sell or rent homes to racial minorities. It can be read to take broad aim at the American ghetto, on the understanding that where a group of people lives can affect much more than the quality of their residences. Where they live can determine their opportunities in life: access to good jobs, quality schools and societal expectations that lift up or hold back children throughout their lives.

By that definition, things that may stand in the way of "fair housing" might include zoning that keeps apartments or affordable houses out of good neighborhoods. It might include a lack of public transportation from poor neighborhoods to the areas with jobs that pay well. It might include fewer and shabbier parks or weaker police protection in poor areas than affluent ones, or benign neglect of troubled public schools.

Rising above

Renee Elmore and Stephanie Flowers are case studies in why HUD says local governments need to do more to help those who want to help themselves.

Both are single mothers of young sons, living in the Pittsburgh neighborhood south of downtown Atlanta. In very different ways, each is going to extraordinary lengths to keep the neighborhood from holding her son back.

Elmore used to live in Atlantic Station. But she said the $2000 she made each month bar tending could not cover her $1,350 rent, after-hours day care for her 7-year-old son, Kovan, and classes at a trade school where she is studying to become a radiology technician.

"I needed to cut all of my bills in half," she said, "so my future could be better than my present."

She looked hard, and finally found an ad for a house that was affordable, thanks to federal subsidies and an active neighborhood association. She pays $672 a month ? a typical rent for Pittsburgh ? for a three-bedroom, two-bathroom house, energy efficient to boot.

The catch is Pittsburgh: piles of trash; more vacant homes and lots than occupied houses; an elementary school with abysmal test scores. By day, men gather outside and lounge in armchairs. By night, as she drives home after work with her sleepy 7-year-old, women come and go from the house around the corner, occasionally buck naked.

Virtually every child lives with a single mother and lives in poverty. Fewer than one person in 10 has a college degree. Elmore's home, like most, is a fortress. "The bars make me feel better," she said "I am so thrilled with this bubble."

Fight or flee?

But that?s partly because she has constructed a life where she and her son spend hardly any time in the bubble. From 7 a.m. to past midnight during the school year, she is driving him between his prized slot in a charter school near Turner Field and a 24-hour day care she found in Smyrna, then driving herself between radiology courses and tending bar, with naps in between when she can.

There was no way Kovan was going to Gideons Elementary, she said. She's seen how some students behave, and which groups aren't represented there.

"Every year of his life he's moving forward," Elmore said. At the charter school "he's learning Chinese." More importantly, she said, there are white kids in his classes; if he wants a corporate job later in life, he?ll know how to talk to white people.

None of it would be possible without a car ? something that roughly one-third of her neighbors lack.

A few blocks away, on Metropolitan Parkway, Stephanie Flowers has chosen to send her 8-year-old son, Marcus, to a local public school, Dunbar, which she believes is a bit better than Gideons. During the school year, she pays about $700 a month for extra tutoring to keep his math and reading skills up to acceptable levels.

She can only afford it because she lives in the house her grandmother bought and pays nothing on it.

She went to technical school to learn administrative skills and now has a decent job. She could leave Pittsburgh. But, she said, "Do you run - Or do you fight? I decided I was going to stay in the race."

She's clear on what happens to those who lack her resources and her determination, and especially to their kids: "You fall by the wayside."

That's what HUD hopes to change, to make it possible for those who lack advantages like cars or fully paid housing to get a leg up. For people like Elmore and Flowers, the new rule is supposed to make the climb at least a bit easier.

Tangled roots

One huge irony is that before 1968, a long string of federal actions fed black poverty and segregation in neighborhoods like Pittsburgh.

Beginning in the 1930s, the government promoted home ownership by insuring home loans for ordinary workers. But the Federal Housing Administration discouraged "the occupancy of properties except by the race for which they are intended." The FHA also discouraged lending in neighborhoods with "inharmonious racial groups." Maps it used marked in red many black neighborhoods considered too risky for loans.

Starting in the 1950s the construction of the interstate highway system gave people who could afford cars a viable commute to suburban homes, aiding white flight. Those same highways often plowed through black city neighborhoods, as the Downtown Connector went through Atlanta?s Sweet Auburn, producing blight. Blacks who could afford it moved to their own suburbs, but they were less likely to have the means.

Elizabeth Leeks, now 80, remembers a Pittsburgh years ago that wasn?t rich but wasn?t destitute either, offering grocery stores instead of convenience stores and a slew of businesses catering to working-class families. "All that's gone, completely gone," she said. "People that used to live here moved out of the area."

By the time the federal government tried to do an about face, it faced fierce resistance to shaking up the patterns it had helped create.

Two years ago the investigative news organization ProPublica exposed how Richard Nixon's HUD secretary, George Romney - Mitt Romney's father - waged a secret, doomed campaign to enforce the provisions that are the target of the new HUD rule. Northerners and Southerners alike protested, and Nixon shut the effort down.

And now that HUD is trying again, even the rule?s biggest advocates can?t say how it will play out.

"I'm very passionate about this stuff, but I have to be honest with you that nobody quite knows in great detail what happens if the rule is finalized," said Michael Allen, a Washington, D.C. lawyer who won an important fair housing lawsuit in Westchester County, NY. He believes that victory was important in forcing HUD to formulate its new approach.

Helping hand or iron fist?

For its part, HUD will provide reams of new data and an internet mapping tool for local jurisdictions to measure patterns of segregation and access to "valuable community assets." The agency has not yet revealed the final criteria for defining which areas will be covered, but a preliminary map shows pockets in Cobb, Fulton, DeKalb, Gwinnett and Clayton Counties, with a large swath across the southern part of the city of Atlanta.

Atlanta Housing Authority Interim CEO Joy Fitzgerald was one of hundreds of people to comment on the proposed rule. She doesn't think desegregation is always necessary.

"If the goal of fair housing is to provide housing choice and not to force integration on all individuals, an individual?s right to choose to live in a segregated neighborhood should be respected," Fitzgerald wrote.

Fitzgerald said the agency has affordable housing sprinkled throughout the city, even in Midtown. AHA could not provide a map of its units.

Once HUD sets the final criteria, local governments will have to draw up an assessment of disparities in the designated areas, followed by plans to address the disparities.

Those could take many forms: zoning changes to allow apartments and other affordable housing in areas where they have been excluded; new investments in low income housing; better transportation options; additional resources for struggling public schools.

Opponents, especially alarmed about the implications for zoning, call this a massive federal over-reach, trampling the rights of one group in favor of another.

But HUD officials emphasize, anonymously, that the process will be collaborative, with each local jurisdiction suggesting its own solutions. However, if HUD doesn?t approve a given approach, grant money could stop flowing.

In the last fiscal year, at least 13 metro Atlanta jurisdictions got such grants, many of them in the northern suburbs.

Not your grandmother?s ghetto

The money has flowed to the suburbs because, in many places, segregation and poverty have moved to the suburbs. At least two of the potential trouble spots identified by HUD?s mapping tool are in Gwinnett County.

