Showing posts with label Concentration of Affordable Housing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Concentration of Affordable Housing. Show all posts

Sunday, March 24, 2019

The Three Fishes

Once, three fishes lived in a pond. One evening, some fishermen passed by the pond and saw the fishes. 'This pond is full of fish', they told each other excitedly. 'We have never fished here before. We must come back tomorrow morning with our nets and catch these fish!' So saying, the fishermen left.

When the eldest of the three fishes heard this, he was troubled. He called the other fishes together and said, 'Did you hear what the fishermen said? We must leave this pond at once. The fishermen will return tomorrow and kill us all!'First fish
Second fishThe second of the three fishes agreed. 'You are right', he said. 'We must leave the pond.'


Third fish
But the youngest fish laughed. 'You are worrying without reason', he said. 'We have lived in this pond all our lives, and no fisherman has ever come here. Why should these men return? I am not going anywhere - my luck will keep me safe.'

The eldest of the fishes left the pond that very evening with his entire family. The second fish saw the fishermen coming in the distance early next morning and left the pond at once with all his family. The third fish refused to leave even then.

The fishermen arrived and caught all the fish left in the pond. The third fish's luck did not help him - he too was caught and killed.

The fish who saw trouble ahead and acted before it arrived as well as the fish who acted as soon as it came both survived. But the fish who relied only on luck and did nothing at all died. So also in life.

Sunday, December 16, 2018

Fable: THE SHEEP AND THE PIG

ONE day a shepherd discovered a fat Pig in the meadow where his Sheep were pastured. He very quickly captured the porker, which squealed at the top of its voice the moment the Shepherd laid his hands on it. You would have thought, to hear the loud squealing, that the Pig was being cruelly hurt. But in spite of its squeals and struggles to escape, the Shepherd tucked his prize under his arm and started off to the butcher's in the market place.

The Sheep in the pasture were much astonished and amused at the Pig's behavior, and followed the Shepherd and his charge to the pasture gate.

"What makes you squeal like that?" asked one of the Sheep. "The Shepherd often catches and carries off one of us. But we should feel very much ashamed to make such a terrible fuss about it like you do."

THE SHEEP AND THE PIG

"That is all very well," replied the Pig, with a squeal and a frantic kick. "When he catches you he is only after your wool. But he wants my bacon! gree-ee-ee !"
It is easy to be brave when there is no danger.

Sunday, May 27, 2018

Apartments coming to a neighborhood near you in Marinwood/ Lucas Valley/Terra Linda

Editor's Note: The fight for sensible land use is being fought in Seattle too. Like Marin, zealous planners, politicians and housing advocates are rezoning neighborhoods for affordable housing, micro apartments and the conversion of single family neighborhoods into multifamily apartment blocks. This is the idea behind the Priority Development Area in Marinwood and the rest of the 101 corridor. This is the future of Marinwood if they get their way and pass SB-1. It will allow redevelopment ANYWHERE without a declaration of blight.

The Fight Against Small Apartments

Why Neighborhood Groups Are Uniting to Stop Developers from Building Tiny, Affordable Units

KELLY O

In May of 2009, a rumor was floating around City Hall. Homeowners on Capitol Hill were furious about a construction project. So one sunny afternoon, while workers hammered nails into a few unfinished buildings near 23rd Avenue and East John Street, I went knocking on doors to find out what the problem was.
One neighbor was Alan Gossett. Gossett was trying to sell his blue Craftsman house, which shared an alley with the new development. Standing on the corner of his rear deck, Gossett pointed through the trees to the half-built structure and said, "I think this is going to be a magnet for very sketchy people."
Why sketchy?
According to permitting paperwork, the building was a commonplace cluster of six town houses—the sort that would typically attract well-to-do buyers. But inside each town house, the developer was building up to eight tiny units (about 150 to 250 square feet each, roughly the size of a carport) to be rented out separately. The tenants would each have a private bathroom and kitchenette, with a sink and microwave, but they would share one full kitchen for every eight residents. The rent would be cheap—starting at $500 a month, including all utilities and Wi-Fi—making this essentially affordable housing in the heart of the city. And, remarkably, for affordable housing, it was built without any subsidies from the city's housing levy. But Gossett was bracing for 46 low-income renters in the space where he'd been expecting six new homeowners instead.
Gossett and other neighbors felt hoodwinked, they told me.
There was no public notification and no review process that allowed neighbors to pose objections. This was due to a loophole in the permits: The city and developers classified the building as six units (with up to eight bedrooms each), instead of as an apartment building with dozens of units, which would have required a more public process. Neighbors said they feared that the area wasn't ready for so many new residents and that the influx of newcomers would usurp on-street parking. But Gossett also seemed concerned by who his new neighbors might be.
"Anyone who can scrape up enough money to live month-to-month can live there," he said, worried that low-income interlopers would jeopardize his chances to sell his own house. "I don't think most people want to live next to a boarding house with itinerant people living in it."

Sunday, December 3, 2017

Residents live in filth, fear in mismanaged Bay Area public housing

Residents live in filth, fear in mismanaged Bay Area public housing see Center for Investigative Reporting

Editor's Note: The New HUD financed affordable housing in Marinwood like the proposed Marinwood Village will import out of county residents from East Bay Cities to fill them just like Hamilton's Bay Vista and Wyndover projects. Marinwood-Lucas Valley has been given 70% of all affordable housing in the 2012 Housing Element for unincorporated Marin. Supervisor Susan Adams was a prime advocate of placing housing here.
For months, Geneva Eaton woke to handfuls of half-dead mice wriggling in her glue traps.

