We need good neighbors.
by Kate Perkins, Community Blogger.
Almost a year ago I moved to Ward 8 of Washington, DC. In college I studied a small religious movement of Evangelical Christians who moved into decaying urban centers across the country with the desire to “love their neighbors.” We (myself and 5 other single white women) had similar aims when we moved into Anacostia.
Although many of us would shun and even criticize other groups for displaying voyeuristic, Savior-mentalities towards those people who we would come in to serve/change/impact the ambiguous and unidentified “poor,” it was difficult to not approach our neighbors and even people on the streets with some sense of hierarchy—or making others into a “project.” I think many of us expected to move into a more needy area than we did—in our specific neighborhood actually called Fairlawn, people didn’t seem to be very excited to get to know us or have us become a part of their lives—much less help them in any tangible or relational way. This was puzzling for a lot of us.
However, after a year spent in this community, I know I’m beginning to realize that the landscape of poverty in the area—in the city, and likely in the nation—is different than I expected it to be. I thought, early on, that just moving to Ward 8 I’d be confronted with all kinds of social ills, violence, poorly fed children, and simply needy people on every corner. What I found instead was a neighborhood that appeared to not “need” anything I had to offer—time, money, resources.
But over my time serving as a “community blogger” at Bread for the City for the summer, I’ve been challenged to take a second look not only at my own community but also Washington, DC and other urban centers across America. Through the experience of researching issues of affordable housing, learning about the locations and conditions of all kinds of subsidized housing—Project government-owned housing, Project-based Section 8 housing, and Section 8 voucher systems, I’m beginning to see that the landscape of poverty in this city is very different that I expected.
Whereas I expected to encounter need and visible poverty on virtually every block, instead I’ve found that some of the worst poverty in the city, the powerlessness of the 23,418 households on the Section 8 voucher waiting list, often exists in pockets—sometimes even pockets in wealthy areas like Georgetown or Ward 2. Government-owned project housing is isolated to a specific block. Only some landlords will take Section 8 vouchers (or at least charge little enough for rent to accept them).
Policemen don’t arrest everyone on a block—they target suspects, chase after specific people. Similarly, our friends who work in a Catholic charity that serves the people of Washington target certain neighborhoods and focus their efforts. How ignorant I am to not have understood that no need or issue will be universal! Of course—just as just about everything else in life, sociology, social services—issues are more complex than we originally assume them to be.
But this “realization” of sorts that poverty and especially in terms of affordable housing is pocketed in small concentrated nodes around the city (although many more exist in my Ward than elsewhere)—what does this realization mean? Should it change anything except to make me feel more ignorant, disarmed and unable to be of service because of my inability to understand the issues at hand? In an effort to not judge others or label anyone as poor, should I just keep to my own business?
Something about the concentrated nature of need in subsidized housing areas is troubling to me. It’s troubling for multiple reasons. Troubling because I—or people like me—can’t really “go there.” I could rent a house in Ward 8, move down the street from a project housing complex—but I couldn’t move into one. I wouldn’t qualify for any of these subsidies (and could spend a lifetime on a waiting list waiting for one). Our entire theory for how to love your neighbors as people who carry inevitable social and racial privileges is blown away when we’re denied access.
Nationally, social researchers and advocates have, for other reasons, realized that concentrating poverty into specific neighborhoods is problematic. It creates more centers for social ills rather than targeted areas for service providers to visit. More crime, more teenage pregnancy, more drugs, more violence, more poverty. In an effort to correct some of the problems of concentrated poverty, many recent urban policies have focused on creating “mixed income housing.”
In theory, mixed income housing programs such as Hope VI, the New Communities Initiative and other programs we’ve mentioned over our time studying affordable housing create a system that literally mixes people of presumably lower income and higher income backgrounds together. Not only financially in many of these systems do those of higher income brackets literally subsidize the units of lower income folks—the higher income folk’s “social capital,” whether more stable family systems, higher education, or practice working a steady job, are also supposed to influence the lives and social systems of other lower income people intentionally put into the system as well.
However, much of this theory behind mixed income housing assumes that people know how to be “good neighbors” to one another. From my own suburban neighborhood growing up to a year living in Southeast DC, I’m not sure that’s the case. Even when we moved in with the lofty ideal of “loving our neighbors”—not even all our hopes and intentional desires ever came to fruition. We barely know the neighbors names. Our friends who work in local charity say project families sometimes pride themselves on not knowing their neighbors—we’re not like those people I heard a few people we interviewed at local housing projects earlier this month say. Distancing constantly—no matter what the situation. Is it a middle-class, successful thing to not know your neighbors? Maybe it’s to not have to know your neighbors anymore.
After a year of becoming a part of this community and neighborhood I am yet again humbled and reminded that the scope and look of poverty—like so many other social phenomena I’ve studied—are much more complex than even statistics that describe the “subsidized housing percentage by Ward” or “child poverty rate by Ward” would lead us to believe. Not everyone living “east of the river” is in a desperate situation. Many do not need—and frankly, do not want our, or anyone else’s, help.
July 31, 2008
We Need More Than Money to Fix our Neighborhoods
The Anacostia River
Once a thriving river, years of neglect have left the Anacostia River so polluted that it is unsafe for swimming, it is uninhabitable for many animal species, and the fish that are able to survive have been plagued with high rates of cancer. I believe the story of the Anacostia symbolizes much of the turmoil that has faced communities east of the river throughout the years.
Last week, I had the opportunity to take a free boat tour of the Anacostia River through Maryland’s Bladensburg Waterfront Park. This tour provided some fascinating history of not only the river but the surrounding area. The river was once a vital part of the lives of the local Nanchotank people, providing abundant supplies of fish and supporting numerous other forms of wildlife. I was amazed to learn that the river used to be 40 feet deep at points and a mile wide. The deepest part today is a mere 12 feet, and it is far from being a mile across. Over a century ago, the water of the Anacostia River was already troubled with serious pollution. During the tour, visitors can see low brick walls that were built along the river’s edge. These walls were constructed in the late 1800s, when polluted water was escaping to the city and making people sick. The walls were meant to make the river flow straight, which was a largely unsuccessful effort.
Today, a renewed effort to restore the Anacostia River has brought slow change to the area. River cleanups are sponsored 4 to 5 times a year, collecting hundreds of bags of trash and tires. The night before our tour, D.C. experienced heavy rainfall, filling the river with a fresh supply of trash. The water was brown and murky. It was hard for me to believe that the river’s state was actually an improvement over past years.
I cannot help but think of the parallels between the river and the communities that are removed from the rest of D.C. by the Anacostia’s banks. While D.C.’s more famous river, the Potomac, has undergone revitalization, the Anacostia River has been neglected for many years. In the same way that neglect has led to pollution of the river, neglect of communities east of the river has led to high rates of poverty and violence. The contrast between these communities and the powerful and affluent areas of D.C. can be seen by merely crossing the river. Recent interest in the Anacostia River has brought about improvements; similarly, recent initiatives to improve Southeast (I think of the Hope VI program and New Communities specifically) have been working to undo the damage done over the years. Despite these efforts, it is easy to question whether things are really improving when there is still so much left to be done.
Clearly, improving the neglected communities of Southeast has greater complications than improving the Anacostia River. Perhaps, though, we can learn a lesson from the river’s caretakers. Cleaning up the river has taken the efforts of numerous individuals, often requiring them to get down and dirty, tackling the problem of pollution hands-on. Addressing the problems plaguing communities east of the Anacostia will require that residents get involved and are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to “get dirty” in the process of improving their neighborhoods.
