Record for a UF thesis. Title & abstract won't display until thesis is accessible after 2010-05-31.

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022179/00001

Material Information

Title: Record for a UF thesis. Title & abstract won't display until thesis is accessible after 2010-05-31.
Physical Description: Book
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008


Subjects / Keywords: Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation


Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Macedo, Joseli.
Local: Co-adviser: Stein, Jay M.
Electronic Access: INACCESSIBLE UNTIL 2010-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022179:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022179/00001

Material Information

Title: Record for a UF thesis. Title & abstract won't display until thesis is accessible after 2010-05-31.
Physical Description: Book
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008


Subjects / Keywords: Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation


Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Macedo, Joseli.
Local: Co-adviser: Stein, Jay M.
Electronic Access: INACCESSIBLE UNTIL 2010-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022179:00001

This item has the following downloads:

Full Text




2008 Amanda Lorane Montgomery 2


To my wonderful family and frie nds who have supported me throughout my academic career. Your words of encouragement and prayers are invaluable. Prayer does change things. 3


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I thank the Lord Jesus Christ for giving me the strength and helping me through the trying moments when I wanted to give up. Secondly, I thank my parents for their support during this long process. I give a special thanks to my boyfriend Alan. He was there to keep me calm and let me know that I could do it. I am forever grateful for his support during this crucial time. I deep ly appreciate my best friends Andrea and Shamir for being there to listen when I called late at night to vent. I also want to thank the Shimberg Center family for all of thei r advice and words of encouragement. I was very fortunate to work with such fantastic pe ople. Lastly, but certain ly not least, I want to thank my committee members for their pati ence and support; Ella Littles for keeping me on top of the deadlines and all of her pr ayers and words of encouragement; and thank you to all of my friends and families that kept me lifted up in prayer. 4


TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................7 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................... 8 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .11 Purpose of Study.....................................................................................................................12 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................14 Housing: A Part of the American Dream...............................................................................14 Public Housing before HOPE VI............................................................................................15 Housing Acts 1930s-1960s.....................................................................................................16 Housing Acts 1970s-1990s.....................................................................................................21 High Concentrations of Poverty.............................................................................................22 Public Housing Design and Management...............................................................................23 The Beginning of HOPE VI...................................................................................................25 Goals and Policies of HOPE VI..............................................................................................26 Funding...................................................................................................................................31 Public/Private Partnerships and Financing Options...............................................................32 Criticisms of HOPE VI...........................................................................................................33 Supporters of HOPE VI.......................................................................................................... 34 Reauthorization.......................................................................................................................35 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................3 7 Data.........................................................................................................................................37 Methods..................................................................................................................................37 Case Studies............................................................................................................................39 Chicago: Ida B. Wells Homes.........................................................................................39 Atlanta: Village at Techwood..........................................................................................40 4 CASE STUDIES................................................................................................................. ....42 Case Study: Village at Techwood, Atlanta.............................................................................42 Background......................................................................................................................43 Atlanta Wins Olympic Bid..............................................................................................45 Atlanta and HOPE VI......................................................................................................47 5


Racial composition and new investment..................................................................48 Obstacles faced during HOPE VI.............................................................................49 Criticisms of Atlanta Transformation..............................................................................51 Lessons learned from Atlanta..........................................................................................53 Lesson 1: Public/private partnerships are critical....................................................54 Lesson 2: Communication and resident participation through all phases is crucial................................................................................................................54 Lesson 3: Legal backing is necessary......................................................................54 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................55 Case Study: Ida B. Wells Homes, Chicago............................................................................55 Background......................................................................................................................55 Conditions before HOPE VI............................................................................................57 Transformation Begins....................................................................................................61 CHA Today.....................................................................................................................6 3 Lessons learned from Chicago........................................................................................63 Lesson 1: Housing authorities must be aware of gang activities.............................64 Lesson 2: Unite public housing residents with community.....................................64 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................64 5 ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................... ........69 Lesson 1: HOPE VI Funding Must Be Continued..................................................................69 Lesson 2: Community Support through Public Participation is Essential..............................70 Lesson 3: Public/Private Partnerships work...........................................................................71 Concluding Analysis............................................................................................................ ...72 6 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................. ..74 APPENDIX A CONSENT FORM..................................................................................................................76 B INTERVIEW QUESTIONS...................................................................................................78 C INTERVIEWEES................................................................................................................. ..79 LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................80 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................88 6


LIST OF FIGURES Figure page Figure 2-1 HUD funding history FY 1993-2008...........................................................................36 Figure 4-1 Centennial Place Boundaries........................................................................................6 6 Figure 4-2 Oakwood Shor es Phase 1 Boundary............................................................................68 7


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 1 AHA Atlanta Housing Authority APA American Planning Association Capital fund In accordance with sect ion 519 of the QHWRA of 1998, all public housing modernization and development programs (CIAP, CGP, MROP, and Public Housing Development) have been consolidated into the Capital Fund, and funds ar e now distributed to all PHAs. CHA Chicago Housing Authority Developer An entity contracted to develop (and possibly operate) a mixedfinance development that include s public housing units, pursuant to regulations at 24 CFR 914 subpa rt F, and under the terms of a HUD approved proposal. In some cases, the developer may be the PHA itself. A developer most ofte n has an ownership interest in the entity that is established to own and operate the units in a mixed finance development (e.g. as the General Partner of a Limited Partnership). Development A public housing project or other housing projec t with units under an ACC. For HOPE VI Revita lization applica tion purposes, a PHA may propose to target one existing development, or two or more projects that are contiguous (immediately adjacent to one another) or within 1/4 of a mile from each other. Existing conditions Condition of the severely distressed p ublic housing project at the time a HOPE VI Revitalization grant application is submitted. If some or the entire targeted proj ect has been demolished as of the time of HOPE VI application, exis ting conditions are those as of the date the demolition application was approved. Hard costs The costs directly asso ciated with the construction of a development, including labor, ma terials, general contractor overhead, profit and contingencies. HOPE VI Housing Opportunity for People Everywhere HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development LIHTC Low Income Housing Tax Credits a provision in Section 42 of the IRS Code that allows investors to receive a credit against Federal 1 All definitions sourced from HUDs Glossary of HOPE VI Terms dated November 2001 unless noted otherwise. 8


tax owed in return for providing f unds to developers to help build or renovate housing that will be rented only to lower-income households for a minimum period of years. There are two types of credits, both of which are availa ble over a 10-year period: a 9% credit on construction/rehab cost s, and a 4% credit on acquisition costs and all development costs financed partially with below market Federal loans (e.g. tax exempt bonds) Low-income With respect to HUD housing programs, low-income families are those who have incomes that are no more than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) as define d by HUD. Note that other HUD programs and other housing programs such as LIHTC may use different income eligibility standards. Market rate units Housing units for wh ich renters or homeowners do not have income eligibility restrictions Mixed finance A method of public hous ing development that involves a combination of public and private financing sources, and may include the ownership of public housing units by a PHA, a PHA affiliate, or an entity other than the PHA in which the PHA may or may not have an ownership interest Mixed income A mixed-finance housing de velopment that includes a combination of public housing and non-public housing units NCSDPH National Commission on Severe ly Distressed Public Housing NOFA Notice of Funding Availability, published in the Federal Register PHA Public Housing Authority Public housing unit A rental housing unit that is eligible to rece ive operating subsidy from HUD pursuant to Section 9 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1437g). Soft costs Non "bricks and mortar" cost expenses such as design and legal fees, taxes, insurance, constructi on loan debt service, developer overhead, and profit, etc. Very low income Households with income s that are no more than 50% of the HUDadjusted median family income for the area 9


Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning HOPE VI: AN EXPLORATORY CASE STUD Y ANALYSIS OF THE VILLAGE AT TECHWOOD AND IDA B. WELLS HOMES By Amanda Montgomery May 2008 Chair: Joseli Macedo Cochair: Jay M. Stein Major: Urban and Regional Planning My study evaluated two HOPE VI projects the Village at Techwood in Atlanta and Ida B. Wells Homes in Chicago. The rese arch covered in this thesis centers on the significant questions concerning the achieve ments, impacts, obstacles, and policy implementation strategies used by housing au thorities in Atlanta and Chicago. This thesis examines the Atlanta and Chicago housing authorities successes and failures in revitalizing distressed public housing using HOPE VI as th e main funding mechanism. This study has three main objectives: To determine the extent of differences and similarities in policy implementation in Atlanta and Chicago To analyze the political and economic forces that helped to determine the outcomes of redevelopment in Atlanta and Chicago To discuss the implications of the Atlanta and Chicago cases for the viability of HOPE VI for the future of public housing. Results show that HOPE VI is an effective way to reverse the discriminatory practices of the past that concentrated low-income residents into high density developments. In both case studies the housi ng authorities did an excellent job in not only improving the physical condition of th e developments, but also improving the economic conditions of the residents. 10


CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION For the past 5 years, the future of fu nding for the HOPE VI (Housing Opportunity for People Everywhere) program has remained uncertain. In the proposed budget for the 2007 fiscal year, the Bush Ad ministration recommended the elimination of funding of HOPE VI in its entirety. The Administrati on also called for the rescinding of the 99 million dollars the program received in the 2006 fiscal year. Critics of HOPE VI argued that HOPE VI had completed its primary goal of demolishing 100,000 severely distressed housing units. Critics in addition cited long delays between the r eceiving of funding and the completion of the rev italization as furt her reason to term inate funding. Many view HOPE VI as a crucial contri butor to addressing the deteriorating conditions of public housing in America. Supporters such as affordable housing developers Richard Barron and Jonathan Rose as well as the Urban Institute propose that there is a direct relationship between HOP E VI and an increase in investment in distressed areas by public and private sectors (APA, 2007). There is overwhelming evidence that corroborates the belief that HOPE VI brings about significant positive changes in the lives of residents and comm unities. The Interim Assessment of HOPE VI (Holin et al., 2003) provides countle ss examples of successful HOPE VI revitalization projects in several U.S. cities. Desp ite this overwhelming evidence, funding has continued to decrease consid erably from 625 million dollars in 1999 to 100 million dollars in 2008 (Sard & Staub, 2008). A March 2007 report by the Urban Institute entitled Severely Distressed Public Housing, The Cost of Inaction (Turner et al., 2007) argued that there is a direct relationship between the lack of funding for HOPE VI and the deteriorating condi tions of many of Americas pu blic housing developments. 11


In the same report, the Urban Institute pr edicted that as many as 82,000 units of public housing were severely distressed. On June 20, 2007, Orlando J. Cabrera, the assistant secretary for Public and Indian Housing under the U.S. Department of H ousing and Urban Development (HUD), spoke at a hearing before the subcommittee on housing and community opportunity regarding the reauthorization of the HOPE VI program. Cabrera argued that HOPE VI has been an incredibly slow moving program in which HUD is open to suggestions for improvements. He stated that only 72 of the 237 HUD funded HOPE VI projects were at completion, this number represented a 176% since 2003. Cabr era (2007) further cited the Urban Institute Report (Turner et al., 2007) which found that over the past ten years residents relocated due to HOPE VI revitalization moved to better, safer neighborhoods. Cabrera held that HUD is open to redefining the way in which his department addresses public housing issues. He stressed that HUD s upports programs that are both cost effective and efficient. On September 26, 2007, the House Financial Services Committee passed the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007. The act continued the funding of HOPE VI for an additional seven years while making a number of substantial changes to the program. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007 on January 30, 2008 (APA, 2008). The legislation addressed on-site mixed-income housing, off-s ite mixed-income development, limitation on exclusion, tenant protections, resident involvement, improvements on grant implementation, and green housing. Purpose of Study While there has been a continual debate about continuing funding of HOPE VI, this study hypothesizes that HOPE VI is worth continuing. HOPE VI has ability to reverse 12


the years of spatial isolation of low-income residents; its focus is on not only improving the physical conditions of public housing, but also the economic conditions of the residents. Research in this thesis reveals that in order for a HOPE VI revitalization to be successful, public housing aut horities must encourage co mmunity support through public participation and develop public/private partnerships. This thesis specifically investigates the policy implementation strategies used by both the Atlanta and Chicago housing authorities. The two main st rategies investigated were how the development teams overcame the obstacles faced during the planning process, and how public/private partnerships were instrumental in securing adequate funding. The exploratory case study method was used to evaluate the effectiv eness of HOPE VI. The two case studies selected are the former Village at Techw ood in Atlanta and the former Ida B. Wells Homes in Chicago. Chapter 2 of this thesis provides a historical overview of public housing in the United States that led to the development of the HOPE VI program in 1992. Chapter 3 is an overview of the methods used in this research, and Chapter 4 presents the two case studies. Chapter 5 is an anal ysis of the results and impli cations from the Atlanta and Chicago case studies, and Chapter 6 presents the conclusion and recommendations for future research. 13


CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Housing: A Part of the American Dream A house is not only a place of shelter but for many people it represents a place of refuge and security. However, for far too many families this place of refuge comes at a great cost. Countless American families are drowning in debt because of the rising cost of housing. According to HUDs 2003 report to Congress on the need for affordable housing, 5.18 million very-low-income househol ds had worst case needs (HUD, 2005a). HUD defines worst-case needs as renters who do not receive government assistance and have very low incomes or residents that live in substandard housing (HUD, 2005a). HUD defines low incomes as earnings that fa ll below 50% of the areas median income (HUD, 2005a). These worst cases needs in 2003 represented 3.6 million children, 1.6 million senior citizens and 1.3 million persons with disabili ties (HUD, 2005). In that same year, families with children made up almost 40% of households with worst-case housing needs (HUD, 2005a). In 2007, HUD estimated that 12 million households spent more then 50% of their annual income on housing (HUD, 2007). Accord ing to HUDs definition of affordability, a family spending more than 30% of their income on housing classifies them as cost burdened (HUD, 2007). The price of housing today is so high that a one-worker household making minimum wage cannot afford a market rate two-bedroom apartment in any U.S. city (HUD, 2007). The need for mo re affordable housing is not a new problem. Congress realized early on that the lack of affordable housing was a crisis that the private sector alone could not adequately tackle. 14


Public Housing before HOPE VI The first public housing developments bui lt in the 1930s were a part of the recovery efforts from the Great Depression. Many believed that th e Great Depression presented an excellent opportunity for federa l intervention in the housing market (Varady et al., 1998; von Hoffman, 1996). Public housing built during the 1930s and 1940s were for poor, working families (Goetz, 2003). Public housing during that period was vastly different from public housing today. The great majority of residents were white working lower middle-class residents. Originally, public housing was for the working-poor families who came from the bottom third of the income scale. People struggling, yes, and occasionally unemployed, with a modest portion receiving public assistance, but striving for better (Fuerst, 2003, p. 201). The tenants selected had to have enough income to pay the reduced rent without subs idies or other governmental he lp. Most of the tenants selected were two-parent families. Managers of the public housing developments would conduct random visits to units to ensure th at households were sufficiently orderly (Schwartz, 2006, p. 105). Public housing was a place where people could raise their children and not live in fear. In June of 1933, Congress passed the Nati onal Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which delegated $3.3 billion for the creation of the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works, commonly known as the Public Works Administration (PWA) (Lusignan, 2002). The PWA supported construction of public building projects including public housing. Village at Techwood in Atlanta and Ida B. Wells Homes in Chicago were two of the first public housing de velopments built during that period. The Housing Division of the PWA authorized local public hous ing authorities (PHAs) to finance the development costs of public housing (Schwa rtz, 2006). The Federal government would 15


guarantee the funding for the cons truction of the housing devel opments and tenants rents would then be set at a price that covered all operating costs. The Housing Division of the PWA built 51 public housing projects consisting of roughly 2,000 housing units before ending in 1937 (von Hoffman, 1996). Housing Acts 1930s-1960s The Wagner-Steagall Housing Act (also know n as the National Housing Act) of 1937 created the nations first public housing prog ram as a part of the New Deal. During this period, a high number of families faced unemployment due to the Great Depression. The NHA housed the temporarily unemployed and generated jobs for the construction industry. The NHA in addition established the United States Housing Authority (USHA). By 1942, USHA built 100,000 units of public housing in a 140 cities (von Hoffman, 1996). Many early public housing developmen ts gained national recognition for their superior amenities aesthetically pleasing design s such as Village at Techwood in Atlanta. Village at Techwood during this time includ ed high-class landscaping, parking garages, and modern kitchens (von Hoffman, 1996). For a couple of years during and followi ng World War II the federal government temporarily discontinued funding of low-income housing programs (Varady et al., 1998). Funding of public housing programs resumed with the passage of the Housing Act of 1949. Public housing resurfaced as a way to help low-income families cope with the shortage of housing after the war. Congress in the 1949 Housing Act declared the goal of providing a decent home in a suitable living environment for every American family (Martinez, 2000, p.467). Congress promised to work to help all families regardless of race and or socioeconomic status find a safe and clean place to live. It was a philanthropic goal but one that Congress has never been able to reach. 16


Title I of the Housing Act of 1949 unveiled an ambitious federal urban redevelopment program most commonly know n as urban renewal. The federal government allocated monies to cities across the country to revamp their worst areas and replace them with a newer improved social and physical landscape. Shortly after implementation, urban renewal received hars h criticism because many felt the program did more harm than good by calling for the destruction of public housing ultimately lowering the number of affordable housing uni ts available to serve those who needed it most. The few housing developments rebuil t under the urban renewal program usually went to people with a higher socioecono mic status shutting out many lower-income residents (Greer, 1965). Many lower-income residents faced serious financial hardships because the government provided very little assistance during the re location period. In fact, between the years 1949 and 1964 only one half of 1% of all funds allocated to cities by the federal government for the urban renewa l program went to cover the expenses to relocate the displaced families (Gans, 1967, p. 468). In the beginning, supporters championed Title I as a means to boost property values, increase tax revenues, improve livi ng conditions for the poor, and add additional units to the stock of affordable housin g (Teaford, 2000). Publ ic housing is very important because it reduces the number of people forced into homelessness due to the high costs of housing. The National Housing Law Project et al. had to say this about the importance of public housing: Public Housing is an extremely valuable resource because it is housing that is guaranteed to be affordable to families at a wide range of incomes. This includes families with the lowest incomes, who ar e not directly under other federal housing programs. Public housing is guaranteed in nearly all situations rents are set at a level equal to 30% of an eligible fam ilys household income (National Housing Law Project et al., 2002, n.p.). 17


Urban renewal supporters believed the progr am would generate more investment in areas that had become unde rinvested, forgotten areas. However, due to the poorly worded document and various understandings and interpretations of the program, developers would often destroy residential areas devasta ting hundreds of families, and redevelop the area into commercial devel opments (Teaford, 2000). Contrary to the popular belief held by many affordable housing advocates and initial supporters of urban renewal, Title I of the Housing Act did not ha ve any requirements in place for affordable housing. While the government wo uld guarantee the cost of cl earing the blighted areas, many developers would replace the affordable units with market rate units. This lost of affordable units further added to the defic it of affordable housing many American cities already faced. The 1949 Housing Act mandated a one-for one replacement to maintain a sufficient number of affordable housing available for those who needed it most. This meant that for every one unit of dilapidated housing torn down due to urban renewal, a new one had to be reconstructed (Hirsch, 1996). In acco rdance with this mandate, the federal government pledged to build around 800,000 uni ts of public housing in six years (Schwartz, 2006). Regrettably, the reality was that new construction in no way kept up with demolition (Smith, 2006). Many believed that this one-for-one repl acement policy assist ed in the racial segregation of public housing because constr uction of the replacement units took place in already heavily public housi ng saturated minority areas (H irsch, 1996). Practitioners such as Smith (2006) argue that this policy reinforced the concen trations of poverty by helping the poor stay in the same ne ighborhoods instead of moving to better 18


neighborhoods. These neighborhoods continued to suffer and faced further economic decline. The federal government during this time intentionally or unintentionally created islands of poverty using federal funds. During the 1950s and 1960s, many cities similar to Chicago were undergoing major construction of interstate highways. Th ese interstate highways often went directly through many minority neighborhoods forcing the displacement of many families. In order to accommodate the many displaced families, numerous high-density housing developments were constructed. The locations of these high-rise structures often not unlike other public housing developments took place in areas that already faced serious racial isolation and high concentrations of poverty. The Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) chairperson once stated, Families who mu st or want to live in the inner city will have to learn to live with the high -rise building (Brodt, 1986, p. 18). After the deconstruction of countless units of affordable housing, all in the name of urban renewal, thousands of low-income households remained displaced. The high number of displaced resident s began to put more responsib ility on already overburdened local public housing authorities. On average, urban renewa l projects took between ten and thirteen years to reach completion (Wei cher, 1972). One possibl e contributor to the long delay was the requirement that plans recei ve local and federal approval. Residents faced what seemed like no other options and began to fight back against the urban renewal program. Congress hoped that the passage of the Housing Act of 1954 would properly address the serious lack of coordination be tween demolition and construction experienced during the era of the 1949 Housing Act. Congress sampled a different approach by 19


focusing greater attention and money on cons erving and rehabilitating distressed housing instead of just demolishing it. While a number of low and moderate-income developments received funding for rede velopment by the late 1950s the federal government began to fund far more commerci al redevelopment projects. The federal government believed that the redevelopment of affordable housing was not necessarily the most direct way to revitalize distressed areas (Teaford, 2000). Congress in the Housing Act of 1954 requi red that neighborhoods funded for urban renewal prepare a comprehensive development plan in hopes of receiving greater support of the affected community (Teaford, 2000). Th e housing acts that la ter followed allowed for the expansion of educational institutions and hospitals located in the central city. Urban renewal even today has remained a ve ry controversial program because of its questionable and uncertain goals a nd tactics. One fact that ha s remained consistent is the fact that more often than not the people most affected were low-income minority residents. Urban renewal even today still ha s a negative stigma in the African-American community. Many African-Americans view the urban renewal program as Negro Removal (Teaford, 2000, p. 447). Countless African-Americans believe that urban renewal aimed to keep blacks in black onl y neighborhoods regardless of income. By the early 1960s, urban re newal received horrible back lash for exploiting the poor and promoting the interest of the elite a nd big institutions. Public housing across the country was is serious disrepair. The operating costs for many public housing developments rose faster than the incomes of the residents. This was the direct result of the Brooke Amendment in 1968, which required a tenant pay no more than 25% of their income on rent (von Hoffman, 1996). This left very little money to cover the operational 20


costs of the developments. The federal governme nt needed to take action quickly to help the failing public housing system. In 1968, the federal government first bega n appropriating funds to public housing authorities for capital improvements. Section 9(d) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 authorized the Capital Fund Program. The Capital Fund grants help fund development, financing, reconstruction, and management improvements of public housing. Annually public housing authoritie s submit data to the Public Housing Information Center (PIC). HUD then uses this data to determine the amount of funding each housing authority receives for Capital Impr ovements. Nevertheless, even with the monies appropriated for capital improvements, public housing was in such a terrible state that President Richard Nixons decision in January of 1973 to plac e a suspension on allfederal funding for housing programs receiv ed overwhelming support (Varady et al., 1998 and Bratt, 1986). Housing Acts 1970s-1990s Finally, in 1974, the federal government discontinued the urban renewal program in the middle of widespread protest and demonstrations by neighborhood groups opposing the horrible effects of the program on lo wer-income communities (von Hofman, 2000; Teaford, 2000). The federal government began to move in a different direction of the typical public housing development with the passage of the 1974 Housing and Community Development Act. This new pr ogram granted both direct and indirect subsides to private developers and the property owners of newly rehabilitated developments. One of the most prevalent pa rts of the act was th e Section 8 program. Section 8 of the Housing Community Deve lopment Act of 1974 created a complicated set of subsidies and tax incentives for c onstructing, rehabilitating, and maintaining 21


buildings with low-income rental units (von Hoffman, 1996, p. 437). Supporters of Section 8 believed the subsidy was an efficien t way to help low-income persons without using public funds for construction of public housing (Listokin, 1991). Section 8 also provided an opportunity to remedy many of the y ears of legislation that led to the racial segregation of housing. New policies set in place during the 1980s further perpetuated the stigma public housing received as being housing for the poor. One such policy was the stipulation that once a households income reached a certain plateau, that household was no longer eligible to remain in public housing. In 1981, Congress began giving firs t priority to very low-income families with the amendment of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (Jacobs et al., 1986). The median income of public housing residents fell from 57% of national median in 1950 to 41% in 1960, 29% in 1970, and le ss than 20% by the mid-1990s (Schwartz, 2006). By the late 1980s, nearly 20% of pub lic housing tenants had incomes that were less than 10% of the local median income. The majority of public housing households received public assistance, and single females headed a pproximately two-thirds of households in public housing (National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing, 1992). High Concentrations of Poverty In general, PHAs decided to locate public housing in inner city lower income areas not in wealthier suburban areas. Public housi ng even today is typica lly located in areas with higher poverty levels and often predominantly minority neighborhoods. Half of all public housing is located in tracts where mi norities comprise at least 50% of the population, including 38% in tracts that are 80% minority or higher (Schwartz, 2006, p. 22