Credit: Lacy Atkins/San Francisco Chronicle

There were at least 16 life-threatening health and safety violations at the five public housing projects managed by the housing authority, according to the two most recent years of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development reports. Seniors and disabled residents lived amid exposed wiring and missing smoke detectors and fire alarms. Most well-kempt housing projects don’t have these major health and safety violations, HUD says.
Nearly 1 in 5 apartments in the Hacienda and Nevin Plaza complexes are infested with insects and cockroaches, inspection records show.
Then there are the indignities that don’t show up in formal government reports: A woman with no legs giving herself sponge baths from her bathroom sink because maintenance workers didn’t install a simple safety bar in her shower. The fire department rescuing a paralyzed veteran from his third-floor apartment because the elevators didn’t work for three days. A disabled man who watched in horror for nearly a month as raw sewage slowly dripped from the neighbor’s bathroom upstairs.
Residents say their pleas for basic maintenance are ignored by officials paid to provide services to the poor.
CIR also found a number of cases in which housing authority workers claimed in official documents to have fixed problems. But they hadn’t.
“It’s just continual chaos here,” said Everett Dennis Lewis, a disabled resident of Hacienda. “The housing authority doesn’t give a crap.”
There are 4,055 public housing agencies in the United States, all overseen by HUD. Last year, the federal government labeled 44 as “troubled” – housing authorities that had such severe problems with their finances, management or living conditions that the government was on the brink of shutting them down.
Richmond was one of them.
In the most recent federal assessment reports, released in 2013, Richmond received a score of 47 out of 100, one of the lowest rankings in the country. It received failing marks for running up debt and failing to track its finances. Its executive director was deemed ineffective.
Richmond managed to receive a passing grade for the condition of most of its apartments. For the most part, the projects in Richmond aren’t as dilapidated as those in Detroit and New Orleans. But the breakdown in finances and leadership manifests itself daily at Richmond’s two largest – and worst – complexes as residents struggle with rodents, filth and security problems.
“They are a dysfunctional organization,” said Gerard Windt, division director of the HUD office that oversees Richmond.
The Richmond Housing Authority got $26 million in 2013 from the federal government to provide safe and decent housing for the needy. Richmond has 715 units of public housing for the poor, elderly and disabled. It also gives out Section 8 vouchers to subsidize rent for an additional 1,750 residents on the private market.
Residents who end up in Richmond’s public housing are predominantly old or disabled African Americans. More than three-quarters of them make less than 30 percent of Contra Costa County’s median income, or $18,750 a year, according to HUD. Many of them used to have jobs as grocery baggers, janitors and food service workers until they got old or sick. Some lived on the streets, and others struggle with addiction.
Residents don’t get their apartments for free. Almost 90 percent pay between $200 and $500 a month in rent, according to HUD. Eaton pays $262 a month to the housing authority.
The authority’s executive director, Tim Jones, said he’s “running an operation on life support.” He blamed years of budget cuts from the federal government for the problems plaguing the housing authority and insisted that the agency is on the road to recovery. He said the problems come down to money.
All 4,000-plus housing authorities across America face these same slashed budgets. About 1 percent of those agencies find themselves on HUD’s troubled list.
Maintenance complaints neglected
When Juanita Hasnat moved into Nevin Plaza in 2011, the housing authority knew she was disabled. But her apartment didn’t have a simple disabled access fixture: a safety bar in the bathtub.
Hasnat told the housing authority about the oversight, thinking it would be a quick fix. But

Sunday, December 4, 2016

The San Francisco Exodus

The San Francisco Exodus  


My friends keep moving to Oakland. Gone from San Francisco for greener pastures and cheaper rents, because it’s just gotten too hard, by which I really mean too expensive. Their move signals that something has gone terribly wrong in this most progressive of American cities.

In some ways, we came by the problem innocently. San Francisco had the good fortune to be one of the very few 19th century industrial cities to successfully make the transition to a new, post-industrial economic base. It wasn’t just bohemians who set up shop here—all kinds of entrepreneurs and creative business people decided to call San Francisco home. As wave after wave of older industrial jobs moved out of town, new types of work were created to replace them.

At the same time, San Francisco was a great place to live. Partly from historical inheritance and partly from the work of activists who chose to make the city the focus of their activism, the city remained a walkable, urban paradise compared to most of America.



A great quality of life and a lot of high-paying professional jobs meant that a lot of people wanted to live here. And they still do.

But the city did not allow its housing supply to keep up with demand. San Francisco was down-zoned (that is, the density of housing or permitted expansion of construction was reduced) to protect the "character" that people loved. It created the most byzantine planning process of any major city in the country. Many outspoken citizens did—and continue to do—everything possible to fight new high-density development or, as they saw it, protecting the city from undesirable change.

Unfortunately, it worked: the city was largely "protected" from change. But in so doing, we put out fire with gasoline. Over the past two decades, San Francisco has produced an average of 1,500 new housing units per year. Compare this with Seattle (another 19th century industrial city that now has a tech economy), which has produced about 3,000 units per year over the same time period (and remember it's starting from a smaller overall population base). While Seattle decided to embrace infill development as a way to save open space at the edge of its region and put more people in neighborhoods where they could walk, San Francisco decided to push regional population growth somewhere else.

Whatever the merits of this strategy might be in terms of preserving the historic fabric of the city, it very clearly accelerated the rise in housing prices. As more people move to the Bay Area, the demand for housing continues to increase far faster than supply.

There’s a lot of housing under construction now, and for the next couple of years, we’ll see more built. But a few years of strong housing production, building out neighborhood plans that the city has worked on for the last two decades, is going to be too little, too late to undo the larger trend. Absent any transformative approaches, new housing construction is likely to return to its normally low levels after the current round of building is finished.