Affordable Housing is Personal
by Jessica Wright, Community Blogger.
During the past few weeks I have had the pleasure of getting to know Tasha*, an eight-year-old girl that my housemate, Rebecca*, has been mentoring. I recently spent an evening chasing Tasha throughout the house, playing an exhausting and laughter-filled game of tag. As the hour grew late, Rebecca asked me to accompany her as she returned Tasha to her home. I agreed without much thought—I had no idea that this trip would forever change my understanding of Tasha and put a face on many of the housing issues that I have been researching.
As we drove, Tasha reminded us of what to do when we arrived. We would have to sign in and state that we were just visitors of a family in the building. Tasha’s family was living with her grandmother up until a few weeks ago, when they relocated to this apartment. They are now staying with another family without the permission of the landlord. Tasha, her mother, and her mother’s boyfriend share one bedroom, while the other family shares the only other bedroom in the apartment. Earlier in the drive, Rebecca had asked if I had brought my ID (I hadn’t). When we arrived at our destination, I understood why--a sign on the door stated that no one without proper identification could enter the building. Luckily, the security guard’s station was empty when we walked through, and we quickly slipped to the elevator.
The elevator was an experience in itself. The small space reeked of urine, while pop bottles and other garbage littered the floor. The smell didn’t get much better as we exited the elevator on the fifth floor. As we walked through a long corridor, I felt as though I was being suffocated by the low ceiling and glossy puke-yellow walls. From the hallway I could hear yelling and the blaring of several televisions.
As we dropped off Tasha, I was amazed at her mother’s warmth. I received a hug, despite never meeting the woman before. It saddened me to think that such beautiful people had to live in such conditions. I’ll admit that the apartment building was probably a lot better than what many D.C. residents have to deal with, but I know that none of my middle-class friends would tolerate such a home. I began to question: just because it’s not as bad as it could be, does that make it okay? Why are low-income people not equally entitled to some of the basic decencies of life?
Thinking back on a recent blog entry about the definition of homelessness, I realized that this eight-year-old girl, full of energy and smiles, could be considered homeless. What would such a situation do to this dear girl? I’ve read about the detrimental effect of homelessness on children—I long to know that Tasha will not become another statistic in such studies. What about all of the other children across D.C. that are dealing with similar situations? What does their future hold? I feel so helpless—I will soon be returning to my Wisconsin home, far from urban poverty and this place that has captivated my heart. I can only hope that telling Tasha’s story will make a difference, no matter how small. I know that her story has already made a difference in my life.
*Name has been changed
"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live"
We, the peopleThe subject of affordable housing is one that has been discussed, debated, and questioned over the past month here on Beyond Bread. We’ve heard from the experts, the people it effects most, and the people like me who are simply trying to parse through all the facets of this complex issue. When all things are considered, frankly, there seems to be no resolution on the subject. But that won’t stop me from trying to create one for you.
The question of what should be done about affordable housing must be split into at least two parts: the role of the government and the role of the people. The majority of the affordable housing criticism falls to the government, and this is not without equity. When you look at public housing waitlists, housing spending cutbacks, and rebuilt housing structures that contain less affordable housing than its predecessors, how can you not clamor for governmental change? The burden must fall on both the federal and local governments to ameliorate the situation, but it’s still unclear how to accomplish this in concordance with Bentham’s principle (of the greatest good for the greatest number). We’ve already discussed some of the new affordable housing initiatives we’re seeing (the New Communities Initiative at the greatest length), and it is yet to be seen how these will pan out. However, the inadequacies of such programs have been pointed out, and as time advances, their promise seems to dwindle.
Thus we must work on our own to alleviate the social problems that obstruct affordable housing access. We can’t necessarily depend on a long-term economic solution to affordable housing when all signs point to an economic crisis. While there’s an economic problem of affordable housing, there’s a social one that must be countered as well. The latter is our responsibility. We must work together to oppose the social divisiveness that gives rise to housing discourse problems, NIMBYism, and other affordable housing hindrances. How can we do this? Well one social theorist wrote almost two hundred years ago that we can only build compassion for our fellow man through our interactions with them. Whether this means showing up at affordable housing rallies, volunteering for a nonprofit to help build affordable houses, or simply talking to your neighbor that your landlord always complains about because he doesn’t get his rent in on time, we must nurture the roots that hold us together in this world.
The New Communities Initiative is an example of a really good idea being implemented by the wrong people. The government is trying to build links between people of various income levels by building mixed income communities. While this is a commendable idea for getting around the social problem of affordable housing, I think that we have to take the first steps to fix that problem. As a people, we aren’t fulfilling our social responsibilities to our fellow citizens; the government is attempting to compensate for our inadequacies, but I don’t think it’s really in their jurisdiction. While we can hope that mixed-income initiatives like New Communities Initiative will stimulate the necessary linkages between people of varying income levels, ultimately, we the people will have to come together to fix the social problem of affordable housing.
July 30, 2008
Poverty Gets a New Measuring Cup
But what are we putting in it?
I don't know how I missed it, but Slate's Tim Harford wrote a very interesting post on Saturday about how the poverty line is measured. Harford goes through a couple of different, often used methods of assessing poverty, and then compares them to the recent research of an anti-poverty group, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, in Britain that has recently put forward a new method (or, more accurately, a mix of old methods).
I'm not going to rehash most of either JRF's research or Harford's analysis because I think both stand on their own and are very well done. The methods we use to determine who is in poverty and who isn't, though admitedly often overlooked, is absolutely essential to the work that we do, and reflects something of the way we view "the poor" in our society. Both JRF and Harford appear to have come up with a very thorough way to determine a threshold, but I do take exception to one point, and I think it is an important one.
One of the methods talked about and dismissed is putting the poverty threshold at 60% of the median income of the population of a region. In response to this sort of approach, Harford states:
This has an unfortunate consequence: Poverty is permanent. If everyone in Europe woke up tomorrow to find themselves twice as rich, European poverty rates would not budge. That is indefensible. Such "poverty" lines measure inequality, not poverty, and they do so clumsily.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation makes a similar claim, stating that "this arbitrary measure is not a standard rooted in a considered view of what people need to live on." They instead suggest that a better method would be to use an "acceptible minimum" that is based off of a "minimum income standard." The MIS takes into account "the sum of hundreds of costed items and allowances for activities and services," and is available through their website.
This is a great method, but let's not throw out the 60% of median income so quickly. Let's consider the sort of things in your region that are based on the median income in the area: apartment rents, pay scales at your job, what stores come into or leave your neighborhood, school tuition costs, and childcare (to name a few huge ones). Basing the assessment of poverty on regional data (as a percentage of median income does when it is calculated correctly) indirectly takes into account what access to resources your community will actually have.
Though it's a simplistic example, let's take the neighborhood around 14th and P NW. There's no Metro directly next to this neighborhood, which means that, more than likely, your grocery shopping will be done at the nearest grocery store. That store happens to be Whole Foods, which is significantly more expensive than other grocery retailers. Rent will also be higher than in other parts of the Metro Area. The reason we see higher rent and retail is because the income in that immediate area is very high. A low-income person who is, say, in the Logan Circle Apartments (4 Logan Cirle NW, 20005), has to spend more to remain stable in their neighborhood than a person with equal income but less expenses.
