[ Reply ]
From: Michael Hanley
email: mailto: mhanley@wnylc.com
link:
date: March 1, 2001
Date: 3/1/01
Time: 5:18:45 PM
Remote Name: 216.42.54.174
There was a spirited discussion on the March 1 conference call regarding Project Based Voucher issues. Much of the call centered on the provision in HUD's January 16 Guidance (66 Fed Reg 3605) that presumptively limits use of the Project Based Vouchers to census tracts that have a poverty concentration of lower than 20%. (The Guidance permits a waiver). There were conflicting concerns between the goal of making sure that subsidies get used to provide opportunities outside of high poverty areas, and the need to make sure that the PBV option is available in certain situations where it would be desirable to do so even though the tract has a poverty rate higher than 20%. Such situations include, but undoubtedly are not limited to:
1) preservation scenarios in which the PBV might be helpful in keeping an expiring contract or opt-out building available to low income tenants; 2) community revitalization efforts; 3) situations in which the PBV will provide access to an area that is undergoing a market-driven revitalization (i.e., trending upward); 4) when necessary to prevent displacement; 5) cases in which project-basing of vouchers could not otherwise realistically be used on any meaningful scale because of the overall scarcity of census tracts below 20% poverty in a given municpality or area.
The advocates on the call who were reluctant to push for a reduction (or perhaps even a removal of) the 20% standard generally expressed the view that the history of granting exceptions regarding site and neighborhood standards (SNS) has been one in which the exceptions have inevitably swallowed the rule. I expressed the opinion that it may be useful to keep a presumptive 20% poverty deconcentration criterion in place in order to make sure that advocates can get to the table to discuss (and force a legitimate review) of the asserted basis for providing an exception. Such a review would be triggered if there is a formal waiver request that must be initiated. Others on the call felt that a better mechanism might be to simply advocate for specific criteria which would automatically trigger the exemption from the 20% poverty limitation. Apparently the Zeitgeist in the PHA/developer world (and perhaps at HUD?) has the momentum headed toward a very minimal HUD role regarding determinations about project basing. Personally, I find this very disconcerting.
Ultimatley, I believe, there was more agreement among the LALSHAC advocates on the call than there was disagreement. I think there was general consensus that:
We want the PBV program to be perceived as a useful tool so that PHAs will use it. We want there to be recognition that some project-basing should be allowed in situations such as those described above. We want to make sure that if PHAs are allowed to project-base in such situations, there will still be an optimal balance of subsidies allocated to lower poverty areas.
In Buffalo we have a situation in which the PHA is ageeing to project base 150 Section 8 subsidies that are replacements for public housing units lost under HOPE VI. We have already had over 1000 tenant-based subsidies come into the area as a desegregation remedy. Even though those subsidies came with mobility counselling, we haven't had the success we would like to have seen in families finding units in truly desirable areas. Consequently, we are looking at PBV as a tool to make sure that units can be identified in lower poverty areas that will improve the success rate for families wishing to move those areas. Nevertheless, since the vast majority of Buffalo's tracts don't meet the 20% poverty rate criteria, we don't want the PBV initiative to be doomed to failure. The approach that Linda Hassberg (WNYLC) and I are now negotiating in Buffalo is based on the following operating premise:
No subsidy will be project-based in a high poverty area unless there is a meaningful revitalization plan in place for that area, and, for each subsidy that is placed in a revitalization area, there will be a corresponding subsidy based in a low poverty area.
Effectively we will be assured that at least 50% of the subsidies will be in tracts with a poverty rate below 20%. Since we are doing this under a Consent Decree (Comer), we have the advantage of being able to assure that we are at the table for the waiver decisions. In fact, we'll either draft or approve the final RFP for the PBV subsidies.
The "exception criteria" identified on the conference call cover more ground than just the simple premise that the area be a "revitalization area." Also, there is the overriding stautory requirement at 42 USC 1437f(o)(13)(C)(ii) that a PHA may only project-base vouchers if the contract is "consistent with . . . the goal of deconcentrating poverty, expanding housing choice and economic opportunities."
The conference call thus left us with the following questions which are posted here for comment:
1. How would we word a "balanced" siting policy that would take into account the additional circumstances in which exceptions to the 20% poverty rate requirement are appropirate? (If you have a particular take on one of the exeption categories described above, or any other, please offer language).
2. What mechanlism would not be so onerous that it would block making subsidies available within a short turn-around time such as might be necessary to quickly package a preservation plan for a multifamily property? Would starting with a presumption that the tract must be low poverty and requiring a "showing" of the basis for the exception be too onerous? Should we instead argue to permit the siting based on either specified or illustrative criteria be permitted so long as HUD adopts a requirement that there be a corresponding low poverty unit allocated a project-based subsidy?
3. Is there any mileage in working with the project-based Certificate criteria at 24 CFR 983.6? One thought is to expand some of the language there to cover the additional categories by extending the "overriding need" criteria of the reg to cover not only areas of minority concentration, but also areas of high poverty concentration. Should there be an exception from the Site and Neighborhood Standards for existing housing?
4. Is a requirement that there be a request for a waiver any better than the current protections, if any, afforded by the requirement that the siting decision must be consistent with the statutory denconcentration requirement and the PHA Plan Approval process? (For my money, I think the waiver makes the decision somewhat more reviewable, or at least provides improved negotiating leverage since the PHA Plan Approval process seems to offer little meaningful review).
PLEASE POST YOUR COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD.
(Remember, comments posted on the Board are no longer automatically emailed to the LALSHAC list. If you would like to get email about the comments posted on this topic, please email me at mhanley@wnylc.com if you were not on today's call. I will forward postings to you, or at least let you know there has been a posting.