Railing against Google buses, fancy restaurants or new condos—the visible signs of gentrification—will do nothing to stop San Francisco from becoming more expensive. These are not causes of the rising rents; they are symptoms. The root cause is that many people have chosen to live in San Francisco, and we are now all

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan's remarks on HUD fair housing goals



Prepared Remarks of Secretary Shaun Donovan Before the NAACP’s 104th Annual Convention
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Orlando, Florida


As prepared for delivery

Thank you, Hilary (Shelton), for that kind introduction, and for your great work as Director of the Washington Bureau.

Please allow me to also thank your President and CEO, Ben Jealous; your Chairwoman, Roslyn Brock; your Vice Chairman, Leon Russell; and all of the NAACP leadership for their distinguished service.

I also want to thank the organizers who decided to have me speak before Secretary Sebelius and Attorney General Holder.  Both of them are dynamic and tough acts to follow.  It is a pleasure to work with them to advance President Obama’s agenda.  And I am proud to call them both friends and colleagues.

Finally, I want to thank all of you here at the NAACP’s 104th Annual Convention for all your work to shape a fairer and stronger America.  For more than a century, this organization has been a champion of change, fighting to bring our nation closer to the ideals that it preached.

All of us at HUD have been proud to work with you during President Obama’s first term.  And I appreciate this chance to talk about what we can do in this second term to build on this progress.

Building Ladders of Opportunity

We come together today at an important moment in our nation’s history.  Under the President’s leadership, our economy is continuing to recover from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

We have had 40 consecutive months of private sector growth, resulting in 7.2 million new jobs. And families across the country are turning the page on this incredibly painful chapter in their lives.
But let me be clear – all of us in the Administration are not content.  We don’t just want to recover and go back to the way things were in 2005 and 2006.

That’s because, even in those so-called good times, the American Dream wasn’t within equal reach of all communities.  Those occupying the executive suites and boardrooms didn’t reflect the diversity of America.

Neither did the entrepreneurs able to access capital for their businesses.  Neither did the young people who were able to study in the best schools.  Neither did the families who had access to healthcare.  And neither did those living in the strongest neighborhoods.

In other words, rebuilding America back to the way things were simply isn’t good enough.
Instead, we have got to shape a future where ladders of opportunity are available for all Americans.

As you know better than anyone, for African Americans, this is critically important.  Historically, for this community, the rungs on these ladders have been too far apart – making it harder to reach the middle class.

And all of us are here today to say no more.  As part of this effort, HUD has put forth an ambitious agenda to put an end to these disparities.

Specifically, we are adding rungs on the ladder of opportunity by:
• stepping up fair housing enforcement;
• ensuring that all Americans have access to homeownership and can keep it; and
• helping the hardest hit communities rebuild stronger than ever before. 

The First Rung: Fair Housing Enforcement

All of this work has long been a part of HUD’s mission.  In the area of enforcement – we administer the Fair Housing Act.  Passed in 1968—shortly after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King—the bill was an important milestone in our nation’s history.

It boldly declared that every person has the right to live wherever he or she chooses.  And all of us at HUD work tirelessly to ensure that this law in our books is a reality in our communities by fighting housing discrimination – whenever and wherever it exists.

During my tenure, I’ve pushed HUD to be more engaged and proactive.  For example, in 2011 alone, HUD charged more cases than it had in the previous decade – and with 25% fewer fair housing staff.

And in total, over the past three years, HUD’s investigative efforts have resulted in more than $65 million in compensation for more than 25,000 individuals that were allegedly subjected to housing discrimination.


And let me be clear: we are not satisfied.  That’s why I want to send a message to all those outside these doors. There are no stones we won’t turn.  There are no places we won’t go. And there are no complaints we won’t explore in order to eliminate housing discrimination. 

Period. 

And part of the reason we’ve been active like never before is because the nature of discrimination has changed over the years.  While blatant, “in your face”, discrimination is still very real today – a quieter form of discrimination has emerged that is just as harmful to our country.

This was a key finding of a HUD report released on June 11th on Housing Discrimination Against Racial and Ethnic Minorities.  It found that after an initial showing – real estate agents and rental housing providers recommend and show fewer available homes to minority families than equally qualified whites.

In the rental market, for example, African Americans learned about 11% fewer available units.
And when it came to purchases, Black homebuyers learned about 17% fewer homes.
Bottom line: people are being denied their freedom of choice and the benefits of full citizenship.  
Yet because of the subtle nature of this discrimination, often times, they don’t even know they have been subjected to this abuse.

That’s why HUD is enhancing its enforcement techniques by initiating investigations on our own without waiting for individuals to file complaints.  We have more than tripled the number of Secretary-initiated complaints that we have filed since 2008.  And in the larger picture—recognizing that discrimination is changing—we are changing our approach to Fair Housing by bringing it into the 21st century. 

Today, it’s about more than just addressing outright discrimination and access to the housing itself.  It’s also about giving every community access to important neighborhood amenities that can make a tremendous difference in a person’s life outcome.

I’m talking about good schools, safe streets, jobs, grocery stores, healthcare and a host of other important factors.  To help families gain this access – HUD is working to strengthen our stewardship of federal dollars to maximize the impact they have on communities in advancing fair housing goals. 

As all of you know, HUD’s programs provide funding to partners at the state and local level.  As part of the Fair Housing Act—for members of the protected classes—these partners have an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing opportunities – otherwise known as AFFH.
But as you and many others, including the Government Accountability Office, have noted, this has proven largely to be a meaningless paper exercise without any teeth.  The process has long been broken and we’re determined to fix it and help it reach its full promise.

That’s why I am proud to announce that this week we will publish a new rule to bring affirmatively further fair housing into the 21st century.  This rule focuses on the traditional tenets of discrimination – and also gets at the essential issues of access to opportunity so imperative to 21st century equity.