108). Sixty-one percent of pub lic housing is located in ce ntral cities and only 19% are located in suburban areas (Newman & Schnare, 1997). A study conducted by HUD in 1994 (Goering et al., 1994) found that census tracts with higher percentage of Af rican-Americans have a lower percentage of whites in the same tract living in public housing. Areas w ith higher percentages of African-Americans also have a higher density ra tio of public housing households to market rate households. Originally, the residents of public housing we re white working families. HUD advertised early public housing as a place that was afford able and had a strong sense of community. The high concentration of white families in public housing began to change during the 1960s and 1970s when families opted to move to the suburbs leaving the central cities and public housing for poorer often African-American families. Many white families began to relocate to the suburbs because of th e loss of jobs in central cities. With the change in the demographics of the resident s that lived in public housing, crime rates and drug use increased dramatically. Public housing became a place that was less than desirable for families especially those who could afford to live elsewhere. Public Housing Design and Management One of the major complaints shared by neighborhoods opposing the construction of public housing in their neighborhood is th e poor design and cons truction of public housing developments. Public housing is eas ily distinguishable from other types of housing. In an effort to cut costs, builder s routinely build public housing units with higher density and lacking many amenities a nd aesthetics that other nonpublic housing developments include. Developers often built public housing at high de nsities with little money spent on site development and in security and maintenance. The difficulty to integrate public housing into communities creates separation based on socioeconomic 23


factors. Typically, the neighborhoods in which public housing communities were constructed were just as impoverish ed as the projects themselves. Poor construction and deferred maintenan ce often cost public housing authorities millions of dollars to correct. The e ffect of poorly constructed public housing developments often spills over into the surrounding neighborhoods. The dilapidated developments are, more expensive for local public housing authorities to operate and maintain [and they] often blighted the neighborhoods surrounding them, discouraging private investment and undermining propert y values (Turner et al., 2007, p. 1). Politicians often advocated isolating public hous ing from mainstream as a way to secure political support from homeowners. This prac tice resulted in the spatial isolation of lowincome residents. This spatial creation led to the creation of the urban underclass (Wilson, 1987). Wilson concluded that breaki ng up the concentration of poverty would enhance the socioeconomic mobility and life chances of the low-income residents. Public housing became infamous for its poor property management. Public housing developments typically have their own rules, regulations, pol ice, and authority. PHAs have the power to decide what househol ds are selected to liv e in the public housing developments. Generally, PHAs hired less than qualified staff members to handle the day-to-day operations of the developments. Many public housing authorities have long histories of corruption and in competence. Public housing in some cities have been treated as a source of patrona ge, with hiring decisions ba sed on personal and political connections, not experience and educatio n (Schwartz 2006, p.111). Management problems included poor operational practices, mismanagement of funds, organizational concerns, and poor response time to tenant c oncerns about maintenance problems. Poor 24


management often led to deferred maintena nce costing the federal government millions of dollars. Congress sprung in to action to lower these cost s and remedy the horrible state of public housing in America. Congress began to rethink how to manage and maintain public housing. Focus shifted from just revitalization to also improving the design standards of public housing and management prac tices. Ultimately, this shift in thinking led to the creation of the HOPE VI program. The Beginning of HOPE VI After more than 40 years of continual d ecline in the quality of public housing as well as the economic state of the resident s of public housing, C ongress in 1989 created the National Commission on Severely Distre ssed Public Housing (NCSDPH). The NCSDPH included a congressperson, priv ate developers, mayors, city agency representatives, and public hous ing residents. The chief purpose of the commission was to design an aggressive nationwide plan to eliminate severely di stressed public housing by the year 2000. NCSDPH reported that approximately 86,000 units of public housing across the country were deteriorating or severely distressed (N CSDPH, 1992). The definition of distressed housing as defi ned by the National Commission included four components: Families living in distress (low levels of educational attainment/high high-school drop-out rates, high unemployment ra tes, and low household incomes) High rates of serious crime within the public housing development or the surrounding neighborhood Barriers to managing the environment (high vacancy rates, high turnover rates, low rent collection and high rate of units rejected by applicants) Physical deterioration of bu ildings (Schwartz 2006, p. 116) At the time of the report by the NCSDPH, a program did not exist that sufficiently addressed the increasing problem of substa ndard public housing in the United States. 25


The NCSDPH found that it would cost the federal government ar ound 7.5 billion dollars for the desperately needed capital improve ments (NCSDPH, 1992). While the NCSDPH provided numerous recommendations on making improvements to the Major Reconstruction of Obsolete program (MROP) Congress opted to create a completely new program, which led to the birth of the HOPE VI program. In support of the decision by Congress, the National Commission recommended that Congress fund a 10-year program at a pproximately $750 million per year to remedy Americas ever-growing public housing cris is (HUD, 2007). Congress appropriated the first $300 million for the funding of the H ousing Opportunity for People Everywhere (HOPE VI) program on October 6, 1992, origin ally known as the Urban Revitalization Demonstration (URD). The Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Independent Agenci es Appropriations Act of 1993 authorized HOPE VI. The NCSDPH at the time of its recommendation proposed that HOPE VI should accomplish six goals during each project: To improve the living environm ent of public housing residents To revitalize severely distressed sites To contribute to the surrounding neighborhood To decrease housing that concentrat es very/low-income individuals To create partnerships with local agencies for support and funding To build sustainable communities (HUD, 2005) Goals and Policies of HOPE VI HOPE VI is a competitive grant program where local PHAs apply for funds from HUD to revitalize public housing developments th at are in serious disrepair. HOPE VI funds offer a great deal of flexibility in th at, PHAs uses the funds for rehabilitation, new construction, demolition, and acquisition of land and support services for residents. Originally, to be eligible fo r HOPE VI funds, an applicant ha d to be either a PHA located 26


in one of the 40 most populous U.S. citi es or a PHA on HUDs Troubled Housing Authority list as of March 31, 1992. This stip ulation was later ame nded (Fosburg et al., 1996). Between fiscal years 1993-2006, HUD awar ded 239 revitalizati on grants, totaling approximately $5.7 billion (HUD, 2008). The overall goals of HOPE VI according to Section 24 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (amended in 1999) are to: Improve the living environment for public housing residents of severely distressed public housing projects through the demoliti on, rehabilitation, r econfiguration, or replacement of obsolete public housing projects; Revitalize sites on which such public housi ng projects are located and contributing to the improvement of the surrounding neighborhood; Provide housing that will a void or decrease the concentr ation of very-low income families; and Build sustainable communities (U.S. Housing Act of 1937, 1999). HUD in the Notice of Funds Available (NOF As) outlined six step s that help in reaching the goals identified by the NCSDPH (HUD, 1993). Lessen concentration of low-income residents Creation of partnerships for additional funds Implement Cost-Effective Plans Offer opportunities for family economic independence Design units that blend into the community and are sustainable Involve residents in the planning and implementation HOPE VI works to undertake the most de pilated housing projects across the nation and revitalize these developments into secu re housing for residents. HOPE VI aims to break up high concentrations of poverty that usually accompanied public housing of the past. PHAs allocate more money per unit in HOPE VI developments than other public housing developments to ensure the higher qua lity of each unit. In principle these higher development costs should pay off over time, not only in term s of better quality living environments, but also in lower main tenance costs. More specifically well27


designed and constructed housing is expected to reduce vandalism and hold up better in the face of normal wear and tear (Popki n et al., 2004, p. 21). HOPE VI works to improve the overall physical condition of th e developments and provide a safer more stable environment for residents. Violen ce and crime had overtaken most public housing development causing a contradiction in the original goal of public housing to, provide safe and sanitary housing for every American family. HO PE VI aspires to rid the developments of the crime and drugs that for so many years plagued public housing developments across the country. A significant piece of the HOPE VI revitali zation process is the improvement of the management staff of the new development. PHAs often hire private management firms to manage the new development. Each development is managed independently ensuring higher accountability. In the past, the P HAs managed each public housing development but this often resulted in poor management of the sites. With this new practice under HOPE VI revitalization, Each site has its ow n operating budget, and operating costs and performance are tracked on a project-by pr oject basis (Schwartz 2006, p.118). HOPE VI has significantly changed the way in wh ich people view public housing in America over the past fifteen years. The Council of La rge Public Housing Authorities has this to say about HOPE VI (2004), HOPE VI has brought the public housing progr am, its units, and residents into the mainstream. HOPE VI has created a new ma rket of private investors and lenders that now view mixed-income and mi xed-finance public housing as a good investment. Housing authorities are able to draw on their HOPE VI partnerships and experiences to advance and inform all aspects of their management, operations, design, revitalization, and leveraging strategies. Policy makers believe that mixed-income communities signify more money is available to spend on education, infrastructure, and services if residents of all income 28


brackets were attracted. Gene rally, areas that have a large number of higher income residents have higher property values. Hi gher property values in turn increase the property taxes local governmen ts can collect. The more money a local government collects in taxes the more m oney available for services. Many policy makers believe high concentrations of povert y created an environment not conducive to increasing selfsufficiency. Mixed-income heavily relies on th e premise that the relocated resident will build beneficial relationships in the new co mmunity. Some believe that mixed-income communities present an opportuni ty to reverse discriminatory practices of the past (Joseph, 2006). HOPE VI revitalization includes the teari ng down of high-density developments as well as the reconstruction of lower density developments in an attempt to provide a more stable environment for residents. Reconstruction of the developments supports the premise of HOPE VI in improving the physical conditions of dilapi dated developments and relocating the residents into mixedincome developments. Mixed-income developments are those that have both lowincome units as well as market-rate units. Mixed-Income developments have become almost synonymous with HOPE VI revitalization. The theory behind mixed-income developments is that the elimination of pockets of poverty affords low-income resi dents with better opportunities for upward mobility. William Julius Wilsons research supports the belief that breaking up concentrations of poverty improves the opportunities available to the poor (Wilson, 1987). Holin et al. (2003) suggests that mixedincome housing developments can be a success because it alleviates many of the social ills associated with hi gh concentrations of 29


poverty. The Interim Assessmen t of HOPE VI (Holin et al ., 2003) listed several mixedincomes developments that have found succe ss in attracting all income levels. Mixedincome housing developments generally have higher quality management and tend to be safer environments than the public housi ng it replaced (Rosenbaum and Stroh, 1998). Many view HOPE VI revitalizati on as a way to reverse years of racial discrimination in public housing. PHAs receiving HOPE VI funds work to situate mixed-income developments in racially integrated areas. In areas that are racially isolated, PHAs work to help attract all races and socioeconomic classes. The hope is that providing public housing units in these areas will redu ce the number of public housing units in predominately lower-income minority areas. While there is not concrete evidence th at supports the rela tionship between HOPE VI and desegregation of neighborhoods, ther e are instances of HOP E VI revitalization that helped to integrate racially isolated areas. The 2001 Interim Assessment conducted by Abt Associates, Inc. found that cities such as Atlanta and Char lotte reported a large increase in the number of white residents relo cating to the newly revitalized area. Other cities reported an increase as well but not as dramatic as those reported by Atlanta and Charlotte. HOPE VI achieves its goals of improving the living environment of residents through demolition of dilapidated distresse d housing replacing it with better lower density housing. HOPE VI policies further work s to revitalize not only the site but also the entire neighborhoods. HOPE VI aims to be more than a brick and mortar type of operation, working to rebuild lives and he lping advance the careers and economic stability of residents. HOPE VI has become almost synonymous with mixed-income 30


communities. HOPE VI works to improve the quality of life of low-income residents by allowing them to relocate to mixed-income areas and develop a sense that their new home is permanent and not a temporary dwelling unit. Funding A major requirement for HOPE VI funding is that PHAs must secure other funds that HUD will match. This is required becau se the costs of development are always greater than HOPE VI funds. A 2003 surv eyed conducted by the Housing Research Foundation where 28 public housing authorities responded found that typically each PHA had around eight sources on funding. HOPE VI monies covered less than 40% of the total cost of the redevelopmen t. Other funding options included tax credits, commercial bank mortgages, and other federal programs such as the Federal Home Loan Banks Affordable Housing Program (AHP). A good num ber of the PHAs that participated also made use of state bonds and lowincome tax credit programs. From fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2007, the current Administration has continually aimed to eliminate the funding of HOPE VI in its entirety. The present Administration went as far as to propose the withdrawal of funds from the previous fiscal year. Despite constant pressure from the Administration, Congress elected to continue the funding of HOPE VI and past legislation in January of 2008. Although funding of HOPE VI continued for another fiscal y ear, the amount of m oney available has dramatically decreased over the past couple of years (Figure 2-1). Funding appropriation dropped from almost 800 million dollars in th e 1994 fiscal year to 100 million dollars in 2008 (Rice & Sard, 2008). 31


