[ Reply ]
From: c bishop
email: mailto:
link: http://
date: 12/22/00
Date: 1/8/01
Time: 11:31:14 AM
Remote Name: 199.174.170.60
Elinor Bacon called to discuss the LALSHAC letter of December 14, 2000. She was non committal on most things but stated that she hopes to get another draft of the Guide out next week for comments back within days and then for it to be finalized before the end of this administration. This is all a bit up in the air as her last day is December 31, 2000, but she spoke of working through the weekend to revise the draft for recirculation. If she proceeds with this plan, there is still no guarantee that the Guide or the Guideform will be finalized because she will no longer be at HUD. On the issues we raised she said, no to the any requirement that PHAs provide sign in sheets of tenant meetings or making random contact with the tenants. The reasons given were not enough HUD staff to do the random checking and too burdensome for the PHA. No. 1: On the issue of monitoring and enforcement, she said she was trying to balance the PHAs concerns that the requirements in the draft Guide were too strict with LALSHAC comments that more enforcement is necessary. She seemed quite concerned with the PHA position. But she did say that monitoring was to be expected and that HUD should “;ensure compliance.”; How those thoughts will be reflected in the Guide is not clear. She seemed amenable to the idea of putting the names of the tenants, tenant organizations and counsel who participated in the development of the Relocation Plan on the front of the Guideform and also put in a box for checking off and the providing the date of any amendment to the Relocation Plan. No. 2: On the question of requiring reporting of racial and ethnic data of the families who are relocated, she was not convinced that the collection of that information was legal but seemed to agree that HUD would require what was possible. Again how this issue will be reflected in the final documents is not clear. No. 3. Early planning: She understood the problem that the Guideform Time table and the Appendix B of the Guide were inconsistent and said she would look at it. She did want the documents to be inconsistent. She felt she could not require that the Relocation Plan be submitted with the HOPE VI application as she believed that was too soon in the process. She did agree that requiring it at the time of the HOPE VI Revitalization Plan was too late. We discussed other time triggers such as having a final Relocation Plan with a review by HUD 180 days prior to the PHA issuing tenants 90 day notice to vacate. She provided no commitment on the timing issue. No. 4. She agreed that all tenants even those who are temporarily relocated should receive mobility counseling. She also was concerned about the problem that tenants were being encouraged or pressured into forgoing their right to return. She thought perhaps a way of dealing with the problem would be to have a Guideform tenant relocation survey that would clearly address through a series of questions the tenant's choices in an informative and neutral manner. Additionally she thought that encouraging PHA to permit every tenant sign a reoccupancy agreement might deal with the issue. When and how that Guideform would be developed is not clear. Nor is it clear whether there will be a model reoccupancy agreement. She rejected any idea of full relocation benefits for tenants who are required to temporarily move yet still want to return. No 5. Follow up and tracking: She though what we recommended would be too burdensome and expensive. But suggested that we follow up with Tom Kingsley 202-261-5585 or Susan Popkin, HUD personnel who are designing evaluation tools for the HOPE VI program. No. 6. Relocation Housing identified in the Relocation Plan. She said that the replacement housing issue was not a relocation issue and hence did not belong in the Relocation Guide. She was adamant in her position. No.7. Requiring PHAs to explain how housing offered is better than where tenant currently resides. She agreed that this should be required. Other information. Ruth Crystle (sp?), who did work in Baltimore around Section 8 mobility, will be assisting HUD on a contract basis with relocation issues. Milan Ozdinec, who is the current Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian housing will be responsible for the HOPE VI issues as well as the all other issues of deputy assistant secretary as of January 2, 2001. (I understood that comment to mean that the Relocation Guide may not be a priority for him.) According to Elinor, Milan Ozdinec was responsible for starting the HOPE VI program in 1993.