Specifically, this new rule will:
• provide a clear definition of what it means to affirmatively further fair housing;
• outline a standard framework with well-defined parameters; and
• offer targeted guidance and assistance to help grantees complete this assessment.

Perhaps most important—for the first time ever—HUD is providing data for every neighborhood in the nation, detailing what access African American families, and other members of protected classes, have to the community assets I talked about earlier –  including jobs, schools and transit.

With this data and the improved AFFH process, we can expand access to high opportunity neighborhoods and draw attention to investment possibilities in underserved communities. 

Make no mistake: this is a big deal.  With the HUD budget alone, we are talking about billions of dollars.  And as you know, decades ago, these funds were used to support discrimination. Now, they will be used to expand opportunity and bring communities closer to the American Dream.

This rule change is something the NAACP has long called for.  And when you’ve spoken, we’ve listened.  We have been proud to work with stakeholders like you every step of the way.  And we will continue to in order to strengthen this work in the months and years ahead to bring Fair Housing into the 21st century.

The Second Rung: Access and Protection of Homeownership.

And to complement this work, we are also working to ensure that families have access to homeownership – and can keep it.  This is a key rung in the ladder to opportunity.  After all, a home purchase often represents a family’s biggest economic investment, serving as a foundation for wealth-building.

It can help a child go to college, a family to start a business or an elderly person to retire in comfort and with dignity.  So homeownership has long been part of the American Dream. Unfortunately, for many families during the crisis – that Dream turned into a nightmare.

A study from Pew found that from 2005-2009, the median household wealth of African Americans fell 53%.  Think about that: more than half of African American wealth wiped out in just the four years before President Obama took office.

We cannot have a healthy America if communities of color are hurting.  That’s why HUD has been working to repair the damage to protect homeownership and help families rebuild their wealth.
In 2009, we launched the Making Home Affordable Program to provide relief to those at risk of foreclosure – helping nearly 1.1 million homeowners receive a permanent modification to their mortgages.

In addition, over the last four years, HUD-approved housing counselors have helped more than nine-million families deal with the financial crisis.

And as part of the National Mortgage Servicing Settlement the Obama administration negotiated with a bi-partisan group of 49 State Attorneys General –more than $50 billion in direct relief has been sent to over 620,000 homeowners as of the end of March.

This relief includes more than 310,000 trial or completed principal reductions – meaning that families have seen their outstanding loan balance permanently reduced to make monthly payments affordable, helping struggling homeowners get back above water.
This work has helped so many turn the page on this painful period in their lives.  And it is making a difference.  Since the beginning of 2012, almost two and a half trillion dollars in home equity has been restored.

But repairing the damage isn’t enough.  We are also working to ensure that a crisis of this magnitude never happens again by holding the banks accountable for what they did.  We all know that a lot of lenders acted recklessly when issuing loans before the housing collapse. And even after the loans were issued, many continued to turn their backs on responsible families.

That’s why as part of the Mortgage Settlement, we set out a series of reforms to ensure that our nation’s five largest banks don’t continue to wreak havoc in our neighborhoods.  Recently, the Settlement’s Independent Monitor, Joe Smith, released a compliance report showing that they have made some progress – including the end of robo-signing – a practice where banks sign off on foreclosures with little or no review.

Unfortunately, other abuses shamefully endure.  Most notably, these financial institutions consistently fail to send notices and communicate decisions to stakeholders in a timely manner. And any delay in providing help can not only cost a family their home – but also their hopes and dreams for the future.

This is unacceptable.  So last month, we put the five financial institutions officially on notice. They must correct these problems or the Obama administration, along with the bipartisan group of 49 state attorneys general, will fine them up to $5 million for each failure or haul them back into court.

As the NAACP knows better than anyone, progress requires activism from the courts to the streets to the boardrooms.  And I assure you that when it comes to pushing for progress in reforming banks – we will stay in the fight for as long as it takes to ensure that this crisis doesn’t happen again so families can stay in their homes.

Of course, keeping a family in their home is only meaningful if they can gain access to credit to buy it in the first place.  And that means strengthening our housing finance system and the Federal Housing Administration.

Over the next few months, Congress will decide if access to credit will be limited to the few … or be available to the many.  And as it considers the future of housing finance – we’ve got to make our voices heard about the need to keep FHA as a cornerstone of homeownership.
That’s because, as you all know, despite the FHA’s legacy of discrimination, in recent times, it has been critical to opening doors for low- and moderate income families.  And during the housing crisis, it helped keep the dream of homeownership alive for families by providing much needed liquidity to the nation’s mortgage finance markets.

In fact, economist Mark Zandi has said that if not for the FHA, “the housing market would have completely shut down.”  And, FHA mortgages have been essential to the African American community, accounting for 50 percent of home purchases in 2012.

Of course, like nearly all mortgage market institutions, FHA sustained significant losses due to the distress in the housing market.  But the Obama administration recognized this early on, and took swift and effective action to protect the FHA and the American taxpayer alike.
As a result, FHA is currently insuring the strongest loans in its history.  So again, I ask you to make your voices heard about the importance of this program, and the work we’ve done to secure its health far into the future so that it can continue to open the doors of homeownership to a wide-variety of qualified buyers.

Too many Americans had their dreams stolen by the housing crisis.  Don’t let Congress blame the victim and take away a rung on the ladder to opportunity.

The Third Rung: Building the Hardest-Hit Neighborhoods

Of course, as we look to the future, I know that housing is just one of the essential elements of a healthy community.  Indeed, as I said earlier, there are many factors that go into building stronger neighborhoods from the quality of their schools to the health of their local economies.

Unfortunately, in too many of our hardest hit communities—no matter how hard a child or her parents work—the life chances of that child, even her lifespan, is determined by the zip code she grows up in.