Public/Private Partnerships and Financing Options Public/private partnerships are of critical importan ce to the success of public housing. Even with the funding PHAs receive from the federal government for the revitalization of public housi ng; it is often not enough to cover the construction and operation costs of that development. Market-r ate units are necessary to cover these costs and allow developers to make a profit. The president of the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association testified before a H ouse subcommittee and stated, The use of mixed financing packages, the participation of private deve lopers as contractors or partners, and the participation of the banking industry in financing HOPE VI projects has helped many agencies establish broader bus iness relationships with private sector organizations (Gutzmann, 2006, p.7). A 2003 report by the Housing Research Foundation surveyed public housing authorities across the country to see what sources of funding were the most common. Twenty-eight housing authorities responded. Of those 28 responding housing authorities, the majority reported utilizing eight sour ces of funding. HOPE VI only represented 38.5% of the project cost and tax credits acc ounted for another 27%. In fact every one dollar of HUD money invested $3 of priv ate funds is invested (HUD, 2005b). Another key player in HOPE VI revitalizat ion is the political support of the local and state government. Often these jurisdictions have resources available to them that are invaluable. The federal government is also a major contributor. One federal program that is very helpful is the low-income hous ing tax credit. The low-income housing tax credit program or (LIHTC) is a federal program that presents private investors or developers dollar-for-dollar credits against th eir federal taxes if they invest in the development of affordable housing developm ents for a minimum period of years (HUD, 32


2001). It is has been very successful over the years in the construction of affordable housing across the country. Priv ate investment is extremel y significant for PHAs to complete projects that will meet the goals of HOPE VI. Criticisms of HOPE VI One of the main criticisms of HOPE VI is the cost. HOPE VI is more expensive on a per unit basis (GAO, 2001). Even HUD has spoken out against continuing funding of HOPE VI because of all of the already f unded incomplete projects still waiting to be completed. HUD agrees with the Bush Admi nistration in that HOPE VI has completed its goal of demolishing 100,000 units. Former HUD Secretary stated as of 2003, 115,000 units received demolition funding and theref ore, HOPE VI has served its purpose (Martinez, 2003). Other critics of HOPE VI include those who oppose any government intervention in housing. They believe that only those who work hard deserve a place to live (Husock, 1997). In June of 2002, a report titled False HOPE: a Critical Assessment of the HOPE VI Public Housing Redevelopment Program outlined many of the major criticisms of the HOPE VI program. There is the belief shar ed by many that HOPE VI is a modern day urban renewal (National Housing Law Project et al., 2003). They be lieve that HOPE VI is a way that the government is trying to push out lower income residents and replace them with higher income ones. Critics also cited a lack of data about successes and processes, no detailed purpose, and too many goals as more reasons to end HOPE VI (National Law Project et al., 2002, von Ho ffman, 1996). The National Housing Law Project (2000) criticized HOPE VI, saying it, Plays upon the public housing program's unfairly, negative reputation and an exaggerated sense of crisis about the state of public housi ng in general to justify a 33


drastic model of large-scale household displacement and housing redevelopment that increasingly appears to do more harm than good. (p. ii) Although HOPE VI has many critics, the majority of the critics argue that Congress should continue funding HOPE VI with slight modifications. Supporters of HOPE VI Despite many attempts by Congress to end funding of HOPE VI, many housing authorities still hold the belief that HOPE VI provides an excellent way to improve the conditions of housing for many of the nations low-income residents. HOPE VI removes the deplorable housing developments and repl aces them with newer more aesthetically pleasing developments. Housing author ities that have successful HOPE VI redevelopments in their jurisdiction are worki ng to try to replicate that success in other projects. Many public housing authorities through the HOPE VI program were able to redevelop their worst and most dilapidated housing developments into areas that are attractive and desirable places to live (P opkin et al., 2004; Turbov & Piper, 2005). Many local and state governments also support HOPE VI because of its assistance in improving infrastructure and community facilities in the areas undergoing revi talization (Popkim et al., 2004). According to Turbov & Piper (2005) HOPE VI funds can attract new investment into places where the market was previously absent (p. vi). The positive changes due to HOPE VI revi talization regularly carries on into the surrounding areas. HOPE VI projects have c ontributed to the improved conditions of many inner city neighborhoods. Truly cap turing the impact of HOPE VI on the surrounding community has proved to be quite complex for many researchers (Jargowsky, 2003; Popkin et al., 2004; Schw artz, 2006). Researchers have found it challenging to quantify the community impact s of HOPE VI developments because of 34


many externalities (Popkin et al., 2004). Countless cities where HOPE VI development occurred experienced a decrease in crime rates, increase in property values, improved test scores in the surrounding schools, as well as improvements in the overall well-being of residents (Jargowsky, 2003; Popkin et al., 2004 ; Schwartz, 2006). While HOPE VI has remained controversial, it has contribute d to making many significant contributions to distressed areas and assisted in the impr ovement of the lives of residents. Reauthorization After many failed efforts by the Bush Administration, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the HOPE VI Improve ment and Reauthorization Act of 2007 on January 30, 2008 (APA, 2008). This legislati on continued the fundi ng of HOPE VI for an additional seven years while making a numbe r of substantial changes to the program. Some of the main changes under the reauthorization include: Extends the HOPE VI program through FY2015 (Section 13 and 14) Authorizes the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to waive the matching contribution requirement in cases of extreme distress or emergency (Section 3) Prohibits the award of demolition-only grants for any revitalization plan that proposes to demolish public housing without revitalization of any existing public housing dwelling units (Section 4) Increases from 15% to 25% the amount of any such grant that may be used for necessary supportive services (Section 6) Specifies requirements for mandatory core components of rev italization plans, including among others: (1) involvement of public housing residents in planning and implementation; (2) a program fo r temporary and permanent relocation, including comprehensive relocation assistance; (3) a righ t for resident households to expanded housing opportunities; (4) one -for-one replacement of demolished dwelling units, including onsite mixed-inco me housing; (5) monitoring of displaced households; and (6) green developments (S ection 8) (Library of Congress, 2008) The changes addressed the issues that criti cs of HOPE VI often cited as the major flaws on the program such as on-site mixe d-income housing, off-site mixed-income 35


development, limitation on exclusion, tena nt protections, resident involvement, improvements on grant implementation, a nd green housing. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the HOPE VI Improve ment and Reauthorization Act of 2007 on January 30, 2008 (APA, 2008). 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 FY 93 FY 94 FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 08 Fiscal Budget YearFunds Appropriated in Millions $ Figure 2-1 HUD funding history FY 1993-2008 Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2008, Retrieved March 25, 2008 from http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/about/fundinghistory.pdf 36


CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Data Data from official documents, interview data from program experts, survey data from residents and observational analysis was compiled to identify program outcomes. Documentation included the HOPE VI applications submitted to HUD by the respective housing authorities as well as direct studies done by architectural firms, newspa per articles, and other literature written in scholarly j ournals related to the field of public housing. Documentation also included government reports and transcripts of testimony to Congress by staff from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and information from the local public housing authorities (PHA) reports. Methods For the specific case studies, the researcher used the e xploratory case study methodology developed by Robert K. Yin (2003). The exploratory case study method is ideal for developing a hypothesis for future investigation. Case studies are a valuable way to present an account of what happened at a point in time. Its methodol ogical advantage is being able to capture and chronicle events that occur dur ing the implementation of a progr am. Case studies present an opportunity to analyze why an event occurred and who was respons ible for it occurring. In the context of this particular st udy, the strength is that case studi es are both site and situation specific. That is to say, that the research looks at two specifi c HOPE VI project at a specific point in time. The justification for an exploratory case study is to compare a current situation to another current similar situation to see what differences and similarities are present. From the investigation of each case study, conclusions will be drawn regarding the common obstacles 37


experienced during development, how each deve lopment team overcame the obstacles, and the community incentives that proved indispensable. In addition, suggestions will be made as to policy changes that could make the revitalization process less difficult, and encourage more public and private partnerships as an effec tive tool for mixed-income redevelopment. I obtained Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval in December of 2007 as a requirement for all research involving humans (see Appendix A). From December 2007 until February 2008 researcher conducted six interviews of key stakehol ders. I sent notifications by email correspondence and through telephone calls. The interviews provided information about different policy implementation techniques used by the respective redevelopment teams. Stakeholders were identified as persons who had a significant role in the revitalization of the HOPE VI projects in the cities selected as case st udies. Stakeholders included employees of the local housing authorities who oversaw the public housing transfor mation and the developers who were the builders of the developments. I also interviewed elected officials who had jurisdiction over the areas in which the transformation took pl ace as well as various community and resident leaders. I asked interviewees probing questions but concurrently asked opened ended questions so that the interviewee felt comfortable sharing their experience. After consultation with the chair and committee members, I developed ten questions (see Appendix B). I also asked interviewees what advice they would offer future policy makers. At the end of each interview, I allowed the interviewee to share something that the researcher overlooked and that they wanted to share. Interviews were conducted in person and over the telephone. This was done to ensure that the interviewee was then most comfortable a nd accommodate the interviewees schedules. At the conclusion of each interview, each participant received a copy of the consent form for his or 38


her records. At the end of a ll the interviews, each interviewees response was compared to the other interviewees to see what similarities a nd differences were present. These interviews offered an in-depth look into the endeavors undertaken by local governments to continue the redevelopment of public housing. These interviews present an unbiased view of HOPE VI and its effects on the future of public housing. Case Studies The two case studies selected are the former Village at Techwood in Atlanta and the former Ida B. Wells Homes in Chicago. These two developments share a common history; President Roosevelt developed both under his Public Works Administration Agency. The Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and Atlanta Housing Authority are two formerly troubled PHAs that took advantage of HOPE VI opportun ities and today serve as models for other housing authorities around the countr y. Atlanta and Chicago are two vastly different cities but it is through these differences that an opportunity arises to unite pertinent information and make recommendations to aid policy makers in othe r revitalization efforts. Based on the data collected, the differences in each city are not so severe that a basic comparison cannot be successful. Chicago: Ida B. Wells Homes Chicago is very intriguing because of its unprecedented plan to revitalize around 25,000 units of public housing. The 25,000 units represented some of the worst in the country. It is fascinating to observe how the countrys thir d largest housing authority, who suffered a great deal of adversity over the years, tackles a projec t so large in hopes of making positive changes in the lives of thousands of people. Chicagos plan for transformation offers a wealth of information and presents a grea t opportunity to gain knowledge from both their successes and failures. This knowledge will help other comm unities in bringing about that same positive 39


change. Public housing as it is today it not going to last much longer. Housing policy makers must develop programs that enable communities and residents to sustain themselves in the mist of this change of direction. The Ida B. Wells redevelopment project was the first public housing development built exclusively for African-American s under President Roosevelts administration. This project sparked interest because of the long and painful history of mi streatment of displaced low-income African-Americans. Over the years, many Af rican-American residents have become very distrusting and cynical. From the four interviews conducted in Chicago, we are able to learn how the Chicago housing authority handled this distrust while helping thousands of families relocate during the transformation. This case st udy provides a great opport unity to learn from mistakes and successes of the Chicago team. Atlanta: Village at Techwood Researcher selected the Atlanta case study becau se of the Village at Techwoods reputation for being a model HOPE VI redevelopment project When policy makers think of HOPE VI, one of the first projects that come to mind is Vill age at Techwood. Atlanta is a city with a large African-American population; and presents an ex cellent opportunity to ob serve how the Atlanta Housing Authority relocated countless lower in come African-Americans residents during the revitalization process. Atlantas mistakes and victories provide a model for which other redevelopment projects can learn. A complication presented duri ng the Atlanta case study was ma king contact with persons who were actively involved in the Village at Tech wood redevelopment more than ten years later. This was due in part to many of the people who were involved in the redevelopment no longer held a political office, resided in the city, or worked at the h ousing authority. Another possible reason is that Techwood is so heavily studied that the AHA has a high influx of requests for 40


information making it difficult for them to fulf ill all requests. However, after many failed attempts, the researcher was finally able to speak with an employee from a public relations firm hired by the AHA, a well respected college prof essor who published numerous literary works about the redevelopment, and the researcher c onsulted numerous documentary sources. These three sources provided an unbiased triangular view of the redevelopment. 41


CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDIES This chapter presents the findings of th e research conducted from December 2007 to February 2008. This chapter is organized into two sections: Atlanta and Chicago. The two case studies selected are the former Village at T echwood in Atlanta and the former Ida B. Wells Homes in Chicago. President Roosevelt develo ped both developments under his Public Works Administration Agency to serve as housing for working families that could not afford marketrate housing. The Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and Atlanta Housing Authority are two formerly troubled PHAs that took advantag e of HOPE VI opportunitie s and today serve as models for other housing authoriti es around the country. Both citi es have a considerably large African-American population. Altho ugh Atlanta is much smaller than Chicago is, this difference does not significantly affect the research. This chapter explores each of these revitaliz ation efforts separately and then uses the information collected to summarize the lessons each project offers for future HOPE VI revitalization projects. This ch apter in the end suggests techni ques and approaches for current and future HOPE VI projects. The lesson learned from each case study identifies deficiencies in existing policy implementation strategies while o ffering an opportunity to develop strategies to remedy such deficiencies. Case Study: Village at Techwood, Atlanta The data collected for the Atlanta case study seeks to answer the following questions: 1. What were the conditions of the public housing projects before the HOPE VI intervention? 2. How did the Atlanta Housing Authority tran sform these pubic housing projects into mixedincome communities? 3. What obstacles did the AHA, developers, and financers face during the revitalization? 4. How has the community reacted to this tran sformation now, more than ten years later? 42


Background During the Great Depression, Atlanta, like th e rest of the country, sought an opportunity to create jobs and provide housing for low-income white families. Atlanta residents were faced with high unemployment rates a nd even higher crime rates. De sperate to stimulate the economy in Atlanta, petitions were sent to President R oosevelt to intervene. In response, President Roosevelt authorized the Village at Techwood to open 1935 and five years later Clark Howell Homes. In 1936, President Roosevelt as cite d in (Grogan & Proscio, 2000, p. 22) named the Village at Techwood Americas first public housi ng and a cornerstone of the New Deal. In order to handle the great demand for public housing in Atlanta policy makers put strict guidelines in place to act as a filter only se lecting only those households that met certain requirements. In the end, the housing authority selected 604 families to live in Village at Techwood and 688 to live in Clark Howell Homes (L. Keating, personal communication, February 26, 2008). For the most part most peopl e considered the two developments to be one large development because of their close proximi ty. The Clark Howell Homes addition is to the left of Techwood, and the Palmer and Roosevelt high-rises for the elderly are located at opposite ends of the Techwood complex. Although Atlanta has a consider able African-American populati on, much of the city has remained segregated. In Dr. Keatings 1990 book, Race, Class and Urban Expansion he stated that in 1990 Atlanta was the four th most segregated city in the nation. Dr. Keatings (1990) book further narrates the sad histor y of housing segregation in Atlanta. Practices in Atlanta caused many neighborhoods become segregated even though they were or iginally integrated neighborhoods. The civil rights movement of the 1960s called for the desegregation of the Village at Techwood and Clark Howell Homes in 1968. This decision ended the screening restrictions based on race. This change resu lted in an astronomical increase of African43


Americans moving into public housing and a severe decrease in low-inco me whites residing in public housing. While a great number of African -Americans moved from the rural south to Atlanta, many whites left the Atlanta area as a result. More than 100,000 people mostly white residents, left Atlanta during this time (New man, 2002). By 1970, blacks made up the majority of residents in Atlanta. Due to the dramatic change in Atlantas popula tion, Atlanta at one time had the highest concentration of public housing pe r capita of any city in the country (R. White, personal communication, February 18, 2008). A tlanta in addition had the second highest concentration of poverty in th e country (Newman, 2002). Dema nd for affordable housing was a major concern for the countrys fifth largest hous ing authority. The City of Atlanta faced a major affordable housing problem. During the 1970s, many organizations sponsored efforts to revitalize public housing in Atlanta. The hope was to improve the living conditions for many low-income families. The conditions of the Village at Techwood and Clar k Howell homes were deplorable. In 1980, after an inspection ordered by the th en Mayor Maynard Jackson, inspect ors cited the housing authority with over 10,000 code violations. Maynard Jack son soon after became very instrumental in petitioning HUD to allocate funds to renovate pu blic housing in Atlanta. HUD awarded more than $17 million dollars in 1981 for upgrades such as improved plumbing and electrical systems (Keating, 2000). The Atlanta Housing Authority (AHA) was not without problems. In fact, HUD once named AHA as one of the worst in the nation (L. Keating, personal communication, February 26, 2008; Newman, 2002). During an annual insp ection in 1994, HUD scored AHA 39 out of a possible 100 and threatened to take over AHA if the City did not make improvements (Newman, 2002). In efforts to improve the negative imag e attached with the housing authority, city 44


officials hired a new head of the housing authorit y. In 1992 after receiving harsh criticism from HUD for the poor management of public housing, Mayor Maynard Jackson hired Earl Phillips as the new head of the AHA. Earl Phillips had a reputation for helping transform Miamis housing authority. Atlanta hoped that he could do the same thing in Atlanta (L. Keating, personal communication, February 26, 2008). Phillips propos ed selling portions of Village at Techwood to raise money to finance renovations of the Village at Techwood and Clark Howell. Under Phillips leadership, the AHA adopted policies that evicted residents for the most minor infraction. AHA also stopped accepti ng partial rent payments. These changes resulted in the vacancy rate reaching more than 94.1% in 1994 (Atlanta Police Department, 2008; Newman, 2002). Phillips wanted both developments to re main as public housing therefore maintaining an adequate supply of affordable housing in the city. HUD approved Phillips plan immediately. However, housing policy changed after the elec tion of November 1993. Bill Campbell became the new mayor and Phillips quickly stepped down. Renee Glover replaced Earl Phillips and serves as the executive director today. Atlanta Wins Olympic Bid In September of 1990, Atlanta won their bid to host the 1996 Summer Olympics. Atlanta decided to use this opportunity to revitalize the areas near the future Olympic sites. At this time, more than 25% of Atlanta residents lived in pove rty and the majority of these lived near the Olympic sites (Newman, 2002). One of the majo r eyesores was the Village at Techwood. The Village at Techwood went from a pristine develo pment to an area infest ed with crime, poverty, and hopelessness. Crime, drugs, and overcrowded households overflowed the development. In 1994, Clark Howell and Village at Techwood had 325 assaults, 141 robberies and burglaries, 84 narcotics crimes, and 66 cases of vandalism (New man, 2002). Crime in Atlanta was so high and in many ways, the crime in Atlantas public housing was 19 times the crime rate of the rest of the 45


city (L. Keating, personal communicati on, February 26, 2008; R. White, personal communication, February 18, 2008). In the Atla nta Housing Authority s 1993 HOPE VI grant application, AHA described the horrendous conditions that haunted the development, In 1992, there were 8,670 police and security responsesa veraging about one every hour for an entire year. The more than 900 serious crimes repor ted in 1992 averaged more than one per household in the development (R. White, pers onal communication, February 18, 2008). The Village at Techwood was an area crammed with drug activity so much so that many of the buildings received the nicknames Powder Alley and Horse Shoe (R. White, personal communication, February 18, 2008). Village at Techwood was a magnet for thugs and criminals who preyed on the single women and children that lived in the development (R. White, personal communication, February 18, 200 8). HUD gave the AHA more than 18 million dollars in grants to improve the security in their public housing but very little of this money was actually used for that purpose (Keating & Flores, 2000, p. 287). This lack of investment in crime prevention had horrific consequences fo r residents of the development. In 1992, Clark Howell/Techwood had a combined total of 1,195 public housing units reporting 1,084 criminal incidents (Boston, 2005). Th is averages a crime ra te per housing unit of .91 (Boston, 2005). Techwood/Clark Howell Homes ha d the most criminal ac tivity of any of the AHAs properties with a crime rate of .393 per ca pita (Boston, 2005). This figure represented 69% above the Citys average (Boston, 2005). Techwood/Clark Howell projects accounted for 5,654 Atlanta Police Department dispatches in 1992; representing 4.9% of the total police responses that year (Boston, 2005). It is impor tant to note that Techwood and Clark Howells residents only represented half of one percent of the total population (Bos ton, 2005). Despite the rampant crime and social ills, these developments were considered home to many residents (L. 46


Keating, personal communication, February 26, 2008; Keating & Flores, 2000). At the time of the citys decision to revitalize to prepare for the Olympics, there was a 90% occupancy rate and most of the female-headed households lived in th e development, on average, for over seven years (Keating, 2000). Many of the reside nts opted to reside in the de velopment because of its close proximity to public transpor tation and employment despit e the horrible conditions. Before the HOPE VI revitalization, many priv ate investors shied away from investing anywhere near the developments. The poor conditions of the development created economic barriers that prevented property values to reach their full potential (R. White, personal communication, February 18, 2008). Atlanta and HOPE VI In 1994, the City of Atlanta us ed the 42.4 million dolla rs received from the HOPE VI grant as well as other sources of funding, to begin the reclamation and redevelopm ent of the Village at Techwood/Clark Howell into what is today Centennial Place (Salama, 1999). The new development replaced the 1081 unit of public hous ing with 738 units of mixed income housing comprised of 42% market rate, 41% for public housing eligible residents, and 17% for low income housing tax credits sitting on 60 acres (R. White, personal communication, February 18, 2008). Centennial Places boundaries include Merri tts Ave to the north, Luckie Street to the west, Mills Ave to the south, and Techwood/Cente nnial Olympic Park Drive to the east (Figure 4-1). Centennial Place is an exemplary HOPE VI revitalization project. Practitioners often cite Village at Techwood as a model HOPE VI rev italization project beca use of its success in astonishingly transforming perhaps some of the worst public housing developments in the city (Salama, 1999). The total project cost for the Techwood Re development cost approximately 60.7 million dollars. On-site construction costs were ap proximately 47.6 million dollars totaling around 47


53,000 dollars per unit (Schubert & Thresher, 1996). Soft costs such as financing costs, developer fees, marketing costs, interest costs and other totale d 13.9 million dollars or approximately 14,544 dollars per unit. Some funding sources included low-income housing tax credits, FHA-insured mortgages from private lenders, and funds directly from the City. Centennial Place is the result of a partnership between the Integral Group, McCormick Baron and Associates, Inc., and the AHA. The AHA used monies from these partnerships and funding sources to relocate 114 families from Village at Techwood and 558 families from Clark Howell Homes (Newman, 2002). The AHA di d not want to rebuild public housing but in fact create opportunities for residents to leav e the conditions that they were stuck in, AHA wanted to break the cycle of poverty (R. White, persona l communication, February 18, 2008). Racial composition and new investment Between 1990 and 2000 the population of the Ce ntennial Place community became more racially diverse. The African-American populatio n decreased from 86.7% to 65.3% of the entire neighborhood population (Turbov & Piper, 2005). During that same time the white population just about doubled from 10.5% to 28% (Turbov & Piper, 2005). This change in the racial composition was more similar to that the rest of the city of Atlanta. Turbov & Piper (2005) cite a 2002 study from St rata Real Estate Alliance, LLP that reported approximately $356 million has been invest ed in Centennial Place since its opening in 1996. The study also reports th at homeownership in the Centennial Place neighborhood increased from less than 1% in 1990 to 12% in 2 000. The Strata Real Estate study concluded that as a minimum 75% of the new housing was developed because of the redevelopment of Techwood/Clark Howell. Finally the report asse rts that the remaining 25% of housing would sell for much less. 48