Mayor Bloomberg recently adopted a poverty scale somewhat based on median income, and it seems to work rather well. I would add, to get back to Harford's criticism, that adoption of this method does not lead to poverty being permanent, it merely indicates a truism of economics. If all of Europe were suddenly to double their incomes, prices would double to match, leaving people in the exact same stratification as they had before. The benefit of the sliding "60% of median income" method is that it indicates when the economics of the region have changed.
On a large scale, a method like this would be an absolute failure because it wouldn't give you any information you didn't have before (say, if you were to take the median income of all of Britain), but it is next to magical in smaller regions (like specific city wards) where income level can vary dramatically.
July 29, 2008
We Are What We Eat
But it's what we're not eating that counts.
I know we're in the middle of a discussion on affordable housing, but for just a brief moment I'd like to talk about our earlier topic, Food & Nutrition. An article ran in the Washington Post today that (on top of the merit of featuring Bread for the City) had the added bonus of opening up a really good topic that doesn't get discussed too often: why is it so important that food pantries give out healthy food?
Our long-time readers will remember that rates of obesity, hypertension, and diabetes are highest in low-income communities. Judging by some of the bizarre comments left on the WaPo article, many people still find the link between poverty and obesity counter-intuitive, thinking that if a person is truly hungry, they should be starving to death. They're surprised to learn that the poorest among us are, by contrast, having a number of health problems dealing with weight.
The key to understanding this puzzle is to change the assumption between obesity and eating well. Malnutrition takes a number of forms, and one of the most serious indicators of a dangerous diet is obesity. How large a person is, in these circumstances, doesn't have much to do with the quantity of the food being consumed, but the overall amount of empty calories that comes with only being able to afford the very cheapest foods. Hostess snacks, greasy chips, soda, and a number of other items are significantly less expensive than fruits and vegetables. For a person who is scraping for every dollar, the rift between foods that are filling and cheap, and healthy foods is one that cannot be crossed.
That's the reason why it is such a great thing that Bread for the City and a number of other food distribution sites are starting to really take on the assumptions we have been operating under, and also those of the people we serve. On top of that, I thought it was so important that we spent a month and a half on this blog extensively discussing this topic.
Congratulations to Lori Aratani for hitting on a very good subject, and for the extensive research she was able to do. I just hope that it leads to the bigger discussions we as a nation need to have about the way we're thinking about poverty.
July 28, 2008
Touring Anacostia With Stacey Smith
by Jessica Wright, Community Blogger.
When asked to conjure up images of Southeast D.C., you may think of row houses, apartments, public housing developments, or run-down homes. While there certainly is an abundance of such structures, there’s a lot more to Southeast than initially comes to mind.
At least that’s what I discovered during my driving tour with Stacey Smith, a Bread for the City employee who has lived in Southeast his entire life. Our tour began near Stacey’s home, just a few blocks from Bread for the City. From there we headed towards Barry Farm, and eventually ended up in the Fort Dupont area before returning to Bread for the City’s Southeast site. After doing so much research on housing in D.C., I was especially excited to get a better feel for the housing situation in Southeast.
We started by travelling through areas abounding with apartments and public housing. These dilapidated buildings were a stark contrast to some of the beautiful, newly built homes in the area—oftentimes sitting directly across the street from each other. In an area along Mississippi Ave, SE, Stacey explained that, “all these town houses weren’t here less than ten years ago. All this was public housing. They were apartments, kind of like Barry Farm.” I’m assuming that many of these developments were established as part of the Hope VI program. Knowing that Hope VI did not require one-for-one replacement of affordable housing, I could not help questioning…Where did all the former residents go?
As we drove further east, near the Maryland line, we encountered neighborhoods of older, attractive homes well-suited to their middle class inhabitants. I was shocked by the diversity of income levels and standards of living that exists in Southeast.
In addition to the housing developments that have taken place, Stacey spoke about other changes that he has seen in Southeast since his childhood. “D.C. at one time used to be a soul food place…you had sit down restaurants. That’s like the ‘60s and early ‘70s. You know, you could get a nice little shoeshine and you could just sit down and eat. That’s changed a lot.” He also mentioned that there are a lot more liquor stores than there used to be, an unfortunate trend.
As we drove, I was impressed by the recreation options that we came across. In many of my interviews, my understanding has been that there are very limited recreational opportunities for children in SE. I’m sure in some areas this is true, but I was relieved to see a number of options during our tour. We saw the Southeast Tennis and Learning Center, several public pools (I was surprised to learn that many have free admission), and a number of playgrounds. We drove past THEARC (Town Hall Education Arts & Recreation Campus), a beautiful facility which houses a number of cultural and social services agencies, including a Boys and Girls Club. We also visited Fort Dupont Park, where Stacey described a form of recreation that he enjoys taking advantage of: “they have an amphitheater where they have summer jazz festivals, actually started last weekend…I think it’s just on Saturdays…people can come and sit down, set up your grills, your lawn chairs, and just be entertained.” I agreed with Stacey’s observation of available recreation: “When you look at what’s being offered in SE, I think we’re making some headway, but at the same time it’s going to take time.”
While people may have differing opinions about the continued development of Southeast, it is obvious that the area has already changed immensely, and will continue to do so. The challenge will be to ensure that the changes are actually beneficial to the residents, and not just those doing the developing.
July 25, 2008
Rethinking Affordable Housing
by Margie Sollinger, Staff Attorney.
The power of words to direct public discourse is often employed by politicians and campaign strategists. I’d like to suggest that we, the electorate, likewise harness that power to not only shape the current dialogue, but also to influence individual mindset and public policy going forward.
The phrase “affordable housing” is one that I think could use a slight adjustment. As a general matter, I object to the primacy that our society has given to terms of economics. For example, referring to someone as a “low-income person” describes that person solely in terms of their financial resources. And if people are being described in terms of money, it follows that governmental policies addressing our problems and needs will likewise be narrowly construed.
Unsurprisingly, the result of one-dimensional policies aimed at solving dynamic problems is abject failure, like the Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago. Although the new housing movement, styled “mixed income” housing, seeks to correct some of the mistakes of the past, it still perpetuates a money-centric politics and will inevitably fall short.
Fallen by the wayside are a multitude of other problems individuals and families face when it comes to housing. One pervasive concern raised by our clients is the poor quality of their housing. Whether it is a cockroach infestation, a leaky roof, no heat, mold, sewage back-ups, or all of the above, I would venture to say that most tenants who live in so-called affordable housing also live in substandard conditions. Although the District of Columbia Housing Code sets quality standards for all housing within the District of Columbia, tenants’ options for securing landlord compliance with the Housing Code are severely limited and largely ineffectual.
Despite its prominence, the media and policymakers give little attention to the quality of affordable housing. Indeed, recent efforts by local legal advocates to improve enforcement of the Housing Code have been met with resistance. Thus, I think before we can successfully tackle the substance of our policies, we have to revamp the way that we talk (and ultimately think) about our goals and the issues surrounding them. My suggestion: let’s start calling for “adequate affordable housing.” Have a better phrasing? Alternative suggestions are welcome for this or any other phrases you think could use modification.