This is simply wrong.  That’s why President Obama has put forth his ladders of opportunity agenda so that every person, regardless of their zip code, can have a fair chance to succeed.

That means equipping a community with quality housing.  It also means implementing economic, educational and other important building blocks.

Recognizing this, President Obama has laid out an initiative called Promise Zones.  Under this effort, the Administration will partner with communities most impacted by the economic crisis.
Together, we will work with them to create jobs, leverage private investment, increase economic activity, improve educational opportunities and reduce violent crime.  And to do this effectively and efficiently, this is going to be a coordinated effort across the Administration.

Obviously, HUD will play a significant role in the housing piece through our Choice Neighborhoods redevelopment program, which provides local leaders with tools to turn HUD-subsidized housing from one kind of “anchor”—the kind that drags down a community—into a another kind that serves as a centerpiece of a thriving, vibrant neighborhood.

Secretary Sebelius and The Department of Health and Human Services will be ensuring that every resident has the quality healthcare they need.  Attorney General Holder and The Department of Justice will work to keep communities safe, because nobody can parent, and no child can achieve, when they live in a combat zone.

The Department of Education will be making sure that local school districts are providing the elementary and secondary education public school students deserve.  Across the Administration, we are all pitching in to make this happen.

And we do so because we know that by strengthening these communities, we will strengthen cities.  By strengthening cities, we are strengthening states and entire regions.  And all of this leads to a stronger America.

That’s why President Obama has made Promise Zones a key part of his 2014 budget.   It’s why he has committed himself to providing ladders of opportunity for all Americans.  And it’s why all of us at HUD are following his lead.  So I ask you to support the President’s and the Senate Appropriations Committee budget for HUD.

I also ask you to raise your voice and reject the House Republican Appropriations Bill that was recently unveiled which devastates HUD’s ability to serve the most vulnerable communities.
The bill would cut $3 billion from the President’s request from public housing and our other rental assistance programs – meaning 125,000 fewer housing vouchers would be available and 86,000 people who once faced homelessness could be back on the street – among other outcomes.
In short, it’s an attack on poor, working class and middle-class Americans.

So I ask all of you to say “no.”  No, we will not balance budgets on the backs of middle class and vulnerable Americans.  No, we will not withdraw our support of those who need it most.  And no we will not deny so many families their fair chance to get back on their feet and better their lives if they work hard.

NAACP – you know better than most how far we’ve come. You know we can’t turn back now.
Instead, we’ve got to look forward and move forward working together.

Know that HUD is with you every step of the way, working to build ladders of opportunity by:
• stepping up fair housing enforcement;
• ensuring all Americans have access to homeownership and can keep it; and
• helping the hardest hit communities rebuild stronger than ever before. 

And as long as I’m Secretary, know that you have a friend.  You have a champion for – and admirer of your efforts and advocacy.

And you have a partner in the work to build ladders of opportunity for all Americans to shape a stronger and fairer nation.

Thank you.

Sunday, October 18, 2015

A Housing Solution Gone Awry

See article here:

A Housing Solution Gone Awry


Todd Heisler/The New York Times

Jeremiah Johnson Hierro, 4, plays in Marcus Garvey Village in Brownsville, Brooklyn. His mother sends him away in the summer for his safety.
By
 
In the early 1970s, the architect and city planner Oscar Newman came forth with a book and theory called “Defensible Space,” which relied in part on data from New York City public housing to propose a set of design solutions to the mounting problems of urban living.
The idealism of the ’60s extended to the notion that architecture in itself could engender meaningful social change, a belief now long out of circulation and perhaps never more so than at a time when the city’s civic leaders view development largely as bait for luring foreign capital. Mr. Newman examined public housing and determined that bigger, essentially, was worse; that taller buildings correlated with higher rates of crime and that design that was focused on giving residents a greater sense of ownership over where they lived would help prevent the delinquencies that had taken hold in the projects. The fewer the number of apartments sharing a common entry, for instance, the greater the ability for residents to both feel and exercise a sense of control over their environments.
      
Mr. Newman’s work brought momentum to a movement, here and abroad, for more intimately conceived apartment buildings, especially for the poor, one of the most celebrated examples of which was Marcus Garvey Village, with 625 apartments, in Brownsville, Brooklyn. Visiting Marcus Garvey today, it is nearly impossible to imagine the excitement that surrounded its groundbreaking 40 years ago, but it was born of thrilling alliances, as an exhibit at the Center for Architecture downtown, titled “Low Rise High Density,” illustrates.
      
In the late 1960s, Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller initiated the short-lived Urban Development Corporation, which sought to match the best architectural talent to the creation of low- and middle-income housing. Marcus Garvey resulted from a collaboration between this agency and the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies, an architectural research organization headed by the architect Peter Eisenman. In 1973, three years before the project was completed, the project’s design, realized by the architect Kenneth Frampton, was paid tribute with an exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art. The buildings themselves resembled student co-ops on progressive college campuses. Apartment doors opened to the outside rather than onto hallways; the units had communal mews and private backyards. And yet, ultimately, the distinguishing elements delivered consequences radically different from the grand intentions.
      
The fate of Marcus Garvey Village is not addressed in the Center for Architecture’s show, but the sense of exuberant experimentation that attended the project could not insulate it from the problems of poverty that have troubled Brownsville for decades. As one former official at the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development told me, Marcus Garvey actually makes the ailing towers of the Housing Authority so heavily concentrated in Brownsville “look good.”
About 10 years ago, Susan Saegert, a professor of environmental psychology at the City University of New York and two doctoral students looked at life in the structures and found that the courtyard areas, a hallmark of the design, became a nexus of the drug trade in the ’80s and ’90s precisely because they were shielded from public access and view. What was meant to foster an elevated sense of privacy instead contributed to criminality.
      
