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, February 5, 2012
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)
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.
______________________________
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
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:
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
____________________
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