July 24, 2008
NYC Consigue Las "Oportunidades"
He ApprovesActual change is easy to talk about and difficult to accomplish. The innovation it requires is both rare and precious, and when it is found, it should be valued. Enter Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City. In 2007, he instituted, through the Commission for Economic Opportunity, a conditional cash transfer pilot program called Opportunity NYC to promote social growth and responsibility in poverty stricken regions of New York. The basic premise behind the idea is to provide financial incentives for the poor to perform actions that we value as a society, but may cost them financially. Such actions include regular attendance at school, high scholastic achievement, health coverage, regular visits to doctors, and job-training. Participants in this incentive-laden program can earn up to $3,000-$5,000 per year depending on family size.
This program is a derivative of a program founded and studied in Mexico. In Mexico, it has resulted in a 4.9% poverty decrease among participants in the first year, and a 18% decrease in the second year. Similar programs have since been instituted in Latin America and are instituted and funded by The World Bank in parts of Africa and Asia. Just to note, an 18% decrease in poverty in New York City is equivalent to raising 250,000 people above the poverty line, or just less than half the population of DC.
“What’s so radical and innovative about this idea?” you may ask. At first glance, the idea seems exactly the opposite. The cynic might say that Mayor Bloomberg came across a good idea sipping on his margarita in Cancun and straight up copied it - it’d be copyright infringement if government programs were commodified goods. However, the truth of the matter is that although this program may be very similar to the one in place in Mexico, it is the first time that a program of conditional cash transfer has been used in a “developed” country. What Mayor Bloomberg has done is completely unprecedented. He has taken a program from countries years behind the United States in terms of developing democracy and social growth and has implemented it in the foremost nation in the world. In doing so, the mayor surmounted the one-way American “Globalization” which attempts to westernize the world without fixing the things that are broken at home. He flipped off the self-righteous American ego that can only give advice and can’t take it – the ego that comes with being the greatest nation in the world.
That, my friends, is change. Mayor Bloomberg is searching for answers wherever they may be found. When it comes to change, there are people that advocate it and people that oppose it; there are people that promote it and there are people that repudiate it; there are people that foresee it in the future and there are people that study it in the past; then there are people that redefine what it means to change in their existence, and those are the only ones who truly grasp it for what its worth.
July 23, 2008
How Are We Determining What is Affordable?
by Kate Perkins, Community Blogger.
Often when looking at the new housing developments coming up all over the District, many claiming to provide ample “affordable housing,” we begin to wonder—affordable, but affordable for who?
Similar to other ambiguous terms like “organic” or “fair trade”—as adjectives, many companies and individuals can employ these terms to conjure up images of trustworthiness and earth-friendly products while secretly doing reprehensible things. In the case of “affordable” housing, it’s important for us to define our terms. What is affordable?
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) bases its income limits for variety of housing programs on a standard called Area Median Income (AMI). Affordability restrictions are calculated as percentages of this Area Median Income measurement.
The Area Median Income is calculated using recent Census data. HUD then uses this number to determine several limits:
- Low-income is defined as 80% of median family income for the area.
- Very low-income is defined as 50% of median family income for the area.
In the Washington, DC area, this measure becomes problematic when considering the disparities between the District and surrounding suburbs. When HUD calculates the AMI for the Washington Metropolitan area, they look beyond the District alone and include income brackets from surrounding counties like Montgomery County, Fairfax, and Prince Georges. The area is very large stretching towards Fredericksburg, VA and even Frederick County, MD.
By including all of these both wealthy and median-income surrounding counties, the AMI for the Washington, DC area for 2008 is $99,000. The impact on District residents is dramatic where median income is less than half of the AMI for 2008. By the 2000 census, the AMI for the Washington Metropolitan area was $73, 245 compared with the District’s median income of $40,127. Furthermore, in 2000 several Wards of the city posted median incomes far below the District’s median including Ward 1 ($36,902), Ward 5 (34,433), Ward 7 ($30,533), and Ward 8 ($25,017).
However, when HUD goes to calculate “affordable” housing, they do not consider each Ward’s median income or even the District’s median income but instead this poorly created Area Median Income.
When the Area Median Income is $99,000, affordable housing becomes “affordable” according to HUD when it’s affordable for individuals making approximately $50,000-$80,000 per year. This standard applies both in the areas surrounding Washington, DC but also within the District as well.
This creates a horrible situation for District residents living far below this supposed standard for qualifying for “low income.” Arbitrarily defined affordable housing is soon out of reach for most Washingtonians. When those making $50,000-$80,000 a year are qualifying for affordable housing, the landscape of the population soon finding themselves eligible for “affordable housing” changes to include many professionals—and raises the bar impossibly high for truly low income District residents.
July 22, 2008
The O Street Market
The O Street Market redevelopment is scheduled to break ground in fall of 2009, after years of delay and what sound to me like either innane beaurocratic hold-ups or flat out excuses. Now that it's finally on the way, I've been wondering about the sort of things we can expect.
The most exciting thing in the short-term, I guess, is that Shaw will be seeing some jobs. Roadside Development, the company that took control of the land in 2000, estimates that there will be up to 400 construction jobs and 400 permanent jobs, with an agreement that half of them will go to DC residents. I don't know how they're going to follow up on that agreement, but it sounds good.
Scheduled to be completed in 2012, the final "CityMarket at O" will include 150 condos, 400 rental units, somewhere between 80 and 100 units for low-income senior citizens, a 200 room hotel, over 500 parking spaces, and 87,000 square feet of retail space (which is 37,000 square feet above the much-hyped halfstreet development over by the new staduim). Because of both the access to fresh food and the much-needed senior housing, George Jones, our Executive Director, recently testified to support the development.
My only concern with the CityMarket plans remain economic. The 200 room hotel is supposed to repay 44% of the $35 million debt incurred by the city, but I can't imagine why anyone would want to build a hotel next to the market. Where are the people going to come from? The Convention Center that, right now, doesn't bring a dime into the Shaw area, much less a breathing human being? I very much doubt it. Something tells me we're going to need a more consistent source of revenue than a hotel.
The whole idea of tax-increment financing also gives me a couple of hang-ups. The plan presupposes that there will be an increase in taxes as a result of the development, which is kind of awkward for this area. If it doesn't work, we're stuck with another Convention Center on our backs. If it does work, a good portion of the residents who live around here will be pushed out because of the higher residential taxes leaving at least a slight period of flux when the businesses won't have a reliable consumer base. I'm happy we're taking the risk (because, frankly, it was the only way the O Street Market was going to get rebuilt), but tax-increment financing has run the whole spectrum between success and giant flop in other cities.
Overall, I think the good will outweigh the bad. The Giant, though it will be shut down for up to two years, will come back far larger, and hopefully with a better selection. With that and the market combined, Shaw could be a great urban hub.
Anacostia History II
by Jessica Wright, Community Blogger.
The best part of my time at Bread for the City has been meeting people of the area with stories to share. I recently met Pearl Tate, a lovely 81-year-old Anacostia resident who has lived in Southeast for over 50 years. I had the opportunity to sit down with Ms. Tate and her grandson, 31-year-old Andre, another DC native, and ask them about their experiences in the area.
Ms. Tate remembers the changes in the community that took place following white flight in the 1960s. “It was a white neighborhood…very few black people lived here…then in the years to come they were moving out and black people were moving in, and that’s the way it was.” She shared that once the white residents left, the city government didn’t keep up the community as well.