Obstacles faced during HOPE VI It is important to note that when the AHA d ecided to revitalize the Village at Techwood into a mixed-income development, there was no other mixed-income development available in any other city to serve as a model. In ma ny ways, HUD developed its policies for HOPE VI projects around Atlantas model (R. White, personal commun ication, February 18, 2008). Atlanta in many ways paved the way for other housing authorities to revitalize their most distressed areas and create not only public housing but holistic communities (R. White, personal communication, February 18, 2008). Another major obstacle Atlanta faced during th e planning process for the revitalization was the lack of trust between the families affected by the revitalization and the housing authority. Due to mistakes made in the past by the AHA, ma ny of the residents were weary of any promises made by the housing authority. In order to rebuild some of the trust lost and to keep residents informed the housing authority held weekly mee tings for a couple of y ears (R. White, personal communication, February 18, 2008). The meetings were an opportunity to hear residents concerns as well as to educate the public about the benefits of the HOPE VI intervention. The AHA took additional steps and formed committees that addressed resident concerns more specifically. Political conflict was also another major obs tacle that the AHA had to overcome. There was major resistance to moving voters around during the relocation (R. White, personal communication, February 18, 2008). Many critics of the revitalization had little confidence in the low-income residents being able to su cceed in a mixed-income community. The AHA wanted to dispel all beliefs that low-income re sidents were unable to become economically selfsufficient. AHA holds on to the belief that publi c housing is not a permanen t situation but rather a temporary assistance to those seeking to do better (R. White, personal communication, 49


February 18, 2008). Residents of AHA public ho using developments are required to work. Families receiving government assistance are required to be proactive in tr ying to get out of the public housing system. The AHA views public h ousing as an agreement between the housing agency and the family living in the public housing development. As soon as that family becomes financially stable, they should leave the public housing system (R. White, personal communication, February 18, 2008). The AHA like many other cities has a limited amount of affordable housing. In order to accommodate the n eediest of residents, AHA works to create an environment in which residents can work to beco me economically independent. A family that remains living in public housing is failing and not successful (R. White, personal communication, February 18, 2008). Another policy that was unique to the AHA wa s the requirement that all the units be indistinguishable. AHA wanted to remove all the social stigmas that accompanied public housing and to do this AHA believed that all units must be indistinguishable (R. White, personal communication, February 18, 2008). AHA rented each unit based on the natural f low of residents but at the same time making sure that a certain percentage was affordable, public housing, and market-rate units (R. White, personal communication, February 18, 2008). This means that one year a unit could be rented to a household as a public hou sing unit then the very next year that same unit might be rented to a market rate household. The goal is to provide a level of anonymity (R. White, personal communication, February 18, 2008). Today the Village at Techwood is gone and in its place sits a beautif ul 758-unit community of twoand three-story townhouses and the ne w state-of-the-art, 13 m illion dollar Centennial Place Elementary School. Centennial Place is comprised of a little more than 300 public housing units. These units are indistinguishable from the 311 market-rate and 126 tax-credit units 50


(Turbov & Piper, 2005). Centennial Place is under private management and includes tot lots, clubhouse, community room, a swimming pool, and other amenities. Today the market-rate for a three-bedroom apartment in Centennial Place is $1520 a month (Centennial Place Website, 2008, n.p.). The Atlanta Housing Authority was successful in transforming Vill age at Techwood from a housing project into an ar ea that today boasts a new elementary school, high-tech library, childcare facilities, and YMCA (Grogan & Proscio, 2000, p. 22). The crime rate in Zone 5 today is significantly lower than before the HOPE VI redevelopment. In 2001, after re vitalization the total crimes repor ted dropped to 62 in respect to the 738 revitalized mixed-income hous ing units were 738 representing a crime rate per housing unit of .08 (Boston, 2005). This shows a 91% decr ease in crime since 1992. The overall feel of the environment is now a safe place where fami lies can raise children and not live in fear. Criticisms of Atlanta Transformation While most people would consider the Atlanta transformation was a success there are some that would argue that it had se veral negative effects on former re sidents. Dr. Keating a college professor at the Georgia Instit ute of Technology and as a former consultant for the tenant association at Techwood had this to say when asked if he considered Techwood a success, It depends on what side you are on (L. Keating, personal communi cation, February 26, 2008). In other words the business community and university were in support of the transformation. They considered Techwood and its residents to be a nuisance. The business community saw HOPE VI as an opportunity to evict the lower income residents and replace them with upper middle class families. Only 92.9% of the original residents were able to return to the new development (L. Keating, personal communication, February 26, 2008). However, the residents of the development did not see the transformation as beneficial. They focused more on all that they would be losing. Many of the residents of Techw ood were especially skeptic al of the intentions 51


of the AHA. For years the AHA ignored resident complaints about pest control, appliance problems, utilities, and other maintenance concerns (Keating & Flores, 2000). The way in which the AHA handled resident concerns was despicable. Residents lived in constant fear and very little was done to alleviate some of their fears. Seventeen out of 20 residents cited fear of crime and drugs as their primary con cern (Keating & Flores, 2000). When Atlanta first began to plan for the transformation of Techwood in the early 1990s, it was before Congress passed the HOPE VI program. Atlanta originally petitioned HUD for an unprecedented 90 million dollars for the redevelopment of distressed public housing including Techwood. Soon after this petition Congress passe d HOPE VI and Atlanta was able to reapply for funding under HOPE VI. The first applicati on was horrible, it had extensive disregard for the relocation of residents (L. Keating, personal communication, February 26, 2008). HUD rejected the first application sayi ng it doesnt have any meat to it. There is no complete plan of action (Pomerantz, 1991). During Atlantas application process word had already spread that Techwood would be demolished and many residents began to vacate units without any help from the housing authority. Vacancy rate during this period r eached an all time high. In March of 1993 Techwood Homes had a vacancy rate of 49.7% and Clark Howell Homes vacancy rate was 22.4% (Boston, 2005). By 1995 there were only 26 residents left in the development. There were lots of reports of trickery done by the AHA to exclude former re sidents from returning to the new site (Keating & Flores, 2000). Despite promises made during th e application process, continued pressure from the business and university community to demo lish the public housing communities and replace it with upper income residents emerged. Things du ring this period were ch aotic and severely out of hand. Lots of corruption and broken promis es by the housing authority left many residents 52


feeling neglected and hopeless (L. Keating, pe rsonal communication, February 26, 2008). Residents were told that they would be able to move into the new development but because of many strict criteria only 78 of the original residents were selected to move into the new development. Many of those selected were the former community leaders and presidents not the typical residents (L. Keating, pe rsonal communication, February 26, 2008). Dr. Keating pointed out that the Techwood transformation was unique in that there were no other residential neighborhoods in the immediate area surrounding the development. This in many ways contributed to the interests of the businesses and university pr evailing over the needs of the residents (L. Keating, personal co mmunication, February 26, 2008). In November of 1993, Techwoods fate seem ed bleak when Bill Campbell was elected mayor. Maynard Jackson who served before Campbell was a champion of preserving Techwood, but Campbell favored the business commun ity. Some believe it was this change in administration that caused Earl Phillips to step down and Renee Glover who was a corporate lawyer and senior aide for Campbell, to step in as executive director (L. Keating, personal communication, February 26, 2008; Keating & Flores, 2000). Dr. Keating believes that Techwood offers nu merous lessons for public housing agencies across the country. He believes th at, Redevelopment is an intric ate part of public housing but the replacement housing should be built first (L. Keating, personal communication, February 26, 2008). Finally, Dr. Keating believes that the relocation of the public housing residents should not be managed by HUD or the housing agency but instead an independent third party. Lessons learned from Atlanta From the interviews conducted in the prep aration of this case study, several important lessons emerged. 53


Lesson 1: Public/private partnerships are critical Centennial Place was the result of a devel opment partnership of the Atlanta Housing Authority and a group of private companies collectively known as the Integral Partnership of Atlanta. These private companies run the day to day operations of the development such as collecting rent and maintenance issues (Newman, 2002). This allows the housing authority to spend less time focusing on the day to day issu es of the development and spend more time on providing affordable housing to residents. Some be lieve that Atlantas public/private partnership serves as a model for other hous ing authorities (White, 1997). Lesson 2: Communication and resident partic ipation through all phases is crucial This helps minimize the concerns and fears of residents. Atlantas development team met with resident committees twice a week, and then met with the rest of the residential body every six weeks so that issues coul d be resolved and the lines of communication remained open (R. White, personal communication, February 18, 2008). On paper Atlanta did an extraordinary job of engaging the residents in at all phases of th e planning process. However, Keating & Flores (2000) paint an incredibly different picture. Th ey speak of corruption and misrepresentation of information that in many ways suppressed resi dents participation in deciding what would happen to their community. Public participation and transparency of actions reduces the chances of corruption claims. Lesson 3: Legal backing is necessary In view of the fact that there is a severe lack of trust between residents and the AHA, legal backing is an excellent way to rebuild some of that lost trust. Legal recourse strengthens residents confidence in the agreements. The AHA recognized this and drafted agreements and created a legally binding enforceable document th at gives residents legal recourse (R. White, personal communication, February 18, 2008). Countless studies argu e that resident concerns 54


need more attention. While this is important, it is even more cr ucial that residents are confident that once they vote on something, the public hous ing agency will carry out the will of the residents. If the agency does not, it is importa nt that the residents have some way to hold the agency accountable. Conclusion While there is mixed opinions about the benefi ts of the HOPE VI intervention in Atlanta, there are significant lessons that policy makers can learn from the Atlanta case study. Atlanta and its development team should be commended fo r developing the Atlanta Model for which many public housing authorities developed their redevelopment strategies. However, public housing authorities should learn from some of the mistakes that Atlanta made in handling residents during and after the relocation process. Despite the controve rsy that surrounds the AHA, one thing is apparent, HOPE VI transfor med Atlantas approach in developing and managing public housing. Case Study: Ida B. Wells Homes, Chicago Background Another city notorious for HOPE VI revita lization is Chicago. The Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) is the third la rgest in the country and has a long history of poor management and lawsuits. Since 1992, CHA received the most HOPE VI revitalization grants to date (HUD, 2007 n.p.). HUD awarded the CHA demolition and revi talization grants for the Cabrini Homes Extension (1994), Henry Horner Homes (1996) ABLA (1996, 1998), Robert Taylor Homes (1996, 2001), Madden and Wells [Ida B. Wells] ( 2000), and Rockwell Gardens (2001). In the 1990s, public housing in Chicago was at an all ti me low. Chicago public housing had become high crime and impoverished areas that served as breeding grounds for drug transactions. Throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s, the C HA faced serious management problems that 55


prohibited the CHA from properly addressing these serious conditi ons. CHAs problems were so extreme that in May 1995, HUD took control of the housing authority. HUD gave control back to the City in 1999 and CHA worked to revamp its horrible legacy and developed a massive plan (T. Preckwinkle, personal communication, February 7, 2008). In 1999, the CHA developed a plan that receive d the moniker Plan for Transformation. The plan called for the demolition of all of th e CHAs gallery high-rise buildings, as well as several thousand mid-rise and low-rise units, the development of mixedincome replacement housing, and the relocation of as many as 6,000 families with Section 8 ( Popkin & Cunningham, 2001, p. 7). On February 6, 2000, th e U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) approved the Chicago Housi ng Authoritys Plan for Transformation (J. Caffrey, personal communication, January 11, 2008). The plan was the largest reconstruction of public housing in the nation. The Transformati on plan was so well received by HUD that it received around eight HOPE VI implementati on awards (J. Caffrey, personal communication, January 11, 2008). The CHA under this plan aime d to renew the physical structure of CHA properties, promote self-sufficiency for public housing residents, and re form Administration of the CHA (J. Caffrey, personal communication, Ja nuary 11, 2008). More than eight years after the adoption of the Plan for Transformation, th e CHA is still passionately overhauling public housing in Chicago. One of the developments on the list for transformation is the now Oakwood Shores development comprising the former Ida B. Wells (1941), Wells Extension (1955), Clarence Darrow Homes (1961), and Madden Park Homes (1970). The Ida B. Wells Development was the first low-income housing built exclusively for African-Americans in the city of Chicago and the largest demonstration developments built under the Public Works Administration. 56