Marcus Garvey turned into a home base for the Folk Nation gang. A decade ago, the complex became the target of a joint operation by the Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to combat the problem of drug- and gang-related violence in the residences. Since the construction of Marcus Garvey, the poverty rate in Brownsville has not gone down; it has gone up — to close to 40 percent today from 29 percent in 1970. As Professor Saegert wrote in her analysis, “Development does not end when developments open. This is when the real work begins.” Mindful design can accomplish little divorced from broad, aggressive strategies to fight social inequality.
      
The most dispiriting irony about life in Marcus Garvey Village today is that its residents could not possess less of a sense of control over where they live. Crime has abated but a heavy and oppressive police presence has not, residents told me. Marcus Garvey Village is patrolled by a private security force as well. When I visited several weeks ago with a colleague, guards insisted on following us and tried to claim, inexplicably, that we could not talk to residents on their stoops or in their apartments even if we were invited in.
      
One resident, Jamal Matherson, told of seeing a friend pinned down one evening a few weeks ago by three police officers for no obvious reason when they were talking outside their building. Another resident talked about seeing a little girl on a stoop approached by a police officer who checked her drink to make sure it did not contain alcohol (she was having iced tea). If you happen to be having a glass of wine on your stoop in Cobble Hill, the chances that a police officer will tell you to stop are roughly equal to the chance that a schnauzer will pass on an excellent stock tip. If you are drinking wine on the stoops of Marcus Garvey Village you will most likely be questioned and given a ticket.
Stoops, in the Jane Jacobs sense, are supposed to inspire communality; here they inspire more surveillance. Mews are rarely used anymore, one young mother, Shelecia Johnson, told me.

Barbecues rarely happen. Ms. Johnson has a 4-year-old son; in the summer when things are both dull and more dangerous, she sends him away. Soon, he will be headed to the Carolinas.       
      

Did Marinwood-Lucas Valley lose a Con Game?

TAM's review of the latest scenario for the Plan Bay Area Sustainable Communities Scenario leads some to wonder whether it's math or a con.

 

Is ABAG Playing a Shell Game with Housing Numbers?



"This is not a shell game," declared Tiburon's Alice Fredericks, chairwoman of the Transportation Authority of Marin's Executive Committee during Monday's meeting. The committee was examining the Association of Bay Area Governments' Draft Preferred "Jobs-Housing Connection Scenario," and Fredericks was responding to a statement from an attendee that ABAG was playing a shell game with its allocation of required new housing development for Marin County by 2040.

A number of attendees said they were perplexed and appropriately skeptical, about the latest ABAG allocations, particularly because of the significant shift in the numbers from past iterations to the Preferred Scenario, which was released on March 9. For Mill Valley, that shift was represented by 740 housing units in the Preferred Scenario, a jump of 240 units from the previous iteration.

The committee members voted to send a letter to ABAG Director Ezra Rappaport expressing its dismay over the ABAG's projection of 17 percent job growth for Marin County in the next 30 years.
The letter reads in part: "Marin County lacks the type of developable land associated with traditional business growth, and has limited availability of water resources. It is unlikely that Marin can match the robust job growth of the 1980s."

ABAG originally released its 30-year projection that Marin County would see 19,000 more jobs by 2040, which would require 11,000 new homes. Some leaders choked on the numbers their towns and cities were being asked to bear. Novato complained loudly and Corte Madera announced it would leave ABAG.

The squeaky wheel got the grease — Corte Madera and Novato saw their numbers cut, but their neighbors could be forced to take on a heavier load as a result. [Marinwood-Lucas Valley had housing allocations increase weeks later.]

Fredericks suggested that if other communities have problems with the distribution of numbers, they might have to fight ABAG on their own.

City of Mill Valley officials are trying to come up with a plan to deal with this predicament, hoping to convene a joint session of the City Council and Planning Commission to decide how to respond to the latest numbers.

While Mill Valley saw its housing allocations spike in the Preferred Scenario, those of Corte Madera and Novato shrunk, apparently the result of successful local lobbying efforts with ABAG officials. The discussion is exacerbated in Mill Valley as local developer Phil Richardson has proposed building a 20-unit residential complex on East Blithedale Avenue near Camino Alto.

Some attendees of the TAM meeting wondered aloud if there was really any room for that many new housing units and that many more people in Marin.

TAM's explanation was that "ABAG is a region and the region has a pot that they stir around." Because Corte Madera's predicted increase in the number of housing units and households was decreased, the leftovers went back into the regional pot, were stirred around and landed on someone else's plate.

The explanation did not seem to entirely satisfy anyone, not even Corte Madera Vice-Mayor Diane Furst.

"It looks like there was a shifting of numbers," Furst said.

Be careful what you wish for, Furst was told in a lighthearted warning. You never know how the numbers will add up.

For more..
Is ABAG playing a shell game?

Thursday, September 17, 2015

VIDEO : "Won't the massive developments affect Miller Creek Water Shed too?"

Get Microsoft Silverlight

At the May 13, 2013 Marin County Planning Commission meeting,  Lucas Valley Resident, Pamela McKnight comments the effect of development on the Miller Creek Watershed.  Specifically, she mentions the email sent by Kate Crecelius about the possible sale of the Idylberry School for housing and the effect it will have on run off.  In the staff report found at Planning meeting video, agenda and staff report,   you can view Commissionor Crecelius remarks.

We thank Pamela McKnight and other residents for speaking up for our community and demanding commonsense planning that respects the character of the community and its long standing community plan.

Miller Creek is a pristine watershed.

Sunday, September 13, 2015

Will parking near Marinwood Village look like this?