Ms. Tate described the run-down buildings along Good Hope Rd., which once housed thriving businesses such as a five-and-dime store, two dress shops, and a hardware store. “Good Hope Rd. was built up, had more buildings; it was like coming into a little city, a little country town,” she said.
As Anacostia residents are quite aware, houses and apartments, as well as public areas, have also become run-down. Andre feels that this problem is associated with a lack of understanding and knowledge, as well as dysfunctional families. “If you don’t care too much about yourself, you’re not going to care or help anything at all--your property, your children, your community. If you don’t care about yourself or have a knowledge of who you are, you’re definitely not going to care about anything else.” Ms. Tate described how when she was younger, she was able to sweep the block and plant flowers to keep the area beautiful. (For the record, her home is still beautiful). Now that she is older, no one in the community has stepped in to fill that role. Both felt that if the city were to invest more into the community, people would learn to respect, appreciate, and care for their neighborhood.
Grandmother and grandson alike were concerned for the children of Southeast. “They need more community centers for kids, and more parks, and just more recreation for the children… children don’t have much to do but to get into trouble around here.” said Andre. He described his childhood as being spent playing in the woods, building a clubhouse, and finding animals by the creek at Oxon Run Park, on Southern Ave, SE. Today’s children can’t enjoy much of the recreation that he did due to development. “Back then it was more wooded areas, but they cleared out the trees and everything to build apartments and houses and stuff like that. So a lot of the places that I’m familiar with that I used to play, they’re not there any more.” With the lack of available activities today, he feels that the youngest generation is spending too much time with the television. “The TV is raising them, and that age is lost and going in their own direction; they don’t know what to do, so they come up with crazy ideas, you see, to keep themselves entertained. They need more stores and more job opportunities, and you know, just to try to get more good leadership.”
Leadership, Andre believes, needs to come from both the government and the citizens. He thinks the government needs to “step in more and be more involved with the city.” He also called on people of the community to have a positive influence on the people around them. I think we can all share that responsibility.
July 21, 2008
If You Missed It...
by Kate Perkins, Community Blogger.
Check out this short NPR program on green affordable housing:
http://wamu.org/programs/mc/08/07/18.php
Celebrating a year of the re-opening of "Galen Terrace" an apartment complex in Anacostia with many section 8 units, NPR highlights the progress of the 2006 "Green Building Act" passed by the DC city council.
In 2006, the District city council passed a bill saying that all new affordable housing construction had to meet green building standards. Long seen as only for elites or the wealthy, the special argues that green buildings are actually long-term more affordable for low-income residents. Residents of Galen Terrace comment that the renovation has made the complex safer and more hospitable for residents as well as lowering energy bill costs.
Washington, DC has one of the most progressive Green Building requirements in the world--requiring LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) on all new public and private buildings. It applies to all building plans submitted after January 1st 2008.
The long-term impact of this legislation and its effects on public and affordable housing issues is yet to be seen. However, this appears to be a positive step for the District, especially passing a year of the first green affordable housing complex!
July 18, 2008
Who Is Homeless?
by Kate Perkins, Community Blogger.
At the District City Council's hearing on the "Housing Waiting Elimination Act of 2008," District of Columbia Housing Authority Executive Director Michael Kelly announced that 9,348 of the 23,418 households on the housing waiting list claim to be homeless. A household that applies as homeless gets priority on the housing waiting list over those who are already housed, even if those who have housing are living in inadequate housing.
Given the large number of apparently homeless households in the District, many social workers and public officials (Marion Barry at the hearing Monday July 14th) alike openly question whether over 9,000 households are actually homeless or not.
This begs the question—what qualifies as homeless? According to the office of Housing and Urban Development, a homeless individual is:
- an individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and
- an individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is —
- a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
- an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
- a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.
This definition is much broader than it used to be. Originally, only those individuals who were sleeping on the streets or in a shelter qualified as homeless. In May of 2006, many nonprofit organizations and coalitions that served the nations' homeless pressured HUD for an expanded definition of homelessness, saying homelessness is much broader than just those traditionally seen as homeless, living outside or in emergency shelters. The coalition argued that people who are staying with family members, "doubling up" with others or staying long term in motels also qualify as homeless because their housing situations are the result of economic difficulties or a loss of housing. The definition has since been changed currently to incorporate people in these situations.
Sometimes termed "couch surfing," living with others doesn't fit under a traditional picture of homelessness but can often leave individuals out of the scope of social programs, without access to case managers or others who could provide comprehensive supportive services for suitable housing. Similar to people in the shelter system or living on the street, homeless living with friends or family or in motels are often moving frequently and experiencing constant instability.
What difference does the definition of homelessness make? Actually quite a bit when we consider who gets social services—and in particular access to public housing or Section VIII housing choice vouchers. Because qualifying as "homeless" bumps individuals up to the top of the waiting list, many applying for public housing and housing choice vouchers claim homelessness on their original applications. Speaking with someone at the DCHA office, I learned that people did not have to give proof of homelessness (usually in the form of a letter from a shelter either stating that the individual lives at the shelter or could not stay because of a lack of space) until their name comes up for housing on the list, which can be several years after their application time. The person I spoke with said that essentially everyone who applied for public housing or housing choice vouchers claimed homelessness knowing it would advance their application.
This is disturbing on several levels. Is the homeless designation on the waiting list a valid measure of anything? Because individuals do not have to have any proof to claim homelessness and the penalty for not being able to prove homelessness is only having one's name put on the bottom of the list, many more people are likely claiming homelessness than are actually homeless. But with such a broad definition of homelessness to include those living with family and friends because of economic hardship—it is difficult to make a judgment call on the situation.
For other initiatives such as the Housing First initiative that seeks to house vulnerable homeless in the District, the vastness of homelessness on the waiting list, however, makes little difference, given the initiative's focus on the chronically homeless which are often individuals with severe mental or physical disabilities. Also the Housing First initiative will only serve about 400 households per year, unable to touch the long waiting list any time soon.
Are there over 9,000 households who are homeless in the District? Isn't there something wrong with the affordable housing situation when families are encouraged either openly or indirectly to claim homelessness regardless of their situation because of the hopeless housing crisis?
Anacostia History
by Jessica Wright, Community Blogger.
After visiting the Anacostia museum for the first time, I was excited to further explore the history of the area. What better way to learn than from the long-time residents? I spoke with one of our clients, Ms. P, a 58-year-old woman who has lived in Anacostia since she was 12. As she was proud to relate, her experiences date back to when the ice man and milk man still made their neighborhood deliveries.
Like many long-time residents I’ve met, Ms. P remembers her childhood here fondly. “I wish I was a kid again,” was her response when asked about the changes over the years. She lamented the change in people’s attitudes that has resulted in the violence seen today. “Back then…we could leave our doors unlocked, stuff like that. And now we can’t do that…It’s just terrible.”
Ms. P’s favorite destination when she was younger was the zoo. “I used to like to see all the animals. I stopped going there, because it’s too hard right now. The transportation is too hard to get to. Some people can’t afford it.”
Ms. P stated that in the past the area was still very low income, but rent was much cheaper. Food and clothing were also much lower-priced. In her opinion, the struggle to make ends meet is more of a recent development, due to government policy.
A positive change that Ms. P has observed is that the MLK area of Anacostia has improved a lot. Considering the New Communities research that I’ve done lately, I asked Ms. P for her thoughts on the initiative. She stated that it would “most definitely” have a positive effect on the area. “It’s going to make the community look even better.”