Originally, Ida B. Wells homes were not poor housing, but rather housing for low-income working African-American families. The original development incorporated a city park that comprised of athletic parks and playgrounds (J. Caffrey, personal communication, January 11, 2008). According to Jessica Caffrey the Development Manager for the Chicago Housing Authority, the four severely distressed housing projects were contiguous and sat on approximately 72 acres near the south side of Chicago (J. Caffrey, personal communication, January 11, 2008). The Ida B. Wells housing proj ect was the fourth public housing created by the Public Works Administration (PWA) in the Chicago area. The development took its name from Ida B. Wells a crusader, women's rights advocate, journalist, and speaker. From the beginning, these over 3,200 units were highly co ncentrated segregated public housing (J. Caffrey, personal communication, January 11, 2008). In the early 2000s almost 60 later after first opening, the Ida B. Wells development became the stereotypical big-city housing project, rocked by gangs and drugs (Parish, 2007, n.p.). Conditions before HOPE VI Ida B. Wells Homes and surrounding areas was one of the nations poorest communities (Popkin et al., 2003). According to the CHAs HOPE VI application, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, sanitary, and water supply systems were so faulty that the CHA received numerous citations for not providing regular supplies of hot and cold wate r or heat (Popkin et al., 2002, p. 2-5). In March of 1993, LeAlan Jones, 13, and Lloyd Newman, 14, collaborated with public radio producer David Isay to create a radio documentary entitled Ghetto Life 101 which chronicled ten days in the life of Ida B. Wells residents. This documentary received numerous awards (Sigma Delta Chi Award, the Ohio Stat e Award, the Livingston Award, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Awards for Excellence in Documentary Radio and Special Achievement in Radio Programming) for candidl y giving an in-depth look into life at Ida B. Wells. The wide 57


spreading crime that the documentary spoke of 14 years ago still existed well into the 2000s. Ida B. Wells Homes remained the target of numerous police investigations over the years. In 2005, a major drug bust by police resulted in the arrests of 44 members of the Gangster Disciples (a notorious gang founded in Chicago in the 1960s) (Parish, 2007, n.p.). In 1970, Madden Park Homes opened as the last public housing development built in Chicago (J. Caffrey, personal communication, Ja nuary 11, 2008). Madden Park consisted of three high-rise buildings, seven ga rden style buildings, and had a density of over 60 units to the acre. The addition of units from Madden Park further negatively affected an already heavily burdened public housing community. The Claren ce Darrow Homes many believe served as the poster child for the failure of high-rise public housing in Chicago and across the country. The Clarence Darrow Homes became infamous after the story of neighborhood children throwing a five-year-old boy out of a 10 story window for refusing to steal candy received national attention. Prior to applying to HUDs HOPE VI program for funds, the Chicago Housing Authority hired the architectural firm of Campbell Tiu to assess the physical deficiencies of Ida B. Wells, Madden Park, and Clarence Darrow Ho mes. The firm concluded th at the sites were unsuitable for residential use (J. Caffrey, personal communi cation, January 11, 2008). The firm found that the major structural and system deficiencies plagued all the sites. The sites had serious mechanical, plumbing, sanitary, water supply, and elec trical problems. The condition of the sites presented such a health hazard that the City of Chicago cited the Chica go Housing Authority for building code violations related to plumbing and heating in units. The inspectors also reported signs of water damage, leaking pipes, and serious structural integrity issues. The CHA was also cited for poor site drainage, poor garbage storage, lack of landscape, and lack of adequate site 58


lighting in all four sites. Perhaps some of the mo st serious health threats were the lead paint and asbestos sighting on all four sites. There were also reports that squatters occupied many of the abandoned units, further adding to the safety prob lem faced by the developm ent. Another safety concern was the high number of vacant lots that surrounded the development. According to the 1990 Census, 72% of residents in the Madden/Wells area were below the poverty level. Over half of the residents were on welfare and only 46 % reported employment as their primary source of income. An astonishing 98% of the resident s identified themselves as African-American and only 1% of residents identified themselves as White. In "Residents at Risk: A Prof ile of Ida B. Wells and Madden Park, researchers conducted a study, spanning October 2002 to May 2003 (Popkin et al., 2003). The CHA provided the Urban Institute with a list of 750 households and the Urban Institute surveyed 569 containing 1,587 individuals. The study found that women h eaded 87% of the households. Eighty-two percent of the heads of households lived in C HA housing for more than 10 years. Fifty-two percent of the households reported annual in comes of less than $5,000 and only 23% of the heads of households reported employment (Popkin et al., 2003). The information from the study (Popkin et al ., 2003) suggests that the majority of the population spent a significant amount of time living in this development. Three-quarters of the households reported living in the neighborhood for more than ten year s, 82% have also lived in CHA public housing for more than 10 years, a nd 72% lived in Wells/Mad den for more than 10 years. More than 85% of the residents were wo men (Popkin et al., 2003). This suggests that the makeup of residents were single mothers w ho were unemployed and lived on government assistance. Around 40% of the households surveyed reported having someone with some sort of 59


disability living in the household (Popkin et al., 2003). This fact largely contributed to the low incomes of many of the househol ds in the development. A significant number of households surveyed were in serious violations of the terms of the lease. Some common lease violations reported included unpaid rent, unpaid utilities, and drug arrests or convictions. The reside nts that were in violation of th e lease had a greater chance of not being selected to reside in the new development. Accordi ng to Popkin et al. (2003) over 120 households reported having at least one violati on and 14% of that number reported having three or more. The three most common violations were unpaid bills, household members with criminal records, and unpaid rent. The Ida B. Wells Homes accounts for three census tracts in an area known as the Douglas Community Area. According to the 1990 censu s, 93% of the Douglas Community Area was African-American (S. Newsome, personal comm unication, February 15, 2008). The Douglas Area has the seventh highest povert y rate and the eighth highest pe rcentage of children living in poverty among Chicagos 77 Community Areas. Between 1993-1995, Douglas residents had the second highest infant mortality rate, rates of low infant birth weights ranked among the 10 highest in Chicago communities (J. Caffrey, personal communication, January 11, 2008). The dropout rate in the development was ar ound 59.6% (F. Dawson, personal communication, January 4, 2008). Madden Park in its entirety is located in the Oakland Community Area. The Oakland Community Area in 1990 had the highest une mployment and poverty rate in the city. The median income in this area in 1990 wa s only $5,069 annually, representing only 19% of the citys median income (T. Preckwinkle, pers onal communication, Februa ry 8, 2008; J. Caffrey, personal communication, January 11, 2008). According to the 2000 Census of the 952 people living in Census Tract 3603 (where Ida B. Wells Homes is located), 125 households had a 60


reported income of less than $10,000 (U.S. Census, 2008). The median household income for that area in 1999 was $11,563 (U.S. Census, 2008). Transformation Begins In 2000, the Chicago Housing Authority (C HA) received 35 million dollars from the HOPE VI grant program for the revitalization of 90 acres the Ida B. Wells, Wells Extension, Madden Park Homes, and the Clarence Darrow Homes collectively known as Oakwood Shores (HUD, 2007). The original developments offe red over 3,200 public housi ng units on 94 acres of land. The redevelopment scheduled to take place in five phases over a seven-year period planned for 3,000 housing units with only 1,000 being public housing units. The other 2,000 units planned to include market rate, affordable rentals, and a number of units within each income tier of housing (Levy & Gallagher 2006, p. 1). Oakwood Shores HOPE VI project is a coll aboration led by The Community Builders (TCB), Chicago Housing Authority, HUD, Granite Asset Management, Ujima, Inc., and the existing residents. The developers for the first phase of this multi-phase redevelopment plan are Oakwood Boulevard Associate, Community Builders, Granite Development, and Thrush Companies. TCB is the lead developer fo r rental units and managing member of the development team. Granite Asset Management leads the development of for-sale units and Ujima focuses on the social services aspect including resident outreach and workforce development. The Oakwood Shores development is located in the Near South Side Community near the Bronzeville area. Oakwood Shores boundary area includes 26th Street to the north and 47th Street to the south, Lake Michigan to the east a nd Interstate 90/94 to th e west (Figure 4-2). Oakwood Shores is in close proximity to Lake Michigan and Burnham Pa rk. Oakwood Shores is 61


located just east of the five-m ile stretch of public housing that included the Robert Taylor Homes, the largest public housi ng development in the world. In the fiscal year 2005, the CHA broke ground on the Oakwood Shores development Phase 1B after the successful completion of Phase 1A. Phase 1 consists of 21 low-rise apartments with backyards and alleyways. Oa kwood Shores, Ida B. Wells, Ma dden Park, and Darrow Homes successor development is locate d in Bronzeville a historic neighborhood located near Lake Michigan. From the 1940s-1960s Bronzeville was an area that attracted thousands of AfricanAmericans that migrated to Chicago in hopes of a better life. Bronzeville was the center of the black metropolis and the place thousands of Af rican-Americans decided to call home during the Great Migration (MacArthur Founda tion, 2007). Bronzeville was an area that represented a close-knit community of working middle and upper class African-A mericans. Many believe that urban renewal and the addition of more low-income units during the 1960s was the catalyst for the downward spiral of the community (S. Newsome, personal communication, February 15, 2008). The high concentration of public housing, cr ime, and poverty tore the very foundation of the neighborhood. The property value decreased dramatically and the number of abandoned buildings increased as did demolition and tax de linquencies. This HOPE VI transformation was an opportunity to restore this historic neighborhood. As of September 30, 2007, Oakwood Shores ha d 63 total units with eleven of the units occupied by 30 residents with one real estate transaction (Phase 2A) scheduled to take place in the 2008 fiscal year (F. Dawson, personal communi cation, January 4, 2008). According to the CHAs Moving to Work 2008 report released in December 2007, approximately eight of the forsale units are to be public housing units, 127 market -rate units, and ten affordable units (Figure 4-1). The CHA intends to build 900 planned units FY 2008 thru FY 2015. These units will 62


include town houses, single-family homes, ro w houses, and condominiums (CHA, 2007). Phase 2A includes construction of an additional 199 uni ts of which 81 are public housing units, 61 are affordable, and 57 are market-rate units (F. Dawson, personal communication, January 4, 2008). Many affluent African-Americans are relocating back to the area to work to rebuild the area into Old Bronzeville. Old Bronzeville in many ways represented a mixed-income development. The new development hopes to recr eate the traditional Ch icago Street and alley pattern and incorporate landscaped boulevards, p ublic parks, and pedest rian walks (MacArthur Foundation, 2007). Property values are increasing due to the tr ansformation. The median home price was $269,100 as of January 2007, which show s an 11.35% increase over the previous year (Chicago Home Estates, 2008). CHA Today The Chicago Housing Authority after a five -year take over by HUD is now one of the nations most ambitious housing authorities with the passage of its plan for transformation. Prior to this plan Alderman Toni Preckwinkle descri bed CHAs management of Ida B. Wells as a disgrace and deplorable (T. Preckwinkle, personal communication, February 8, 2008). Though not perfect, the CHA has been successful in improving countless lives. According to Lewis A. Jordan, the Chief Executive Officer of the Chicago Housing Authority, 9,400 senior housing projects are at completion, and the CHA has helped more than 4,000 residents find jobs (J. Caffrey, personal communication, January 11, 2008). Those working closely with revitalization efforts in Chicago believe that the new direction the CHA is taking in handling public housing provides a gr eat opportunity to correct many of the mistakes made in the past. Lessons learned from Chicago Although Chicago is a larger city than Atlanta, it faced many of the same obstacles but a few lessons were unique to the Chicago transformation: 63


Lesson 1: Housing authorities must be aware of gang activities Many of the residents were distrusting a nd were apprehensive about buying into the redevelopment. Chicago like Atlanta rallied support by holdi ng meetings that involved the residents and greater community. One situation that the development team dealt with the locations of the meetings; a great number of the public housing re sidents did not attend certain meetings because they were located in a riva l gang area. Community leaders and residents combated this situation by hosting all meetings at a local church, which wa s located in a neutral zone. Lesson 2: Unite public housin g residents with community The housing authority and community leaders wo rked to unify the public housing residents and the greater community. In the beginning, the housing authority w ould host two separate meetings, one for public housing residents and one for the rest of the community. This caused great division and further added to the negative stigma associated with public housing residents. Initially when the housing authority held the co mbined meetings, many of the residents were afraid to speak because they did not know how the rest of the community would view them because they lived in the public housing developm ent. Later this changed and the meetings served as a way to help residents buil d connections and a sense of community. Conclusions While it is still very early into the cons truction of Oakwood Shores there are some remarkable lessons that this project offers. The CHAs Plan for Tran sformation is extremely ambitious and builds on the Atlanta Model. One of the major proble ms that Chicago faced was a high concentration of gang activity that di vided the community. Policy makers must be aware of the culture and issues that a community faces if they want to have higher levels of resident participation. In Chicago, a reoccurring theme wa s removing the ne gative stigma 64


associated with being a public housing resident while promoting economic self-sufficiency. Bridging the gap between public housing residents and the rest of the community was incredibly essential to the future success of the development. This facili tated public housing residents in developing the sense that they were actively part icipating in the decision making process. This united community removed many of the fears and uncertainty that were on the minds of the public housing residents. Chicago Housing Author ity did an excellent job in transforming from one of the worst public housing authorities in the country to a model housing authority. Table 4-1: Techwood vs. Centennial Place Overview Techwood Centennial Place HUD Funding Total Public Housing Units 1,195 $42 million 360 public housing 311 market-rate 126 tax-credits Development Team AHA, HUD, McCormack Baron and Associates, Inc., and the Integral Group, LLC Amenities 1st Public Housing Development in U.S. Close to Public Transportation Close to Downtown $13 million Centennial Place Elementary School Community Room Pool Tot Lots YMCA 3 bedroom market-rate $1520/month Source: R. White, personal co mmunication, February 18, 2008 65