Like most local officials interviewed, U.S. Rep. Rob Woodall, a Republican from Lawrenceville, had not heard of the proposed HUD rule when The Atlanta Journal-Constitution asked him about it.

"I can?t imagine what that looks like,? Woodall said. ?But I?m from Gwinnett County. So go into one of our schools ? all you see is diversity. All you see is success. I can?t imagine what the federal government could do to improve on what we are doing there."

State data tell a more nuanced story.

In Gwinnett County, the bottom five elementary schools last year were each more than three-quarters black and Hispanic. In four of them, more than 90 percent of students were poor enough to qualify for reduced-price meals. In contrast, at the five best-scoring schools, a majority of students were white or Asian and fewer than a third of students qualified for reduced-price lunches.

Shannon Candler, the consultant who will deal most closely with Gwinnett County?s compliance with the new rule, is comfortable with it.

"We definitely are looking towards [the rule] as a positive,? she said. ?It?s really bringing structure and clarity."

It?s not her sense, she said, that HUD will require Gwinnett to move people out of poor minority neighborhoods into a more affluent ones.

"No," she said. "I wouldn?t say there?s been any focus or clear outlined plan to move forward in that direction."

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

HOW TO CREATE A MORE INTEGRATED SOCIETY

Author: Douglas S. Massey, Princeton University
May 21st, 2014

Fifty years after the Civil Rights Era, the United States remains a residentially segregated society. Although some progress toward racial integration has been made in recent decades, the largest declines in black-white segregation have occurred in small, newer metropolitan areas where relatively few blacks live. In the large, dense, older metropolitan areas that house most African Americans, progress has been slow—and in some cases, nonexistent— and a majority of urban blacks still live under conditions of hypersegregation, an intense form of segregation that isolates African Americans on multiple dimensions simultaneously.

As for Hispanics, their segregation from whites has slowly but steadily risen while levels of spatial isolation have increased sharply, producing conditions of hypersegregation in the two largest Hispanic urban concentrations in New York and Los Angeles.

Overlaying these persistent and often rising levels of racial-ethnic segregation is a pattern of increasing class segregation on the basis of income. In many ways, spatial inequalities by race and class are as wide as they’ve ever been.

Research indicates that spatial inequalities in the United States are generated by three principal factors:

Ongoing prejudice and discrimination
Increasingly restrictive zoning regulations
Rising levels of inequality

A variety of strategies has been offered to combat segregation in American society, but among the most effective tried so far are housing mobility programs that promote the dispersal of affordable housing units throughout middle- and upper-class communities. The dispersed construction of affordable housing can be achieved in two ways: encouraging set-asides of affordable units within larger market rate developments, or by scattering new, 100 percent affordable housing complexes across affluent areas.

The former strategy has been implemented in a variety of locations with considerable success, including the states of New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland. These studies show that set-aside programs constitute an effective means not only of enhancing the social welfare and economic mobility of low-income minority families, but a powerful tool for the promotion of racial and class integration.

Set-aside programs also have the advantage of making affordable housing less visible because it is embedded within market rate developments, and thus less likely to become the target of political resistance by community residents and local officials. Proposals to construct a free-standing affordable housing complex are typically met with strong local opposition, delaying and at times preventing construction and often reducing the number of units finally allowed.

My research on the opening of Ethel Lawrence Homes, a 140-unit development of fully affordable housing in the affluent Philadelphia suburb of Mount Laurel, New Jersey suggests, however, that community fears surrounding affordable housing are unfounded when the development is well-designed and well-run. When we compared tax burdens, crime rates, and property values in Mount Laurel to those in nearby communities that did not experience the opening of affordable housing developments, we found no detectable effects on trends before and after the project’s opening .

For the low-income families who moved into the development, however, the benefits were great: dramatic reductions in exposure to social disorder and violence, far fewer negative life events, significantly improved mental health, higher rates of employment, greater earnings from work, lower levels of welfare receipt, and higher family incomes. At the same time, children benefited from huge improvements in school quality, large reductions in exposure to social disorder within schools, greater parental involvement in education, far greater study times, and greater access to a quiet place to study. And although students moved from very uncompetitive to very competitive schools, their grades did not suffer.

Thus, the construction of a properly designed and well-executed affordable housing development in a middle- or upper-class community constitutes a potentially important and powerful tool in promoting the twin goals of desegregation and poverty reduction, one that complements the construction of market-rate projects with affordable set-asides. Research in Mount Laurel suggests that such projects are a win for all concerned: motivated low-income families get a pathway out of poverty; communities get new solid citizens who impose no negative externalities with respect to tax burdens, property values, or crime rates; and citizens of the state get a successful anti-poverty program that turns dependents into taxpayers at very low marginal cost.

Rather than opposing such developments, community residents and officials are better advised to assure their proper design and implementation, looking to the Ethel Lawrence Homes in Mount Laurel, New Jersey as a model for how it should be done.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

HUD AND HCD SAY ABAG'S NEW HOUSING NUMBERS MAY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST LOWER INCOME FAMILIES

Here's a LINK TO AN APRIL 9 LETTER from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to ABAG expressing serious concerns about ABAG's proposed Regional Housing Needs Allocations ("RHNA") for the upcoming 2014-2022 planning period. HUD says that 1) by concentrating new multi-family housing in communities with already high concentrations of lower income housing; 2) by limiting the affordable housing which certain communities with very little affordable housing must plan for; and 3) by ignoring the housing needs of farmworkers in rural areas (like Napa, Sonoma and Marin), ABAG may be violating fair housing laws. HUD points out that as a recipient of federal funding, ABAG has agreed to affirmatively further fair housing in the bay area, but the proposed RHNA may actually worsen patterns of residential segregation in the region. This follows a February letter to ABAG from the California Department of Housing and Community Development sent to ABAG late last year pointing out that ABAG's methodology (which cuts new housing numbers for Marin and Napa Counties and some jurisdictions in Sonoma County by 50% or more) didn't comply with state laws governing the allocation process. Here's a LINK TO THE HCD LETTER. Various public interest advocacy organizations have written recently to ABAG expressing grave concerns about the new regional housing numbers. Links to those letters will be posted shortly. Let's hope that ABAG listens.

Friday, July 13, 2012

Farmworker Families Struggle for Decent Housing

Farm worker families struggle for decent housing Farmers, chefs and workers share a locally grown meal to support the cause By Chloe Vieira 07/12/2012 Ventura County Reporter In one year, a farm worker who harvests and packs produce makes less than $10,000, according to the National Agricultural Workers Survey by the United States Department of Labor. That’s not enough money to rent an apartment in this county. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, “A renter household needs an annual income of $37,960 in order for a two-bedroom rental unit … to be affordable.”

