[ Reply ]
From: Catherine Bishop
email: mailto:
link: http://
date: 12/22/00
Date: 1/8/01
Time: 11:14:47 AM
Remote Name: 199.174.170.60
The following letter was sent to HUD. December 14, 2000 (By fax and email) Elinor R. Bacon Department of Housing and Urban Dev. 451 Seventh Street, SW Room 4138 Washington, D.C. 20410 RE: Draft Recommendations on Relocation Plan Guidance for HOPE VI Grantees and Guideform Dear Ms. Bacon: We the below signed members of the Loose Association of Legal Services Advocates and Clients (LALSHAC) and the Public Housing Residents National Organizing Campaign (PHRNOC) have reviewed the November 14, 2000 Draft Recommendations on Relocation Guidance for the HOPE VI Program ("Relocation Guide") and the Tenant Relocation Plan Guide for HOPE VI Grantees ("Guideform"). We believe that these documents should be revised as noted below and then issued as soon as possible. The documents are significant as they help fill a void in HUD guidance regarding relocation policies and HOPE VI. In particular, we support HUD's efforts to provide instruction with respect to the obligation of PHAs and their agents to comply with all applicable civil rights laws and regulations and not only comply with but also "exceed . . . the baseline URA [Uniform Relocation Act] standards . . . where necessary to address the goals of the HOPE VI program." We also support the emphasis in the draft Relocation Guide on the importance of resident involvement and early planning. It is critical that as many residents as possible are involved early in the process. The draft Relocation Guide appropriately cross references to the Resident and Community Involvement: General Guidance for the HOPE VI Program which states that "involving residents and the community in the planning process and in shaping the HOPE VI applications should start well before the application is submitted, ideally a year or more before submission." As a corollary, the Relocation Guide should state that the residents should be involved in the development of the Relocation Plan and that it should be a topic of discussion early in the planning phase of a HOPE VI application. HUD should verify the tenant involvement through random contact with those tenants who have signed sign-in sheets attesting to their participation. 1. The Relocation Guide Should Clearly State That HUD Will Monitor and Enforce Compliance with Approved Relocation Plans. Every HOPE VI applicant must submit for HUD approval a Relocation Plan. These plans set forth goals, timelines and objectives to ensure compliance with the purposes of HOPE VI, the civil rights laws and URA. A fair and equitable Relocation Plan is at the core of a successful HOPE VI grant. The Relocation Guide should clearly state that HUD will review a PHA's performance with respect to the Relocation Plan to determine if it has adhered to the plan. In those instances where HUD determines that the PHA has not complied with or developed an approved Relocation Plan, the Relocation Guide should state that HUD will take the necessary steps to require compliance. These steps may include notice of the violation or deficiency with an opportunity to comply and sanctions for failure to comply which may include the withholding of funds or a negative rating with respect to other grant applications. In addition, to enhance the review and compliance function, the Guide should state that any material changes or amendments to the Relocation Plan must be made after consultation with the tenants, including all those who are affected, all development resident organizations, resident councils and the Resident Advisory Board (RAB), and approved by HUD. The cover sheet of the Relocation Guideform should be changed to include at the bottom of the page the following: Amendment dated __________ (developed in consultation with tenants and approved by HUD on _____________). 2. The Relocation Plan Guideform Should Require the Reporting of Data on the Race and Ethnicity of Those Families Who Will Be Relocated. One of the key objectives of HOPE VI is to maximize the opportunities of the original residents, improve the quality of their lives and achieve self sufficiency. The URA rules require relocation plans that estimate the number of households to be displaced, including the family characteristics and special consideration of the impact of displacement on minorities, elders, large families and people with disabilities. 49 C.F.R. § 24.205. The draft Guideform does not seek any information on the race and/or ethnicity of those families who will be relocated. The Guideform should be revised to include a chart requesting information on the race and ethnicity of each family type i.e. elderly, families with children–by number of family members in the household, and nonelderly disabled. This chart should be added to Guideform, III. Number of Families to be Relocated. 3. The Early Planning Objectives Should Be Consistent Throughout Both the Guide and Guideform. We support the goal that planning for relocation should begin early and continue in accordance with a reasonable timeline. The Guide in Appendix B sets forth a typical timeline. This model timeline should be reflected in the Guideform. Section X, Relocation Time Table: Resident Relocation Milestones and Tasks sets forth a severely truncated and not well thought out list of tasks. The Guideform should be revised to track Appendix B of the Guide. Attached to this letter is a suggested list of "Tasks (List Specific Activities)" consistent with Appendix B that should be used to replace the list that is currently set forth in Section X of the Guideform. Consistent with the concept of early planning, the draft Relocation Guide should be revised to make it clear that a Relocation Plan is prepared and submitted to HUD for approval at the earlier of the "PHA's demolition application or the HOPE VI application." See Relocation Guide, page 2, Number 2 (Early planning), 2. This change is necessary because some HOPE VI applications are approved in stages, the first stage being demolition. The relocation plan should be prepared with the demolition application or any HOPE VI application; it is not acceptable to wait until a HOPE VI Revitalization Plan is submitted. 