In parting, Ms. P expressed her hopes for the community:
I just wish that the young people in this community, and old people, would, you know, look after their kids. Take a positive attitude and adult attitude in life; pay more attention to their kids, pay more attention to their health, pay more attention to anything that’s going to help them survive in this city. And we’ll love one another, you know, and just get along. Live the best way you can.Sounds like wise advice to me.
Need Food? Use the DC Food Finder!
Nutrition News for your Friday.
by Casey Davidow and Joni Podschun, SOME Inc. (So Others Might Eat).
The DC Food Finder—a new interactive map of food resources—was unveiled last week and it couldn’t come at a better time for D.C. residents.
Last Wednesday the Post’s Michael Gerson wrote about food inflation and the moral imperative to end hunger. We hear story after story, in the news and in our direct service work, of people squeezed by rising food costs.
But, there’s also good news to share: around the same time that Gerson was drafting his column, advocates, service providers, and local food activists in the coalition Healthy Affordable Food for All (HAFA) unveiled the DC Food Finder, at http://www.dcfoodfinder.org/. The DC Food Finder is an interactive map that locates sources of low-cost groceries, community gardens, free meals, places to apply for food assistance benefits, farmers’ markets, nutrition education programs, and more.
We argue elsewhere on this blog that many low-income D.C. residents lack three essential things: money to consistently purchase a healthy diet; knowledge about nutrition and cooking; and access to healthy, affordable food retailers. These needs have only become more pressing with the increase in food costs by 7.9% in the last two years. The DC Food Finder is an essential tool for connecting D.C. residents with needed resources in their neighborhoods, a starting place in the Washington community’s struggle against hunger, poverty, and the resulting health problems.
Joni Podschun is the Advocacy Associate at SOME (So Others Might Eat), and works on issues related to seniors, families, and access to healthy food. You can reach her at 202-797-8806 x. 2112 or jpodschun@some.org. For more information on SOME’s advocacy on food issues, please visit their website.
July 17, 2008
Anacostia Has a Museum?
DC Sets Up a Housing Program to Fix a Housing Program
Now we can have two underfunded programs.
by Jessica Wright, Community Blogger.
In an effort to deal with DC’s notoriously long waiting list for housing assistance, the Local Rent Supplement Program was enacted in 2006. Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), and Adrian Fenty (former D-Ward 4) introduced the bill, proposing that the fund be started with $19 million, which was intended to help 2,650 families. At the time, the waiting list totaled 52,000 applicants. This bill was enacted when federal funding for the DC Housing Authority was seeing a sharp decrease, a trend that has continued under the Bush administration.
The Local Rent Supplement Program follows many of the rules and regulations set forth by the federal Housing Choice Voucher Program (formerly Section 8). (For more information on the HCVP, see previous blog entries.) Unlike the HCVP, the LRSP is limited to extremely low income households (including one-person households) within the District of Columbia. (The HCVP is not limited to DC residents and can be used anywhere in the United States.) Eligible households are selected from the DC Housing Authority’s existing HCVP waiting list, but qualified applicants can receive Project-based and Sponsor-based assistance without being on the HCVP waiting list. Much of the funding is allocated for Tenant-based vouchers, while the remainder of the money is directed for Project-based and Sponsor-based assistance, which encourages developers to build and maintain affordable units.
Although the Local Rent Supplement Program is an important program, it currently does not have the funding necessary to make much of a dent in the waiting list for housing assistance. Granted, the waiting list has decreased from 52,000 (in 2006) to 23,418, but much of that decline can be attributed to the waiting list purge performed at the beginning of this year. The mayor’s proposed 2009 budget did not provide any additional funding for the Local Rent Supplement Program, which would have meant that no new affordable housing units would be able to be funded through DCHA. Thankfully, at the final Council vote, $2 million was added to the budget to support the LRSP.
According to Michael Kelly, Executive Director of the DCHA, it would take $360 million dollars of additional funding to house the 23,418 households currently on the waiting list. Clearly, DC has a long way to go.
Waiting With Zain: Clients Sharing Stories
Mr. T and Me!Our clients were very perceptive to this new plan. Mr. T told me that the new measure is a necessary and welcomed change because the old measure is outdated. He maintained, “The new [economic] conditions and higher costs of living we’re facing aren’t represented in the old measurement.” By incorporating specific local costs, Mayor Bloomberg’s plan attempts to do just this - create a more accurate representation of the economic hardships that low-income residents are facing. The people facing these hardships are in agreement: all the clients I spoke with said they’d like to see this new measurement instituted not only in DC, but throughout the nation.
The new poverty measurement defined almost one-fourth of New Yorkers as living under the poverty line. If the national number of impoverished citizens increases as much as the number in New York did (+4%), the new method will have defined an extra 12 million citizens living under the poverty line. Mr. T thinks this increased number will put pressure on the government to respond. He declared,
The economy is in trouble and the people it supports are in trouble, but they [the government] are still spending trillions of dollars on the war. They need to spend that money helping people here at home that need it.
However, the first step in defining how much assistance to give is understanding how many people need it. When announcing the new plan, Mayor Bloomberg was to have said, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.” This new plan is indeed a far more accurate measure of poverty; now we’ll just have to wait and see how it will be managed.
Fenty Makes Plans to House the Homeless
by Kate Perkins, Community Blogger.
According to the Housing Choice Voucher waiting list, there are 9,348 households in Washington DC who qualify as homeless. Spend time walking the National Mall, Farragut Square, or M Street in Georgetown and I guarantee you'll encounter some of them.
April 2nd of this year Mayor Fenty announced a new policy initiative to target some of the most chronically homeless population. The "Housing First Fund" will seek to have 400 chronically homeless residents in permanent housing by October 1st of this year. Fenty claims Housing First is a "new approach" to serving the chronically homeless by securing housing for vulnerable individuals, then later providing comprehensive services to address root causes of the person's homelessness. Unlike previous programs that mandated sobriety or commitment to a program prior to permanent housing, Housing First doesn't require such promises or enrollment.
Made famous in New York City and Great Britain, the philosophy behind Housing First is to help homeless individuals move forward with their lives by eliminating the number one stress factor contributing to all their other problems—homelessness. Then, once stabilized in consistent housing, individuals are surrounded by personalized comprehensive support structures, such as health care services, counseling, and job training.
Although over 9,000 households are waiting on the district public housing and Housing Choice Voucher list, not all of these are listed as "chronic" cases. Chronically homeless are those who most frequent the shelter system, often with disabilities or mental illnesses. This group has been found to be some of the most difficult to service in existing homeless services. In Fenty's press release in April of 2008, his office cited that the District has approximately 1750 chronically homeless residents.
In order to determine who to give housing to first, the District has utilized a vulnerability index developed and utilized by Street to Home, an organization that has helped much of New York City's homeless find more permanent shelter and social service support. The vulnerability index looks at risk factors such as disease, substance abuse, and mental illness to determine who is most in need of permanent housing and would benefit best from accompanying social service attention.
Talking to individuals who work for DC Central Kitchen, I learned more about the vulnerability index and how they went about gathering data about homeless individuals. These surveys, taken in the middle of the night, have received some criticism for having to wake homeless individuals to answer personal questions. The homeless outreach workers I spoke with, however, explained that most of the skepticism came from a lack of published information from the government about the details of the project. Learning more about the survey system, homeless outreach workers familiar with the homeless population alongside trained volunteers (trained in how to wake someone, ask a personal question, and how to handle a refusal) approached homeless individuals to survey them for the Housing First initiative vulnerability index. Similar surveys have had positive results in cities like New Orleans, Baltimore, and Philadelphia for counting and understanding the needs of homeless residents.