That equation just doesn’t work. It didn’t work for 21-year-old Mayra Amezcua, who lived in one room with her parents, two sisters and one brother in an apartment in Fillmore. They shared the apartment with two other families. Mayra’s father picks lemons and oranges for various ranches. Her mother is a crossing guard who also does ironing and cleans houses. Mayra and her siblings had trouble doing their schoolwork in the crowded Fillmore apartment. Sometimes one family member would want to sleep, and the others would have to go outside to find light to study by.

“It was very chaotic and stressful,” she said. Her parents tried to move the family to a bigger place.

“We were one of the families in line waiting. It took about seven years of attending meetings and asking, practically begging for low-income housing,” she said.

In 2009, Mayra’s family moved into the Central Station Farmworker Family Apartments on Main Street in Fillmore. Central Station is a community of 21 rental homes provided by the Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation (CEDC), which builds affordable housing for low-income families.

“I felt like I was in a dream and I was scared of waking up one day and being back in that one room,” said Susie Amezcua, Mayra’s 19-year-old sister. The family’s new apartment had a living room and a kitchen. Both sisters currently attend Calfornia State University, Northridge. Mayra is a liberal studies major and Susie is double majoring in Chicano studies and sociology. Her parents have inspired Susie to continue with her schooling. They taught her that if she has an education, she will be treated better in life.

“Ideally I want to be one of those people who kept pushing for those [housing] projects to be approved,” said Susie.

House Farm Workers! is an advocacy group in California working to rid people of the mentality that having low-income housing in your community devalues your home.

“Which is totally false,” said Gail Weller Brown, committee chair person for House Farm Workers! “These people are screened. They have to document that they are farm workers, that they meet the minimum salary requirements. It’s quite extensive; they have a lot of work to do to prove that they are worthy of being in those homes.”

Brown said the area around the Meta Street Farm Worker Family Apartments, another CEDC project, this one in Oxnard actually became safer, cleaner and better-lit as a result of the low-income housing there.

“They’re wonderful people who work very hard, and all they want is to have some privacy for their children to study and a safe place for them to grow up,” she said.

Monday, March 5, 2012

Sonoma County Fails Fair Housing Test

By STEPHEN HARPER and DAVID GRABILL
SANTA ROSA PRESS DEMOCRAT - March 4, 2012

Housing discrimination takes many forms. It can be blatant, as when an ad for an apartment rental states “no children.” Or it can be subtle, as when a lender offers to lend at a slightly higher mortgage interest rate to a Latino homebuyer than the normal rate offered to similarly qualified Caucasians.

A recent report prepared for the cities of Santa Rosa and Petaluma and the county of Sonoma finds that these and other forms of housing discrimination may be a bigger problem in Sonoma County than other areas.

The report, titled “Analysis of impediments to fair housing choice,” is posted on the city of Santa Rosa's website. Its findings are based on surveys conducted by a Denver-based consulting firm that specializes in housing issues and information provided by various stakeholders. About 25 percent of the residents surveyed believed they had been subjected to housing discrimination in renting or purchasing homes in this area. This is significantly higher than the 15 percent who report personal experiences with housing discrimination.

The report also makes some other disturbing findings:

Areas of Sonoma County are racially segregated. Some areas are more than 90 percent white. Other areas are mostly non-white. The predominately white areas have very little affordable housing, and the non-white areas have high concentrations of low-income housing. Almost three-fourths of the survey participants reported that the lack of affordable housing is a critical issue in Sonoma County.

The county lacks adequate transit opportunities and services, which makes it harder for lower-income families and people with disabilities to access housing, employment, schools and stores.

Latino applicants for home mortgage loans in the county are rejected at a significantly higher rate than non-Latino applicants.

This newspaper also recently reported that the U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against the city of Santa Rosa and a homeowners association for housing discrimination. The lawsuit asserts that city officials violated laws prohibiting housing discrimination against families with children when they allegedly tried to force some families to move from their homes in a development on Colgan Avenue.

The site of the development was zoned for “seniors only” by the city when it was built in 2005, but when many units went unsold, the “seniors only” restriction was relaxed. Families with children moved in and the lawsuit alleges that city officials made no effort to enforce the zoning restrictions.

In 2009, after some senior residents complained about noise and other problems with the younger families, the city moved to enforce the restriction and force the non-senior families to move.

If the Justice Department proves the lawsuit's allegations, Santa Rosa could find itself under an injunction to stop discrimination against families with children and have to pay damages to the families who were told to move. The city may also have to send some city staff to training sessions about housing discrimination laws.

We don't know of any other city in California that's been sued by the federal government for housing discrimination.

The lawsuit and the fair housing analysis need to be taken seriously by city and county officials. The report recommends that the county and its cities acknowledge that housing discrimination is an ongoing problem and undertake a concerted effort to combat housing discrimination in all its forms.

Marin and Napa counties have long supported and funded fair housing enforcement. Their fair housing agencies investigate complaints of housing discrimination, do workshops for landlords, real estate agents, homebuyers and tenants and help inform the public about the requirements of state and federal discrimination laws.

Fortuitously, the Santa Rosa Housing Authority and the county Community Development Commission are considering a proposal to expand the small fair housing agency operated by Petaluma Peoples Services Center to serve the whole county. But will there be enough funding to run an effective countywide program?

Realtors, landlords and developers will benefit from stronger enforcement of fair housing laws and from strengthening the county's reputation as welcoming to all persons regardless of race, color, family status, sexual orientation, age or religion.

Who wants to live in a county where 25 percent of its residents report being subjected to housing discrimination? Let's make fair housing education and enforcement a priority.

Steve Harper and David Grabill are members of the Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group. They are both Santa Rosa residents.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Designing a Fix for Housing (NYT Op Ed)

By JEANNE GANG and GREG LINDSAY
Published: February 9, 2012

RECENT efforts to fix the housing market — including Thursday’s $26 billion settlement with five of the nation’s biggest banks — have focused purely on the financial aspects of the slump. A permanent solution, however, must go further than money to address issues that have been at the core of the crisis but have been wholly ignored: design and urban planning.

Mortgage Plan Gives Billions to Homeowners, but With Exceptions (February 10, 2012)
Too often during the bubble, banks and builders shunned thoughtful architecture and urban design in favor of cookie-cutter houses that could be easily repackaged as derivatives to be flipped, while architects snubbed housing to pursue more prestigious projects.

But better design is precisely what suburban America needs, particularly when it comes to rethinking the basic residential categories that define it, but can no longer accommodate the realities of domestic life. Designers and policy makers need to see the single-family house as a design dilemma whose elements — architecture, finance and residents’ desires — are inextricably linked.

Take Cicero, Ill., a Chicago suburb that we studied as part of a new exhibition on the housing crisis at the Museum of Modern Art. The town may be infamous as the base of Al Capone or the site of anti-integration protests in the 1950s and ’60s, but today 80 percent of its residents are Latino, half of them foreign born.