4. Any Tenant Relocated from a Hope VI Site Should Be Treated as a Permanent Relocation. Any tenant who is relocated off site should be treated as displaced and should be entitled to all relocation benefits. There should not be an exception for the tenant who has expressed a desire to return to the revitalized site. The language of the prior Draft Relocation Guide, February 25, 2000, provided that the majority of tenants will be issued a Notice of Eligibility for Relocation Assistance. Under the prior draft it would be a rare instance when tenants are required to move temporarily for renovation and a Notice of Nondisplacement would be issued. See prior Draft, Attachment D: Summary of Basic Relocation Benefits, 5. This language should be retained and the language in the revised draft Relocation Guide (Attachment D: Summary of Basic Relocation Benefits, 2 under Notices) restricting benefits for those tenants who have expressed a desire to return to the HOPE VI site should be removed. We know from experience that families express an intent to return to the site often do not for various reasons including the fact that there is a substantial delay in rebuilding on site, the tenant may not ultimately be eligible and that the tenant's needs change. Having a uniform policy for all tenants will minimize confusion amongst tenants and remove any incentives that such a dual system might create by providing immediately more benefits to the tenant who does not expresses a desire to return. Moreover, a uniform policy will assist HUD as it monitors compliance with the Relocation Plan. 5. Follow Up and Tracking The draft Relocation Guide should be clear that the PHA should track all families who are living at the HOPE VI site at the time the HOPE VI application is prepared (or no later that the time the grant application is submitted) to determine whether their living environment has improved and whether they ultimately reside in areas of reduced concentration of very low-income families. The draft Relocation Guide provides that the Community and Supportive Services (CSS) Workplan must describe how residents will be tracked as they relocate and how services will follow. The tracking of families should be much broader. Families should be tracked to determine whether the housing that the family resides in is better than the original site with respect to neighborhood racial concentration, neighborhood poverty concentration and housing quality conditions. All families should be tracked for five years, including for example, all moves for a Section 8 recipient. Such comprehensive tracking will assist with an evaluation of HOPE VI which as the draft Relocation Guide points out will "ultimately be judged by its effectiveness in helping residents take advantage of opportunities to improve their lives and their environments." 6. Replacement Housing Should be Identified in the Relocation Plan. The draft Relocation Guide emphasizes the importance of maximizing tenant opportunities which includes maximizing the opportunity of original tenants to return to the revitalized site, allowing the tenant the final decision about where to live and ensuring families access to information about services and neighborhoods. To achieve these goals PHAs should include in the Relocation Plan information regarding the HOPE VI replacement units. Tenants must know when they are considering their relocation options what the revitalized community will look like. Thus the Guideform should request information regarding the number, size, accessibility and level of subsidy (i.e. rent levels) required for the units rebuilt on site and off site. This information should be collected in lieu of the information requested in the draft Relocation Guide, Appendix XIII. Replacement Housing. Finally, the information on replacement units should be co-ordinated with the information collected regarding tenant interest. 7. PHAs Should Be Required to Explain How the Housing Offered to Tenants for Relocation Is Better than the Housing Where They Currently Reside. Under the URA a displaced tenant must be offered comparable replacement dwellings. Replacement units "must not be located . . . an area less desirable than the demolition unit . . . 49 C.F.R. § 24.2(d); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1437p(a)(4) (comparable housing must meet Housing Quality Standards and be "located in an area that is generally not less desirable than the location of the displaced person's housing.") Moreover, minority families should be offered housing opportunities "not located in an area of minority concentration . . . . 49 C.F.R. § 24.2205(c)(2(C). Each PHA should be required to describe how the each of the housing resources it plans to use to relocate families is not less desirable than the housing that the tenants are currently residing in with respect to neighborhood racial concentration, neighborhood poverty concentration and housing quality standards. A request for such information should be included in either Section II Relocation Destinations or in Section V Relocation Resources. If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact Catherine Bishop at NHLP 510-251-9400 extension 105. Sincerely, Catherine Bishop Julie Levin National Housing Law Project Legal Aid of Western Missouri William Wilen Dushaw Hockett Poverty Law Project PHRNOC Richard Tenenbaum John Schrider Connecticut Legal Services Cincinnati Legal Aid Barbara Samuels ACLU of Maryland