In the District, housing for the first set of participating individuals will be scattered throughout the city and allow clients the opportunity to choose their own apartments, similar to the Section VIII housing choice voucher program. Nationally the Housing First Initiative has met a lot of success. The District began its own pilot program of Housing First this year with 20 homeless individuals in the Foggy Bottom and Dupont Circle sections of the city.
Outreach workers to the city's poor and homeless question the aggressive deadlines approaching. In almost three months, Fenty has promised housing for an additional 400 vulnerable homeless individuals. Many question the Mayor's plan to provide accompanying supportive services to these residents in a timely manner since no plan has been formally announced. According to DHS Deputy Director Laura Zeilinger, every homeless resident placed in permanent supportive housing will receive a case manager. However, details for creating this system by October 1, 2008 remain unclear. The $19.2 Million plan will create 2,000 individual and 500 family housing units by 2014 by housing an additional 400 individuals each year.
Providing permanent residence for the homeless proves to be more cost effective in the long term considering the costs of homeless shelters, hospitals, jails, and psychiatric hospitals. The same organization in New York, Common Ground, found that they could provide a home and social services at $36/night as compared to $54/person/night for a shelter or $1,185/night for a hospital stay, $164/night in jail or $467/night in psychiatric institutions.
Cost may have been a large motivator for Mayor Fenty's decision. Alongside announcing permanent housing for 400 chronically homeless this year, he also announced the closing of the 300-bed Franklin Street night shelter by October 1st. Outreach workers for area homeless express concern that there will still not be enough space left to fill the needs of the homeless. Many caution Mayor Fenty to evaluate the need for the shelter before closing it in an extensive plan to consolidate existing shelter facilities. The District shelter system has a current capacity of about 1,000 per night.
July 16, 2008
What's New about the 'New Communities Initiative'?
To help supplement previous and upcoming posts here is a brief overview and comparison of two programs we often mention: HOPE VI and New Communities Initiative.
HOPE VI:
1992- Present
Purpose:
- Concepts inspired by ‘New Urbanism’, which has a vision for dense, pedestrian-friendly, and transit-accessible communities.
- Revitalize America's most severely distressed public housing
- Provide a flexible source of support for investments in public housing developments and for their residents
- Change the shape of public housing: more aesthetically appealing townhouses/ apartments
- Reduce concentrations of poverty: mixed-income communities
- Employment assistance and counseling services
- Higher standards of personal and community responsibility
- Develop partnerships to plan and implement improvement
- Any Public Housing Authority with severely distressed public housing units are eligible to apply for grants
- No one-for-one replacement requirements
- Oftentimes leaves residents with the most critical housing needs with fewer housing options
- Displacement of many residents because of loopholes in the legislation
- Good at physically improving current developments
- Many residents with very low income end up repeating the process of displacement through living in public housing HOPE VI seeks to eliminate, or replace with Section 8 vouchers
- Low rates of return to improved development, among former tenants, because of FSS requirements
- How HUD determines which areas deserve grants is very vague and misleading
- Grantees often use the money to construct higher priced public housing and/or market-rate units
- Sheridan Terrace project to be DC’s seventh HOPE VI project
New Communities Initiative:
Newest DC housing improvement program.
Purpose:
- Partnership between the District, neighborhoods and other public and private stakeholders
- Focuses on neighborhoods with older public housing developments & high concentrations of poverty and crime
- Transform neighborhoods into mixed-income and mixed-use communities
Improvements on HOPE VI:
- One-to-one unit replacement (reducing displacement after improvements)
- High-quality housing options affordable to all income levels
- Access to human services necessary to allow residents to take full advantage of new economic opportunities and changes in their community
- Refurbishing parks, schools, and libraries
- Targets ‘hot spots’ in DC
- A council of current residents and stakeholders is put together to draft what the community should look like
- The council chooses the development plan they like, drafts the return protocol, and determines how many units of stratified housing there will be
- The DC government typically views the council's decisions as suggestions and instead builds condos with the entitlement money
Current Criticism/Comments:
- Neighborhoods listed for destruction: Lincoln Heights/Richardson Dwellings, Barry Farm/Park Chester/Wade Road
- Is there a relocation assistance plan?
- Enough residents involved to influence drafting neighborhood plans?
- Website for NCI is not updated regularly, so how can residents learn the latest about current initiatives? (And how will residents get access to information if they don’t have internet access?)
New Communities Initiative addresses the main resident displacement issues surrounding HOPE VI through one-to-one unit replacement for affordable housing units and building new units before destructing older ones. NCI also mitigates management issues through increased resident participation in planning and managing the renovated communities.
Remembering the Past, Hoping for the Future
by Jessica Wright, Community Blogger.
I recently had the opportunity to interview Ms. Ileane Clayton, a resident of Lincoln Heights who has been very active in the New Communities Initiative. Ms. Clayton first moved to Lincoln Heights in the 1960s, where she lived for about four years. She returned to the project approximately eight years ago. In the following video clip, Ms. Clayton describes some of the changes to Lincoln Heights since living there 40 years ago.
Ms. Clayton also spoke a great deal about the New Communities initiative and her hopes for the project. She feels that New Communities will bring about a positive change and provide new opportunities for the residents. She is very active in her community, working hard to get others engaged in the New Communities process. However, like others I have spoken to, she is concerned about where residents of Lincoln Heights will live during the construction, and whether she will be able to come back. Ms. Clayton is fighting to get the New Communities plan in writing, as well she should when considering the broken promises at Northwest One. Hopefully, residents of Lincoln Heights will soon be able to not only remember the "good ol' days" of the past, but also think fondly of their present and future.
July 15, 2008
Notes From Marion Barry's Housing Hearing
Ready for action?
The purpose of Monday's meeting about eliminating the Section VIII housing waiting list was unclear from the beginning. Councilman Marion Barry had called the hearing after earlier this past year Mayor Fenty pledged to eliminate the waiting list for public housing and the housing choice voucher program by January 2011. Barry submitted a bill (Housing Waiting List Elimination Act of 2008) to the council this spring that would require the mayor to submit a plan within 90 days to detail how he plans to go about eliminating the waiting list of individuals seeking housing choice vouchers and placement in public housing by January 1, 2012.
Advocates and representatives from many district nonprofit organizations, free legal clinics, and watchdog organizations joined over 50 individuals who had spent anywhere from a few months to over 15 years of their adult lives on the housing waiting list.
The room revolved around the personality cult of Barry, allowing him an opportunity to gain favor with district residents who showered praises on him, sometimes mistakenly calling him mayor—once even president.
Actively engaged with the crowd, Barry began the meeting —which at points resembled a rally—with an impassioned speech about the need for affordable housing in the district. People in the crowd cheered and gave other verbal affirmations as Barry began, "here we are in the richest country in the world with the economic development happening in Washington at a rapid pace, right down M Street SE, you'll find 8 or 9 cranes. More housing built—but not enough."