Editor's Note: The meeting on April 25th with Supervisor Adams, Department of Public Works, and the California Highway Patrol revealed to the public that Miller Creek Avenue median strip is being narrowed to make room for a bike lane and parking. This is most likely for overflow street parking from the proposed Marinwood Village low income housing.  We bring you this quick clip of the Canal district to show you what parking on may look like Miller Creek Avenue between 101 Freeway and Las Gallinas in the future.

Take a quick trip to the Canal District and try to find a parking space with us.   You'll find no matter where you drive, you'll find bumper to bumper cars parked on every street.  Even though the apartments have parking, the streets are always packed with additional cars. 

Bridge Housing argues that low income residents don't need as much parking because they prefer public transportation.  The reality is they need cars as much as anyone else.  Because they often live several families per apartment, they typically have MORE cars per household.

If Marinwood Village is built, it is a reasonable to expect the surrounding neighborhoods will be packed with parked cars. Miller Creek Avenue from Marinwood Ave. to Las Gallinas is being widened to allow for more street parking and a bike path. 

Do you want Marinwood to become another urban neighborhood, with Big Box apartments and wall to wall cars? 

Join us to stop the supervisors from turning us into Marinwood City.


Friday, August 21, 2015

Herding the Poor .

Herding the Poor

Low income people love being close together?

According to TransForm’s report, poor households who live in TODs drive only half as much as poor households who live away from TODs, while rich households who live in TODs drive about two-thirds as much as rich households who don’t live near TODs (see figure 1 on page 7).

Based on this, TransForm proposes that California build lots of “affordable housing” in the TODs, then herd encourage poor people to live in the TODs. Apparently, TransForm’s thinking is that moving poor people into TODs will have the greatest effect on driving, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. Putting “more affordable homes near transit … would be a powerful and durable GHG reduction strategy,” says TransForm (emphasis in the original).

Unfortunately, TransForm’s proposal is grounded on a seriously flawed analysis and morally questionable reasoning. First, TransForm has committed a simple arithmetic error when it concludes that the best greenhouse-gas reduction strategy would be to focus on low-income people. Though the data show rich people in TODs drive only a third less than rich people away from TODs, the rich drive so much more than the poor that the greatest impact would come from herding the rich into the TODs.

According to TransForm’s data, poor households in TODs drive about 21 fewer miles per day than poor households away from TODs. But rich people in TODs drive 29 miles less than rich people away from TODs. Thus, if you believe TransForm’s numbers, the best greenhouse-gas reduction strategy would be to coerce encourage rich people to live in TODs.
Low income people love taking the train?

However, I don’t believe TransForm’s numbers because TransForm has made the classic error of ignoring self-selection. That is, people of all incomes who want to drive less are more likely to live in TOD-like places, while people who want to drive more are more likely to live away from TOD-like places (which are typically the most congested and least auto-friendly).

Note that all of TransForm’s numbers measure miles of driving and other factors per household, not per person. Households in TODs tend to have no children, while households with children are far more likely to live away from TODs. It’s a mistake to think that, because people who want to drive less tend to live in TODs, getting people who want to drive more to live in TODs will lead them to drive much less than they do. As economist David Brownstone concludes, after taking self-selection into account, the effect of urban form on driving is “too small to be useful” in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Low income people love living in compact multifamily homes?


TransForm’s third error is in failing to calculate the costs of its “powerful and durable GHG reduction strategy.” Developable land in the San Francisco Bay Area is very costly, and land in the city and suburban centers that make up the region’s TODs and potential TODs is the most expensive of all. Buying that land, building housing on it, and selling or renting it at “affordable” prices is going to require huge subsidies. If I believed in the TOD strategy at all, this would be one more reason to focus on the rich, rather than the poor, as any necessary subsidies would be much smaller. But I suspect that even herding the rich into TODs would end up costing thousands of dollars per ton of abated greenhouse gas emissions, while McKinsey & Company says that anything that costs more than about $50 per ton is a waste of money.

Perhaps most embarrassing, TransForm’s herd-the-poor approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is condescending (or worse). California’s SB 375, a law promoting TODs, imposed an affordable housing mandate that is supposed to be as strong as its greenhouse-gas-reduction mandate, so TransForm poses this idea as one that will solve both problems. But it really won’t, partly because the state simply can’t afford the billions of dollars in subsidies that would be required to build tens of thousands of “affordable” units of housing in Bay Area TODs.

Poor people are politically weak, so the idea of packing them into cramped apartments isn’t going to have as much pushback as a proposal to coerce the rich to live in TODs. While poor people themselves are politically weak, California low-income housing groups are politically powerful, and they would be only too happy to accept huge state subsidies to build low-income housing in TODs or anywhere else.

The average dwelling unit in a TOD is about half the size of an average dwelling unit in the suburbs. People who are transit-dependent are less than half as mobile as people who have cars. Cramming poor families into dense housing and limiting their mobility is prescription for keeping them poor.

If TransForm wants to advocate a policy that really would make housing affordable, it should demand that Bay Area counties abandon the urban-growth boundaries that have confined 98 percent of the people in the region to just 17 percent of the land. And if TransForm really wants to target carbon emissions, it should focus on making housing and cars more energy efficient, which is a far more efficient strategy of reducing carbon emissions than trying to get people to live in apartments and take transit.

Instead, TransForm promotes the “pack-‘em-and-stack-‘em” strategy that has obsessed urban planners for the last three or four decades. We know this strategy doesn’t work: between 1980 and 2012, the population density of the San Francisco–Oakland–San Jose urban areas grew by 55 percent, yet per capita transit ridership fell by a third and per capita driving grew by 5 percent.