Cicero is representative of a suburban transformation that went little noticed during the housing bubble and bust: suburbs have replaced inner cities as the destination of choice for new immigrants.

Indeed, nearly half of all Hispanics now live in suburbs, and new arrivals favor them over cities by two to one. Immigrants are one reason the number of suburban poor climbed 25 percent nationwide between 2000 and 2008. They’re also why Cicero was hit so hard by the housing crisis, with 2,049 foreclosures in 2009 alone — the second highest in Illinois, after Chicago.

Here’s where design comes in. Most of Cicero’s housing is detached, single-family homes. But these are too expensive for many immigrants, so five or six families often squeeze into one of Cicero’s brick bungalows. This creates unstable financial situations, neighborhood tensions and falling real estate values.

Too often, we see such mismatches as a purely financial issue. But instead of forcing families to fit into a house, what if we rearranged the house to fit them?

This doesn’t mean bulldozing Cicero’s housing stock. Instead, it means using existing, underused properties that might be renovated to provide a better fit. In Cicero’s case, that might mean turning to the scores of abandoned factories around it.

Such buildings are often no man’s lands thanks to fears of industrial contamination, which have left older suburbs pockmarked by blight while jobs and homes sprawl outward. But new techniques like “phytoremediation” — using plants like poplar and willow trees to absorb toxins — open the door to safer, less-expensive rehabilitation.

What remains is a wealth of steel, masonry and concrete that could be recycled into flexible live/work units. Rather than force Cicero’s residents to contort themselves to fit the bungalows, their homes can expand or shrink to fit them.

There’s one problem with such a plan: it’s illegal under Cicero’s zoning code. The town’s rules are typical of most suburbs, including the segregation of residential, commercial and industrial facilities; prohibitions on expanding and reusing buildings for new homes and businesses; and tight restrictions on mixed-use properties. Cicero’s code also defines “family” in a way that excludes the large, multigenerational groupings now common across the country.

This has been an issue for urban planners for years, but many of the proposed alternatives to suburban zoning merely swap one restrictive code for another. Only by loosening zoning to allow new combinations of home and work will we be able to bring innovative design to bear on the single-family house.

But new housing forms also demand new types of financing. Starting in the 1990s, subprime lenders targeted low-income and minority suburbs like Cicero, even when many residents would have qualified for prime loans. Latino homeowners tend to disproportionately invest savings in their homes, and as a result they lost two-thirds of their wealth between 2005 and 2009.

One long-term solution would be a type of co-op in which residents buy and sell shares according to their changing needs and circumstances. Unlike traditional co-ops, residents could purchase shares corresponding only to the units they occupy, not the land beneath, which remains in the hands of a “community land trust.” Such a structure would keep housing costs down while limiting residents’ exposure to the market. It would also provide a backstop for struggling homeowners, since the trust would have the legal right to step in and assist residents in the event of foreclosure.

Land trusts have thrived on a small scale in New York City and Chicago, among other places. The federal government should now scale up the efforts by transferring some of the nearly 250,000 foreclosed homes acquired by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration into a national trust or a series of local trusts.

Even after the housing crisis is over, we will need to build connections among local government officials, policy makers, financial institutions, residents and architects. Solving the slump requires a multidisciplinary approach combining new design, new paths to homeownership and new zoning to support both — in Cicero and beyond.

Jeanne Gang and Greg Lindsay are, respectively, an architect and a visiting scholar at the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Feds sue St Bernard Parish for housing discrimination.

NEW ORLEANS (CN) - The United States claims St. Bernard Parish used a "blood relative ordinance" to deny African-Americans housing and keep them out of the parish after Hurricane Katrina.
St. Bernard Parish is just east of New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward, which was devastated by Katrina.
A Louisiana parish is the equivalent of other states' counties.
In its federal complaint, the United States says St. Bernard Parish enacted an illegal "blood relative ordinance" after the hurricane to prevent homeowners from renting to anyone not related to them by blood.
Two other plaintiffs filed similar complaints this week: the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Advocacy Center, and Nola Capital Group, of South Dakota.
All three plaintiffs accuse the parish of violating the Fair Housing Act, and ask the court to enjoin it from its "multiyear campaign to limit rental housing opportunities for African-Americans in St. Bernard Parish under the pretext of post-Hurricane Katrina recovery planning."
In his complaint, the U.S. attorney general says that in July 2005, before Hurricane Katrina, St. Bernard Parish was approximately 86 percent white and 10 percent African-American, and just 4 percent of the African-Americans were homeowners.
Neighboring Orleans Parish was 29 percent white and 67 percent African-American.
"As a result of the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, St. Bernard Parish and the surrounding communities lost, and have yet to fully replace, a significant percentage of their single and multi-family rental housing stock," the complaint states.
The average vacancy rate for rental housing in St. Bernard Parish from 2005 to 2009 was 6.3 percent.
On Nov. 25, 2005, two months after Hurricane Katrina, the parish imposed a 12-month moratorium on re-establishment or development of any multifamily dwellings without parish approval.
Uncle Sam says that in the metropolitan New Orleans housing market, including St. Bernard Parish, 52 percent of African-American households are renters, while just 25 percent of white households rent.
"The parish's moratorium was intended to and had the effect of limiting or reducing the supply of multifamily housing of more than five units and disproportionately disadvantaged African-Americans seeking to rent housing in St. Bernard Parish," the complaint states.
"On March 7, 2006, the parish passed another moratorium, this time prohibiting the rental of single-family homes in St. Bernard Parish allegedly to 'preserve the integrity of single-family neighborhoods ... until such time as the post-Katrina real estate market in the parish stabilizes.'" (Ellipsis in complaint.)
Four months later, the parish enacted an ordinance to restore single-family rentals, but required renters to obtain a permit from the parish. Not long after, the parish allowed renters who rented to persons "related by blood" to do so without a permit.
The United States says" "The parish's blood-relative exception disproportionately disadvantaged African-Americans seeking to rent housing in the predominantly white community of St. Bernard Parish."
"The parish's stated purpose in enacting the blood-relative ordinance was to reestablish 'preexisting neighborhoods,' and to maintain the 'integrity,' 'quality of life,' 'family atmosphere' and 'quiet enjoyment' of 'long established neighborhoods.'
"However, a council member who voted against the ordinance stated that it was passed 'to block the blacks from living in these areas.'
"Craig Taffaro, a member of the Parish Council at the time, drafted and sponsored the blood-relative ordinance. Taffaro admitted at the time that 'all we're doing is saying we want to maintain the demographics.'
"The parish's blood-relative exception was designed to be a proxy for race in order to artificially fix the racial composition of renters in St. Bernard Parish."
In August 2007, the parish issued a new renter permit process that included a $250 application fee, granted the parish discretion to deny permits, and allowed no more than two permits to be issued for every 500 feet in districts zoned for single-family use.
"The parish has denied homeowner-applicants, including African-Americans, permits to rent their single-family dwellings," the complaint states.
The parish rescinded its permit requirement in April 2011.
Between 2008 and 2011, 10 residents and homeowners complained to the Department of Housing and Urban Development that the parish racially discriminated through its permitting process. (g 35)
After investigation, the matter was turned over to the attorney general.
In 2009, the parish made comprehensive revisions to its zoning ordinances that eliminated multifamily housing as a permitted use in four zones. The revisions restricted new multifamily dwellings - defined as housing with three or more units - to just one zone.
"Through the comprehensive revisions, the parish reduced the land available for development of multifamily housing as of right by 99.3%, leaving only 109 acres for such developments," the complaint states.
The comprehensive revisions "severely limited or reduced the supply or availability of multi-family housing of more than three units and disproportionately disadvantaged Africa-Americans seeking to rent housing in St. Bernard Parish."
A federal judge in October 2011 ruled in a case brought in 2006 against St. Bernard Parish by the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center that the sequence of events surrounding zoning requirements in St. Bernard Parish "suggests the defendants have doggedly attempted to preserve the pre-Katrina demographics of St. Bernard Parish" and "presents ample evidence of intentional discrimination" against African-Americans.
"On January 28, 2011, John Trasvina, HUD's Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, filed a housing discrimination complaint on behalf of the HUD secretary ... alleging that the parish violated the Fair Housing Act by enacting and implementing the comprehensive revisions so as to continue to exclude African Americans from residing in the parish. On January 20, 2012, HUD referred this complaint to the Department of Justice as a potential pattern or practice violation of the Fair Housing Act," the complaint states.
In 2008, the parish and the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Advocacy Center entered into a consent order settling the center's lawsuit against the parish.
Four months later, Provident Realty Advisors, a multifamily housing developer, approached Parish President Craig Taffaro with plans to develop four multifamily, affordable-housing developments in the parish at a cost of $60 million.
The parish was told that $34 million of the funding would come from low-income housing tax credits. The tax credits would expire if not used by 2010.
In response, the parish enacted a moratorium on new construction of multifamily housing.
"Between July 2009, and November 2011, the court repeatedly found the parish in contempt over its attempts to prevent or impede the construction of Provident's affordable-housing developments," the government says.
The U.S. seeks an injunction and civil penalties.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Thursday, January 12, 2012