Barry openly questioned Mayor Fenty's commitment to elimination of the housing waiting list, given that no new money had been allocated out of either the 2008 or 2009 budget for affordable housing. Sharing with the crowd that the district's annual budget is $9 Billion, Barry said that to eliminate 20,000 current households off the waiting list would cost the district $300 million over the next year at a cost of about $16,000 per family. While no small task, Barry told the crowd that, in his opinion, the housing issues in the district were not a matter of space, but a matter of funding. Criticizing some district spending as "nonsense," he instead asserted he wanted to "spend it on people." He called Mayor Fenty to task, to "put your money where your mouth is." The crowd clapped and cheered him on, especially as he asked for their support and help, to get involved and "tell the mayor how you feel" whenever they got a chance.
For someone who hasn't spent any significant time in Barry's presence, I was impressed with his demeanor and rapport with the public. As Ward 8 Councilman, Barry showed a lot of connection to the low-income DC residents who came to testify about their experiences with housing and the waiting list. Before the witnessing portion of the hearing began, he reassured the many people in the room who had never sat before a public committee before by giving them tips on how to speak in public, encouraging people to be natural and speak "from the heart" and share about their experiences.
He rallied the crowd and expressed a shared sentiment that "just because you don't make as much money as your neighbor or somebody down the street doesn't mean you shouldn't be in affordable housing." With a cheerful atmosphere and a sense of shared commitment to the mission of finding affordable housing, the long meeting became an entertaining event for all involved.
As the testimonies rolled on through the late afternoon, many people told personal stories of living on the DC housing list 5, 10, 15 years waiting for a section VIII voucher. The stories ranged from women who lived in small, roach-infested apartments with 5 or 6 children doing "what I have to do to get by" to complaints about bad experiences with the Housing Authority, to their difficulties with “slum landlords. As they cried, Barry reassured them in a grandfatherly tone, commending them for their courage to share. When residents made these complaints, Barry asked for the names of government workers and landlords, promising to follow up on each issue. Sometimes he promised to make personal calls on the behalf of constituents, confirming exterminations or checking to see if individuals were actually on the list.
Spirits in the room were high as Barry made promises right and left. Early in the day, he agreed to participate in a 48 hour "homeless challenge" with National Coalition for the Homeless, which allows politicians an opportunity to experience homelessness in Washington for a weekend. Responding to doubts that he'd participate, Barry said, "you know me, I'll go anywhere." The room exploded into applause and cheers.
A 19 year old single mother told a heart-wrenching story of moving from several relative's homes to various women's shelters all for short periods of time as she waited for her name to come up for public housing or a housing voucher. She spoke out about verbal abuse from workers at local shelters, disclosing their names at Barry's prompting, which sent the crowd into cheers. Boldly declaring, "I'm a good mother," the young mother questioned why she was not being helped.
Captivated by her story, Barry later used her repeatedly as an example of those who "should be being helped" by the District Housing Authority but are in a hopeless condition because of the length of the waiting list.
After hearing residents pour their hearts and needs out to his attentive ear, Barry invited Michael Kelly, Executive Director of the District of Columbia Housing Authority to the stage. Barry quizzed him about specific stories shared earlier, attempting to hold the institution accountable. Kelly shared the latest number of people on the waiting list (23,418 households, 9,348 families of those are designated as homeless) and also offered some explanation for the seeming endless-ness of the DC housing waiting list. Unlike many peer institutions in the nation, he said, the DC Housing Authority keeps an "open list" that accumulates regardless of whether housing is available or not. Other cities like Chicago only open the list when housing is available—often every 10 years for only a few days.
Not that the meeting was really policy-focused. The public spectacle of a hearing allowed Barry an opportunity to showboat his charisma and love for the people of Washington, restoring hope for some temporarily, but offering no sort of long-term action steps or solutions. I’m still concerned about all the short-term promises he made to individuals (and groups), which more than likely will come to nothing. Moreover, I wonder what will become of the wealth of testimonials and facts that came out during the course of the day. Losing those to deaf ears would be heartbreaking.
July 14, 2008
Houseboats: Only Subsidized Downstream
Do not pass the River, Do not collect Housing Like the Potomac, affordable housing for low-income residents flows southeasterly until it meets the Anacostia. Whereas the water from the Potomac and Anacostia combine and flow south, affordable housing deposits in the southeast corner of the city. Wards 7 and 8 contain the largest concentrations of affordable housing units, seeing over 50% of both the District’s housing choice vouchers and affordable housing project-based units. The northwest side of the city contains the least amount of affordable housing units, with wards 3 and 4 seeing only 6% of the District’s housing choice vouchers and only 3% of the District’s affordable housing project-based units.
The geographic concentration to certain areas has undeniable economic ties. It’s no surprise that Ward 3 had the highest median sales price for a single family home and the highest median and average household incomes of all wards in DC, while Wards 7 and 8 ranked the lowest in each of those three categories. This inverse distribution of income and affordable housing makes sense in theory. In places where people are doing well economically, there’s little need for affordable housing; where people are doing worse off, there’s a more considerable need.
However, a problem arises when income and geography feed off of each other; the self-fulfilling nature of this seemingly reasonable relationship is one of the main facilitators of inherited poverty. Because so many other forms of development inevitably follow income, communities will become “nicer” as their inhabitants become richer, and people will tend to live in as nice of an area as they can afford. Therefore, although they gain affordable housing, the city’s low-income residents lose out on basic amenities that are crucial in their fight to improve their situation. Education is just one example of such an amenity; the distribution in education level seems to follow income. Ward 3 easily has the highest concentration of high school and college graduates, while Wards 7 and 8 have the lowest.
The City seems to have decided what to do about it. It is attempting to increase interaction and equalize access to such amenities by integrating an income distribution into a community. The Section 8 voucher program attempts to do this, although relatively poorly. The New Communities Initiative is also based on this theory, although, as previously discussed, the income distribution proposed is currently being compromised in Northwest One. Although diversity in and of itself is valuable, the real value of economic diversity lies in its ability to provide equal access to these amenities and in a broader sense, equality of opportunity. Whether this can be implemented in the city is yet to be seen.
map courtesy of DC Dept of Health
July 11, 2008
What Really Happened at Northwest One
by Tom Howarth, Executive Director of the Father McKenna Center.
People, particularly poor people, who live in proposed New Communities must learn a lesson from what happened in Northwest One, the first designated new community. It's a long story but here are the lowlights.
The Williams Administration promises that only 34% of the new community would be market rate housing for the rich. The Fenty Administration settled for 64% market rate housing for the rich and reduced the amount of very low income housing from about 32% to only 12%. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, old story.
The Williams Administration accepted the guideline of Build First that minimizes the displacement of the poor because the longer one is displaced and the further away they go the less likely they are to come back. The idea here was to protect the poor and bring new people into the community to join them. The Fenty Administration trashed Build First and told everyone to leave 33 K Street NW because they said the if one apartment has bed bugs the entire building must be cleaned out. That is absurd, but that's what they said.
The Mayor told Northwest One that he wanted to do what the people wanted to do but when the NW 1 Council asked him to go door to door at 33 K St. to see if people actually wanted to leave, he refused. He listened the community-focused attention on the few people who disagreed with just about anything and then did what he wanted to do. The proof is in the pudding.
What should other communities do? First, believe no one and get everything in writing. This populist stuff about the Mayor being a man of the people...pure bull.
Tom Howarth is Executive Director of the Father McKenna Center, and served on the board of the Northwest One development.
Posts