Aside from the fact that this strategy doesn’t work, its moral problems seem to go right past the “progressives” who support it. It’s like a movie in which poorly educated villagers are ready to riot about some frightening event, when someone—probably the perpetrator—points at a persecuted minority and yells, “They’re the ones who did it—get ‘em!”

Sadly, the California politicians who passed SB 375 are all too likely to fall for this line of thinking.

Monday, June 15, 2015

Spotswood: County supervisors should have told HUD to 'get lost'


HUD mandates.


ON TUESDAY, the Board of Supervisors approved a housing implementation plan demanded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that could significantly change Marin's landscape.
In a stealth mode, supervisors approved their "Analysis of Impediment to Fair Housing Choice and Implementation Plan" that binds the county and its cities to a process that irrationally meshes the concepts of "affordable housing" and "fair housing" and sets a slew of vague requirements with the force of law.
Out-of-control HUD staffers have decided that upper-middle class, predominately white suburbs are their new targets. They started with Westchester County, New York. Now it's Marin's turn.

Dick Spotswood , Opinion writer at Marin IJ

Those areas which don't meet HUD's ideal of 1980s style of "diversity" will pay a price.
It's shocking and wrong that in 2011 anyone, much less a federal agency, is focusing on race-based policymaking. That they voice concern over "protected classes" doesn't make it right.
That's proper.
It then goes overboard by mandating that Marin must "go beyond the absence of illegal discrimination; there is also an obligation to take local action to change past patterns that emerge from historic inequalities."
This lingo means that Marin must satisfy federal racial and ethnic expectations or face sanctions.
Marin governments will now be subject to federal scrutiny to achieve an acceptable level of "diversity." If a jurisdiction's zoning doesn't allow more housing "opportunities," planning laws must be changed.
Even if Marin provides more housing, occupants must meet regional racial diversity guidelines.
Remember, the plan insists, never use the word "quotas" when referring to this process.
Most Marinites are not racists. They actively support nondiscrimination. That counts for little. The reality is that housing activists resent that upper-middle class whites and Asians can afford to live in attractive, crime-free communities.
HUD required the county prepare an "Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choices."
Staff chose Fair Housing of Marin to draft the all-important analysis. The Marin Community Foundation-funded nonprofit is an unabashed housing and diversity advocate. Choosing Fair Housing to perform an impartial housing study is akin to the Treasury hiring Goldman Sachs to determine if the financial services industry is taking undue risks.
MCF's hands are all over this process.
Once MCF began shifting from aiding nonprofits to shaping public policy to align with their agenda, it began funding advocates for its policies. Whether its Stand Up for Neighborly Novato, Fair Housing of Marin or Grassroots Leadership Committee, follow the money and you'll find MCF.
This "Implementation Plan" will ultimately increase high-density housing in all Marin towns. The county must recruit region-wide to fill that housing because Marin's current population isn't diverse enough.
Forget that affordable housing is supposedly for local cops, teachers and retail workers. Now it's aimed to satisfying HUD's racial diversity goals.
The supervisors weren't up-front about the plan's land-use implications. The Community Development Block Grant Committee, chaired by Supervisor Judy Arnold, held public hearings to obtain the input primarily from residents in Marin City, San Rafael's Canal and from housing activists.
There were no hearings in Novato, where housing is topic one.
HUD's jurisdiction is based on Marin's receipt of $2.4 million in federal affordable housing cash. That's small potatoes given high construction costs. Marin should have declined the money and told HUD to get lost.
Instead, with minimum notice, the Analysis and the Implementation Plan went to the Board last Tuesday.
Despite cries for a continuance to allow broad-based public input, supervisors barreled ahead and unanimously approved the package.
Columnist Dick Spotswood of Mill Valley shares his views on local politics every Sunday in the IJ. His email address is spotswood@comcast.net. Read his musings at http://blogs.marinij.com/spotswood/

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Susan Adams first open Town Hall Meeting in Marinwood on June 26, 2013 to discuss Housing Challenges

Susan Adams meeting at the Marinwood Community Center on June 26, 2013 to discuss the Marinwood PDA, housing challenges, Dixie School funding, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Element for unincorporated Marin and her record of community advocacy.
Sooner or Later we need the truth

Thursday, November 20, 2014

PLAN BAY AREA POLICY MAPS outline upzoning, new fees, and incentives for developers in Marinwood-Lucas Valley

and please study the shocking changes planned for the Bay Area.

The MTC published these policy maps to help planners visualize the "opportunities within the grand vision" of the One Bay Area Plan.  They call for massive urbanization throughout the Bay Area through a combination of upzoning, transportation funds,  urban growth boundary, development fess (or penalties) and grants.   
You'll find that you may have to pay a fine of up to $50,000 (above current development fees) to discourage residential development in outlying areas.  Non-residential development may have to pay a fee of up to $20.00 per square foot.   Other development in the "approved areas" (such as the Marinwood Priority Development Area) may receive grants for building.   The Marinwood PDA is a "transit neighborhood" and will be upzoned to 50 units per acre vs. 4 single family houses per acre on most streets now.  We will add from 1500 to 4000  housing units to the current area East of Las Gallinas.
Make no mistake, the One Bay Area Plan is nothing short of a radical scheme to reshape the bay area communities, economy, transportation, and government.  This overambitious central plan will create an effective  "city state" and strip away property rights, local democracy and economic opportunity for millions. 

Supervisor Susan Adams needs to address the community with the Truth. She has served on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for over 9 1/2 years including two years as Vice President.  

Supervisor Susan Adams spent 9 1/2 years on ABAG
and served as the Vice President for 2 years.

Enough, Ms. Adams! Please tell us of the full Plan Bay Area plans for Marinwood-Lucas Valley!



Marin Supervisor Steve Kinsey is the President of MTC