Affordable housing in the center of Copenhagen...

Free-Spirited Enclave’s Reluctant Landowners Fear Capitalism’s Harness

Residents of Christiania, a 40-year experiment in communal living near downtown Copenhagen, are trying to buy the land they have squatted on, despite the ideological dissonance.
By SALLY McGRANE
Published: January 12, 2012

COPENHAGEN — Last summer, the Danish state offered to sell a good chunk of the 80-odd-acre former military base at the edge of downtown Copenhagen to Christiania, the alternative community whose residents had been squatting there illegally for four decades. For the residents, who fundamentally reject the idea of landownership, this presented an ideological quandary.



After a Supreme Court ruling that said the squatters had no legal right to remain on the land, the residents made a pragmatic decision to buy the property.
“Christiania has offered to buy it,” said Risenga Manghezi, a spokesman for the community. “But Christiania doesn’t want to own it.”

To resolve the contradiction, Mr. Manghezi and a handful of others decided to start selling shares in Christiania. Pieces of paper, hand-printed on site, the shares can be had for amounts from $3.50 to $1,750. Shareholders are entitled to a symbolic sense of ownership in Christiania and the promise of an invitation to a planned annual shareholder party. “Christiania belongs to everyone,” Mr. Manghezi said. “We’re trying to put ownership in an abstract form.”

Since the shares were first offered in the fall, about $1.25 million worth have been sold in Denmark and abroad. The money raised will go toward the purchase of the land from the government.

Justifying the transaction still takes some artful semantic twists. “According to their system, you are not an owner of a house, you’re a user of the house,” explained Knud Foldschack, the lawyer for the community who negotiated the purchase. “You don’t own the area, you care take the area.”

But after a rocky decade under a conservative-led government, during which the carless, hashish-friendly community faced threats of expulsion and a Supreme Court ruling that said the squatters had no legal right to remain on the land, the residents made a pragmatic decision to buy the property — or, as many would have it, to “buy it free.”

“People were afraid, and we had to respect this fear,” said Allan Lausten, a handyman who took part in the negotiations despite an aversion to bureaucrats.

The Danish state made it easy, too. Not only did officials offer to sell the land for about $14.5 million, a fraction of what it would be worth if sold commercially, but they also made several provisions to accommodate the Christianites’ way of life.

One sticking point was how to negotiate with a group run by consensus democracy, where a decision is made only if everyone who shows up at a meeting agrees. “Their system of government is very difficult to deal with from the perspective of the state,” said Carsten Jarlov, director of the Danish State Building Agency, who first began working on the deal in 2004. “What do you do with all these meetings, where everyone has a say and no one is responsible?”

The solution was to create a foundation, with a board made up of five residents and six outsiders, to act as owners on behalf of the Christianites.

Because it can be difficult for people who reject basic tenets of capitalism to get a loan, the Danish state also guaranteed the bank loan. Further, Danish officials stipulated that the land must remain open to the public. Lastly, any profit from the sale of the land or buildings would immediately revert to the state. “This is a nonprofit zone,” said Mr. Foldschack, who called the deal “fantastic” and its eight-year evolution “Buddhistic.”

Mr. Jarlov said the decision had broad-based political support. “Danish public opinion is very ambivalent, when it comes to Christiania,” he added. “If you ask if there should be space for Christiania in society, they say, ‘Yes, we love it!’ But if you say, ‘Is it a good idea to take over property you don’t own?’ they are against that. Every Dane has this split within himself.”

Jacob Ludvigsen, a newspaper editor who with some friends started squatting on the land the day after a fisherman told him about the unused space in 1971, welcomed the decision. “A 40-year-long conflict has been brought to an end,” said Mr. Ludvigsen, who no longer lives in Christiania but said that he carried a piece of Christiania in his heart. “This will give Christiania a real independence.”

Still, the sale makes many here uncomfortable. “I think it would have been better to remain squatters,” said a young man on Pusher Street as he sorted through a bag labeled “Outdoor Skunk.” “Pressure from the outside forces you to evolve, to stick together.”

Others point out that now the ramshackle, do-it-yourself community will have to come up with the money to pay for the land. But for many, the problem is less tangible.

“I have a feeling of sorrow that the state forced us to buy it,” said Ida Klemann, an artist who first moved to Christiania in 1971, then left to have a baby (at the time, there was no running water on the premises), before moving back in 1972. “I thought it was wonderful the Danish state was generous enough to allow this wild little thing to go on living inside itself.”

“When you say, ‘You have to buy it,’ you’re trying to throw it into normal conditions, in a way,” added Ms. Klemann, one of the progenitors of the Christiania share idea (she calls herself a “share carer”). “What do we do now? It’s not just money, but identity.”

In November, a small group traveled to the United States to promote the Christiania shares. They visited the Occupy Wall Street protest in New York, where they were greeted with cheers.

On Wall Street itself, they had less success. On a blog documenting the adventures of an anthropomorphic Christiania share — which would go on to have both an identity crisis and a love affair with a California road map — a video shows Mr. Manghezi performing on the street. “It’s not that there’s anything wrong with investing for profit,” he calls out. “It’s just so yesterday, and a little bit primitive, too!”

As a result of these efforts, the group sold two shares for $5 each on the steps of the New York Stock Exchange. But thanks to the publicity, sales here surged. “It’s a cultural difference,” Mr. Manghezi said. “We thought it was hilarious, and the Danish press thought it was hilarious, but Americans were like: ‘$10? That’s a total failure! You shouldn’t even talk about it.’ ”

“We’d like to be a speculation-free zone, an alternative to a society based on gambling and speculation,” Mr. Manghezi said. “Of course, if we have to take a loan, we will.”

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

FAIR HOUSING MEANS FAIR LENDING!

In 1968 Justice Stewart writing for a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court stated "IF CONGRESS WERE POWERLESS TO ASSURE THAT A DOLLAR IN THE HAND OF A BLACK MAN WILL PURCHASE THE SAME THING AS A DOLLAR IN THE HANDS OF A WHITE MAN ......THEN THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT [BANNING SLAVERY] MADE A PROMISE THE NATION CANNOT KEEP."
Jones v Alfred H. Mayer

Today that promise remains unfulfilled for many Americans because of the color of their skin, their race, ancestry, religion or mental or physical disability. The most important consumer purchase a person will make in their life time is buying a home. Under the Federal and California fair housing laws you have the right to be treated in an equal and impartial manner by a financial institution.

What is prohibited?

When applying for a loan, refinancing a mortgage or home equity loan no one can take the following actions for reasons of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, martial or family status or disability:
- deny a loan
- establish terms, conditions, or privileges different for the giving of a loan, for
example giving the loan only with a higher interest rate or downpayment
- charge different costs for services like making an application, doing an
appraisal, closing costs etc.
- be targeted for a loan that has fees, terms or rates that are excessively high
i.e predatory

What Should I look for?

If you experience one or more of the following you may have been discriminated against.
- Property Standards: Does the bank have standards for lending based on the maximum age or minimum property value?
- Minimum Loan Amounts: Does the bank have standards for lending based on a minimum loan amount?
- Subjective Lending Criteria: Does the bank have standards for lending based on the property being well maintained? Is the bank asking vague questions about the applicants character or insisting that the borrower have excellent credit?
- Different Terms for Loan: Does the bank have higher fees on smaller loans; require different downpayments or offer higher interest rates for loans in Hispanic or an African-American neighborhoods?
- Employment Stability: Does the bank have standards for lending based on the applicant being on the job for at least two years?
- Credit Record: Does the bank have standards for lending which excludes from the credit history regular payment of rent, utilities, doctors or the local grocer?
- Appraisal Practices: Does the bank have appraisers that make downward adjustments on the value of a home for "functional obsolescence" because it or the neighborhood is over a certain age?
- Private Mortgage Insurance: Does the bank have insurance companies that reject coverage based on some or all of the underwriting standards listed above?

The problem of predatory lending practices.

This is a problem that effects middle class families, as well as the working poor, but such practices are most especially targeted to lower income families and the elderly that don?t usually qualify for well regulated loans. Faced with a crisis like the purchase of a car, a major repair to their home, or a hospital bill, many people are forced to apply for a loan from a finance company or subprime lender.

Some of these lenders require the payment of high annual interest and points, pad closing costs, add recording fees, bogus broker fees and the like. The applicant must often buy credit life insurance, often for excessive amounts and roll all the premiums up-front to be financed as part of the loan.

The purpose of these terms is to make a lot of money. Also, it is to make sure that the person will not meet the terms of the loan. This forces the person into another round of refinancing so more fees and charges can be assessed until the home is foreclosed on and the borrower?s credit is completely ruined.

Find out your credit score.

The most important information to get a mortgage is your credit score. Score a 750 and your excellent credit history will likely make your dream home a reality. Rate a 525 or lower and your only hope will be a subprime lender or finance company. Until recently, this credit scoring system was a secret. However, now for a small fee, Fair, Issac & Company and Equifax Credit Information Services will provide you your score, information on how it was arrived at and things you can do to improve it. If you want to get your credit score go to their web site (www.myfico.com) or write Equifax Credit Information Services at P.O. Box 70241, Atlanta, Ga. 30324.

Where can you get help?

Often, the only way you can find out if your a victim of housing discrimination or predatory lending is to contact your local Fair Housing enforcement agency and request that they investigate a particular lender and their loan officers.

For people with a disability, the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) also has made a telephone number free of charge for the hearing impaired (1-800-927-9275), also interpreters, tapes, Braille materials and assistance reading and completing the forms. HUD?s web site also has information about filing a complaint (www.hud.gov)

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Judge Rejects Napa Housing Element Challenge

From the Napa Register, by James Noonan June 7, 2011
______________________________

Napa County has earned a likely victory in a lawsuit challenging its housing plan.

On Thursday, Napa County Superior Court Judge Ray Guadagni tentatively ruled that the county’s Housing Element — a long-term planning document — met the requirements of state law.

In his 2009 lawsuit, attorney David Grabill, representing Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y Solano, had asked that the court force the county to revise the document, claiming that it didn’t go far enough to provide housing to low-income residents in the unincorporated area.

On Monday, following the ruling, attorneys for both sides were back in court for additional arguments before Guadagni rules whether or not to make the tentative ruling a permanent one.

Guadagni could issue a decision as early as this week.

Grabill, on behalf of Latinos Unidos, first filed suit against the county in November 2009.

Much of Grabill’s complaint focused on the county’s housing plan, adopted by the Napa County Board of Supervisors in June 2009.

The plan provides for affordable housing at Spanish Flat, Moskowite Corner and Angwin as well as 20 acres, or about 300 units, at the former Napa Pipe site where developers are proposing a 2,580-home mixed-use development.

Three months after being approved by the board, the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development rejected the county’s housing plan, saying it was unlikely that affordable development would take place at the Spanish Flat, Moskowite Corner or Angwin sites.

Grabill filed suit shortly after, agreeing with the state’s assessment of the three unincorporated sites. “We think they’re totally infeasible for affordable housing,” he said.

While recognizing that the state had reached an opposite conclusion a year ago, Guadagni wrote that the sites in question satisfied the county’s obligation to plan for future housing.

“The court appropriately exercises its independent judgment in interpreting the relevant statute and concludes that the county’s identification of Angwin and Spanish Flat satisfied the requirement of deemed appropriate densities,” he wrote.

“We have not yet begun to fight,” Grabill said Monday.

In their lawsuit, Latinos Unidos is also claiming that a county ordinance offering a “density bonus” is invalid, and that the county has historically discriminated against low-income housing.

Grabill said he is seeking no monetary damages. He only hopes to see more low-income and farmworker housing constructed throughout the county.

The two sides will be back in court in mid-August to begin arguments on the remaining points of the lawsuit.

In past years, Latinos Unidos has successfully altered the course of county housing plans.

In 2003, the group filed a similar lawsuit that ultimately forced the county into costly housing deals with the cities of Napa and American Canyon.

Late last year, the group sued the developers of the proposed St. Regis luxury resort in the city of Napa, saying that the luxury project didn’t do enough to promote affordable housing. The suit was settled, with the developer agreeing to pay more than $4.4 million into the city’s housing fund once development starts.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

New maps show segregation alive and well | Remapping Debate

Why are so many people so nervous about having neighbors who are different from themselves? Different color, different income, different age, different religion, etc?

New maps show segregation alive and well | Remapping Debate

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Santa Rosa Rejects Affordable Housing

The Santa Rosa City Council overturned the Planning Commission's approval of the EIR for the Elnoka affordable housing project on Tuesday (3/29/11). This well-designed project would provide 41 units of much-needed lower income housing and 20 or more units of moderate income housing. The Housing Advocacy Group urged the Council to reject the appeal by an association representing a neighboring single-family seniors development. The Association complained that the project would block their views, and create bothersome noises from families living next door. Click here for a news article about the public hearing. The site was listed in the city's general plan is available for higher density multifamily housing as a result of a lawsuit settlement agreement between HAG and the City in 2002. We're looking into ways we can make the city abide by there agreement. Stay tuned.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Help: SR City Council to Hear Nimby Appeal of Elnoka Approval on Tuesday, March 8

 
The EIR for the proposed 206-unit Elnoka development on Sonoma Highway just west of Oakmont was approved 6-1 by the Santa Rosa Planning Commission. Some residents of Oakmont have appealed that approval to the City Council. A public hearing is set for next Tuesday, March 8, at 5 pm on the appeal.

The developer, Oakmont Senior Living, has committed to make 20% of the units affordable to very low income households, and an additional 10% of the units affordable to moderate income households. This is  an unprecedented affordable housing commitment  by a market rate developer in Sonoma County. HAG has strongly supported the development. It is well-designed, economically integrated, and near shopping (Safeway / St. Francis), schools (Whited Elementary, Maria Carrillo HS), and public transit. The site is designated for multifamily development in the City's housing element. it will also serve as an example of what a developer can accomplish in terms of integrating affordable housing in a market rate development (at no cost to the city or to taxpayers). If this project succeeds, we hope other developers will follow its lead.

The opponents claim it will create more traffic, noise, and reduce air quality. but the EIR finds that all of these claimed impacts would be less than significant. In previous public hearings, opponents who live in Oakmont have asserted that the project should be restricted to seniors, because seniors live across the fence in Oakmont. Some said the noise from children playing in the streets in the project would be bothersome to them. We hope the City Council will not give much weight to these kinds of objections. The City badly needs affordable housing in general, and especially in this area which is heavily "segregated" with high end single-family homes at Oakmont, Skyhawk and Bennett Valley. Normally, this would be a "no brainer" but it's a big issue at Oakmont, and those folks tend to vote as a block. Here's an ad that ran in the Oakmont paper a couple years ago:

Oakmont Anti HAG Ad.jpg

Some of these "vote for" folks are now on the Council, along with their allies Jake Ours and Scot Bartley. Most of those candidates that HAG endorsed are not on the Council (note: Michael Allen lives at Oakmont). The Oakmont NIMBY's have turned out in great numbers to oppose the project  at previous public hearings. So we hope that some folks concerned about affordable housing can attend on Tuesday and speak in favor of this very worthwhile project.  

Dick Latimer has written a wonderful article supporting the project that ran in today's Kenwood Press. CLICK HERE to read it.  Thanks, Dick.

Give me a call or send me an e-mail if you have any questions.

David Grabill  
707 528 6839

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Squatters

fyi ... from BeyondChron: San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily News » A Multi-Story Underground: Squatters in the United St

____________________


A Multi-Story Underground: Squatters in the United States
by Hannah E. Dobbz‚ Feb. 23‚ 2011

Matt Bruce is a magician. By this, I mean that he literally works kids’ parties for money and entertains friends with sorcery in his spare time. His room is bursting with occult paraphernalia and he has countless tricks up his sleeve. But Matt Bruce is no one-trick pony; he knows more than how to manipulate a deck of cards and how to have a quarter crop up behind your ear: Matt Bruce knows how to make rent bills disappear.

Bruce and his friends haven’t paid to live in their bungalow home in Salt Lake City, Utah, in over three years. How do they do it? While most magicians don’t reveal their secrets, Bruce is notably open about his illegal living situation. Squatting is not a new form of rent evasion, but it is an increasingly practiced one – and in light of the so-called “housing crisis” of the late 2000s, squatters are increasingly comfortable discussing their lifestyles.

He summed up their ability to maintain the property with the words of a city worker who learned of the squatters a few months after they moved in: “If you don’t say anything, I won’t say anything. You took the eyesore out of the neighborhood.”

Indeed, the rundown property that had once attracted drug addicts and other unseemly types by its ramshackle appearance now glows with life. The mere presence of the new caretakers drove away the seedy elements, and the small gesture of taking the boards off the windows spoke volumes for the mood of the property.

It is for this reason that squatting has become a popular discussion topic in a post–housing-bubble era. With 14 percent of living units in the United States vacant at the end of 2010, many people are questioning the logic of the real estate market, and some are bucking the system by occupying vacant but usable properties. Families and individuals who can no longer afford the high cost of living, then, are able to find homes in houses that are sometimes in better condition than rental properties. And neighbors often turn a blind eye to the illegality of the squatters’ methods since the move-in can actually increase the value of formerly unoccupied properties.

In this way, squatting in the United States is taking on more European overtones. Europe is famous for its squatting history, with its grandiose stories of squatted night clubs in England and squatted castles in Spain. Some countries enjoy what are often called “open” squatting laws, which encourage squatters to openly occupy abandoned buildings. Amsterdam, for example, is known for its comically straight-forward requirement of a chair, a table, and a bed in a squatted building for 48 hours to constitute a legal property transfer. In these situations, neighbors are often supportive. After all, abandoned properties are a symptom of a broken property system. Why not address it?

More recently, some European countries have begun tightening their formerly lax squatting rules, which some read as a slipping away of what was once part of a powerful cultural history. But while a legislative shift is happening now overseas, a cultural shift is beginning here in the States.

Rich countries such as the United States are accustomed to surplus. Just as consumers enjoy a surplus of food, clothes, and plastic trinkets in the U.S., they similarly enjoy a surplus of real estate. Even beyond the housing-bubble burst, developers continue to build new living units despite a surfeit of old ones. This is where the term “housing crisis” is farcical at best and downright inaccurate at worst. The term “crisis” implies a shortage -- an idea that Americans are rarely familiar with; instead, the American poor are victimized by a maldistribution of resources.

While there has never been a shortage of space in the United States, Americans have historically deluded themselves into a state of spatial urgency, moving further West and always developing more for fear of a shortage.

The same can be said of the “housing crisis” that began in late 2007: The most famous example of a wide housing gap is that of Miami, Fl., which was supposedly hit hardest by the economic implosion. But Miami had a 10-percent vacancy rate in affordable and public housing even before the alleged crisis. Further, the city had demolished 482 units of public housing, and, despite $8.5 million of city money allocated to the rebuilding of affordable units, the lot remained vacant until it was later offered to developers at no charge.

Such shenanigans inspired the Miami Herald’s “House of Lies” series, which highlights the corruption and incompetency of city politicians with regard to housing, as well as the well-known organized-squatting movement Take Back the Land.

But squatting was not born of the housing bust: Squatting has a long history in the United States, beginning with colonization, extending through Western Expansion land grants and land boom legislation, homesteading, and into modern housing justice movements like that of ACORN and Homes Not Jails. If nothing else, squatters have historically catalyzed property legislation reform by attacking with two prongs: (1) garnering public support by calling attention to the basic right to personal space and shelter, and (2) becoming such a nuisance to property managers, speculators, and law enforcement that legislators are compelled to create other options.

Unfortunately, little information is broadly available about squatters and squatting. Here and there is mention of them in historical texts, and during the height of the foreclosure crisis articles about down-and-out families cascaded into the news and then quickly evaporated. Perhaps this information firewall is in the nature of American squatting, which remains clandestine; like the tunnel dwellers of New York City and Las Vegas, squatting movements live underground. And while this invisibility is not unintentional, as squatting is indeed an illicit lifestyle, it is squatters’ invisibility that siphons their power and cripples their political sway.

When squatters and other property outlaws can again unite, organize, and step into the limelight to publicly demand housing justice (as they historically have), we may see surprising changes in the legal framework of our predatory property system. Many revolutions begin underground. But none of them can stay there for long.

Hannah Dobbz is the director of the documentary film Shelter: A Squatumentary. She is currently researching and writing a book [AK Press] on the history of squatting, land struggles, and property law in the United States. To view her Kickstarter page or to support her work, please visit: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1578702306/the-history-and-future-of-squatting-in-the-us-the

Thursday, February 10, 2011

To improve outcomes for poor kids, let them move to the suburbs

By Robert C. Embry Jr.
Baltimore Sun
3:06 PM EST, February 9, 2011

One of the most important recent pieces of education research was released last year — and promptly ignored. The Century Foundation's report "Housing Policy is School Policy" confirms the seminal 1966 finding of Johns Hopkins University sociologist James Coleman: Namely, the school-based variable that most profoundly affects student performance is the socioeconomic composition of the school. In short, poor children do better if they attend schools with affluent children.

The "new" news in the report? It highlights the critical out-of-school influence of where the low-income children reside. Poor children attending an affluent school do even better, it turns out, if they also live in an affluent neighborhood.

In this study, researcher Heather Schwartz examines the impact of Montgomery County's economically integrated housing policies on the academic success of low-income families who live in federally subsidized public housing scattered throughout the county. Families were randomly assigned by the county's public housing authority to both affluent and relatively non-affluent neighborhoods.

The findings: Children who lived in neighborhoods where less than 20 percent of the neighborhood's elementary school's population was poor significantly outperformed similar low-income children who lived in neighborhoods with public schools that had more than 35 percent of students in poverty. In fact, poor children in the low-poverty schools were able to close the achievement gap with their wealthier suburban peers by 50 percent in math and one-third in reading. This was true even though the group of poorer schools received additional funding to implement the more traditional remedial programs to address the academic challenges of low-income students.

A wide body of research over the past three decades has documented the educational benefits of moving from high-poverty to low-poverty neighborhoods. Research on the remedy in the landmark 1976 Supreme Court housing decision in Hills v. Gautreaux demonstrated that children whose families moved from public housing and other inner-city Chicago neighborhoods to racially and economically integrated suburban neighborhoods were far more likely to succeed in school and go on to college or full-time employment than children whose families stayed in Chicago.

The key finding of this cumulative research is that the combination of living in a low-poverty neighborhood and attending a low-poverty school impacts educational performance of poor children more than traditional reforms and increased funding.

If the socioeconomic composition of the neighborhood and the school are so critical to the educational success of poor children, why have these factors been neglected in the federal Department of Education's reform agenda? Why is this remedy generally ignored in lawsuits attempting to obtain an adequate education for poor children? Why can one look in vain at state and local school board meetings to find any mention of the subject?

One reason is that, to date, there has been no legal compulsion to do so.

A second reason is the long-standing hostility of suburban jurisdictions that routinely oppose any efforts to economically integrate their low-poverty schools, even in small increments.

And finally, there is a shortage of affordable housing units in the affluent neighborhoods that would yield the biggest educational difference.

Given all that, if one agrees with the research on the positive impact of neighborhood and school economic integration, what might be done for Baltimore's poorest families?

One potential scenario: Maryland could enact legislation to permit state education aid to Baltimore City to be used as a rent certificate for families of poor children in failing schools to move to low-poverty neighborhoods in other school districts. It is of interest to note that the Maryland's state aid to Baltimore City schools is $12,191 per pupil, roughly the net cost of a rent subsidy needed to permit an urban family living in concentrated poverty to move to a low-poverty, suburban neighborhood.

Such a shift would give low-income children access to low-poverty schools on a voluntary basis, with the added benefits of living in the same community as their more affluent classmates. The good news is that there are at least 88 public schools in the counties surrounding Baltimore City that would qualify as potential sites, with less than 20 percent of children in poverty.

Clearly, there are many obstacles to accessing the opportunities posed by integrative housing and schools for our poorest families. Yet the research is persuasive: The answer to how to close the achievement gap between poor and rich kids may not be in the debates about class size, math curricula, and other school-based reforms, but in the state's facilitating the enrollment of low-income children in low-poverty schools and housing their families in low-poverty neighborhoods.

Now we must decide whether we continue to ignore the implications of this evidence or choose to find solutions that facilitate greater socioeconomic integration of low-income children.

Robert C. Embry Jr., president of the Abell Foundation, is a former member of the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City and former president of the Maryland State Board of Education. His e-mail is embry@abell.org.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

NYT: Happy Endig to Foreclosure Tale

BUSINESS DAY | December 04, 2010
Talking Business: A Happy Ending to a Raw, but Common, Tale
By JOE NOCERA
Lilla Roberts fell behind on her mortgage for a while over a paying history of around 20 years. But her modification was so sloppily handled, she could have lost her home.