Figure 4-1 Centennial Place Boundaries Source: Google Maps, 2008. Retrieved March 31, 2008 from, http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wl 66


Table 4-2: Ida B. Wells vs. Oakwood Shores Overview Ida B. Wells Oakwood Shores HUD Funding Total Public Housing Units 3,320 (including Madden and Darrow Homes) $42 million 1,000 Development Team CHA, HUD, TCB, Thrush Companies, Granite Asset Management, and Ujima Inc. Amenities 1st development built for African-Americans in Chicago Largest Demonstration built under PWA Close to Lake Michigan Lake Michigan Historic African-American Neighborhood Traditional Chicago Street Pattern Public Parks Pedestrian Friendly 3 bedroom market-rate $864-$1300 Source: J. Caffrey, personal communication, January 11, 2008 67


Figure 4-2 Oakwood Shores Phase 1 Boundary Source: Google Maps, 2008. Retrieved March 31, 2008 from http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl 68


CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS After comparing the similarities and differences between each development outlined in the two case studies, the following lessons were learned: HOPE VI funding must be continued Community support through public participation is essential Public/Private partnerships work Lesson 1: HOPE VI Fundi ng Must Be Continued In both case studies, the common theme sh ared by the development teams was the overwhelming desire to improve the physical conditions of the development while improving the economic conditions of the residents. HOPE VI is a success primaril y because it is one of the only public housing programs that places focus on promoting economic self-sufficiency. As many local housing agencies and HUD are becoming less and less intere sted in continuing public housing, public housing author ities are helping prepare reside nts for the inevitable end of public housing. HOPE VI is excellent because it helps public housing residents integrate into the greater society through mi xed-income developments. The argument shared by many critics that HOP E VI has served its purpose and therefore should be discontinued is a fatally flawed argumen t. The problems of distressed public housing and poor quality of life for residents can not be solved with a one time solution. These problems need continual attention and support for which HOP E VI is the answer. The federal government must make a commitment to continue fundi ng HOPE VI and creating similar programs to maintain an adequate stock of affordable housing. The observations that the stak eholders in Chicago and Atla nta made about the importance of continuing HOPE VI highlight how critical HOPE VI is to the future of public housing. Without HOPE VI funding many public housing revita lization projects woul d be unable to reach 69


completion. The elimination of HOPE VI fundi ng would stifle creativity in developing techniques to help low-income residents. Without the stability provided through HOPE VI funding, PHAs would have to focus more attent ion securing other sources of funding and not spending that time actually addressing the problems of residents. Lesson 2: Community Support through P ublic Participation is Essential One of the major obstacles that each project faced was getting the support of the residents in the community. In the past, HOPE VI projec ts did not pay enough atte ntion to the needs of residents during the relocation process. Residents did not receiv e the proper assistance when trying to enter the private rental market causing many to face homelessness. This caused many residents to become apprehensive of any gove rnment funded redevelopment. Many residents became accustomed to broken promises and felt that the housing authority would not be sensitive to their needs and concerns during the planni ng and implementation processes. Today many forward thinking housing authorities like the AHA and CHA have learned from the errors of the past, and now have policies in place that ensu re the housing authority does more to address relocation services for the displaced residents. Under HOPE VI PHAs are obligated to maintain resident councils to stimulate more public participation. Collaboration between the PHA and re sidents in the development to create a shared vision, reoccurring communication, and informa tion-sharing is the key to getting full participation and support from residents. If for any reason, residents feel excluded it is the responsibility of the PHA to take measures to ensure that the resi dents feelings and concerns are properly addressed. While it is nave to believ e that every resident will participate, it is important that every resident is given the opportunity to do so. After countless criticisms of HOPE VI redevelopment projects, many public housing authorities have developed plans to that include more resident participa tion at all stages. The 70


belief is that by rallying more community support the transition of revita lization typically runs smoother. In both case studies in the beginning of the revitalizat ion, there was much resistance and a lack of support from the community. Once the public participation increased the housing authority was able to gather more support and th e transition became much easier. Atlanta and Chicago are working diligently to keep residents informed and in crease resident participation. Successful HOPE VI revitalization depends on the community backing the change. If the housing authority shuts citizens out this phase, th ere will be serious re percussions such as lawsuits and other forms of protest. One way that housing authorities can gain the trust and support of the residents is to hold the housing au thority more accountable for their actions and promises. If HUD established a way to superv ise housing authorities to guarantee to the residents that the decisions the housing author ity and residents make (after receiving HUD approval) will be implemented. Residents would be more likely to give ideas and support the revitalization if they had some sort of legal assurance that if the housing authority does not follow through on the promises they make, the residents have the option of legal recourse. Lesson 3: Public/Private Partnerships work One of the major benefits of HOPE VI is the requirement that PHAs match funds. This is beneficial because it requires PHAs to devel op partnerships and become more innovative in raising funds. Interviews with the developers and community lead ers revealed that there is an overwhelming amount of interest to continue the redevelopment of public housing using the public/private partnership begun under HOPE VI. There is a strong in dication that public housing authorities and community leaders are continuing to look fo r alternative ways to finance public housing due to the constant cuts in funding of HOPE VI projects. The government alone can not finance the redevelopment and ma nagement of public housing, thus making public/private partnerships all the more crucial. 71


HOPE VI has been extremely successful in generating participation in public housing redevelopment from the public and private sect ors. Under HOPE VI stipulations, HUD forces housing authorities to collaborate with city officials to stra tegize on how to handle public housing concerns. This forces local governments to develop partnerships to secure the financial future of HOPE VI redevelopment projects. HOPE VI is able to marry a broad range of interests and resources together all to reach a common goa l. In the cases of Centennial Place and Oakwood Shores, the private-public partnership greatly lent it self to the success of these developments. Although federal support of HOPE VI has continued to shrink over the past five years, the impact of HOPE VI has remained st rong. HOPE VI is a great example of how the public and private sector can thi nk creatively to improve the quality of life of the residents. Concluding Analysis While both the Atlanta and Chicago case stud ies had a lot of sim ilar experiences during the planning process, both had different complexities that greatly influenced the revitalization process. One complexity that was unique to Chicago was its location in a historic AfricanAmerican neighborhood. Due to the limited scope in this research th is is only minimally explored. However, this fact added an extra leve l of complexity to the revitalization process in Chicago because of restrictions placed on deve lopment in a historic neighborhood. In Atlanta the extra level of complexity was Atlantas sprawl pattern development. Atlantas sprawl pattern in many ways led to disinvestment of private deve lopers in the inner city because it was cheaper just to build in the suburbs. There was no incen tive for developers to develop near the public housing developments located in the inner city. Finding investors willing to take the risk to invest money in the inner city proved to be quite difficult for the hous ing authority. Despite these extra complexities both development teams overcame these setbacks by encouraging 72


community support through public pa rticipation and developing public/private partnerships that today serve as model for other HOPE VI projects. 73


CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS This thesis began on the premise that HOPE VI was a program that Congress needed to continue to fund HOPE VI because of its unprecedented ability to reverse the years of isolation of low-income residents, all while improving the physical conditions of public housing and the economic condition of the residents. The review of public housing literature in chapter 2 and a discussion of the Atlanta and Chicago case studie s in chapters 4 and 5 strongly supported this conclusion. This thesis used the exploratory case study methodology to explicitly investigate the policy implementation strategies used by the Atlanta and Chicago housing authorities. The two central strategies investigated were how the development teams overcame the obstacles faced during the planning process, and how public/private partnerships were instrumental in securing adequate funding. Despite conflicting views on whether or not funding for HOPE VI should be continued, most would agree that HOPE VI ha s successfully revitalized many of the nations most distressed public housing. However, the most impressive accomplishment of HOPE VI is its ability to improve the economic conditions of public housing residents. In the two case studies investigated in this thesis, it was abunda ntly clear that high concentrations of poverty produced many problems that in many ways limited the opportunities availa ble to residents. Using HOPE VI as the primary fund ing source served as a catalyst for attracting investment in historically underinvested areas. While HOPE VI is not a perfect program, it is one that needs to be continued. As countless families are continuing to drown in debt, government intervention is becoming increasingly more necessary. People deserve to not only have a place to live, but a place that is safe and sanitary. HOPE VI ensures that those who may not ordinarily be able to afford a decent place to live are able to do so. 74


Unlike public housing from the past that wa s similar to a holding cell, HOPE VI developments have higher desi gn standards and have better management. HOPE VI has given low-income residents the opportunity to relocat e to a cleaner and safer environment that previously excluded them. HOPE VI levels the playing field in housing. Over the past sixteen years HOPE VI has created an environment in whic h public housing authorit ies are able to think creatively how to revitalize and manage public housing. Atlanta and Chica go are two cities from which public housing authorities across the country can look to for knowledge. This research focused on policy implementa tions strategies used by the Atlanta and Chicago Housing Authorities, but because of limited resources and time, there is a lot of potential for further investigation. Additional research seems necessary to examine the full range of strategies used by both development teams as well as by other housing authorities in other across the country. Contributions to HOPE VI research can be made through more stakeholder interviews and monitoring the progress for a long er period. There are countless ways to monitor the successes of HOPE VI mixedincome developments; however, this thesis was only able to assess it through interv iews with parties actively involved in the revitalization. This thesis only touches the surface of policy im plementation strategies. 75


APPENDIX A CONSENT FORM Dear ____________: I am a graduate student at the University of Fl orida. As part of my thesis research, I am conducting an interview, the purpose of which is to learn about any problems or successes during the HOPE VI revitalization process. I am asking you to participate in th is interview because you have been identified as a highly knowledgeable person and or dire ctly involved in the HOPE VI revitalization efforts. Interview ees are asked to participate in an interview lasting no longer than 45 minutes. The schedule of questions is enclosed with this letter. You will not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. Your interview will be conducted by phone or at your office after I have received a copy of this signed consent from you in the mail. With your permission, I would like to audiotape this interview. Only I will have access to the tape, which I will personally transcribe, removing any identifiers during transcription. The tape will then be erased. There are no anticipated risks, compensation or other direct benefits to you as a participant in this interview. You are free to withdraw your consent to participate and may discontinue your participation in the in terview at any time w ithout consequence. If you have any questions about this resear ch protocol, please c ontact me at 708-539-7959 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Joseli Macedo at 352 3920997 (461). Questions or concerns about your rights as a research partic ipant rights may be directed to the IRB02 office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611; (352) 392-0433. Please sign and return this copy of the letter in th e enclosed envelope. A second copy is provided for your records. By signing this le tter, you give me permission to report your 76


responses anonymously in the final manuscript to be submitted to my faculty supervisor as part of my course work. Amanda Montgomery ___________________________________________________ I have read the procedure described a bove for the School Curriculum Interview assignment. I voluntarily agree to participate in the interview and I have received a copy of this description. ____________________________ ___________ Signature of participant Date I would like to receive a copy of the fina l "interview" manuscript submitted to the instructor. __ YES / NO __ 77


APPENDIX B INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. How were you involved in the HOP E VI revitalization project? 2. What were the conditions of the developm ent prior to the HOPE VI revitalization process? 3. What were the anticipated outcomes of the HOPE VI revitalization project? 4. What were some of the obstacles f aced during the pla nning process/policy implementation for the revitalization? 5. What measures were taken to address these obstacles? 6. Was the community in support of the revitalization efforts? 7. After the completion of the project, how did the community react to the new development? 8. How has the new development affected the community today? 9. Do you believe that the revi talization was a success? 10. What recommendations would you make to future HOPE VI revi talization projects? 78


APPENDIX C INTERVIEWEES Atlanta: Dr. Larry Keating Professor Emeritus Georgia Institute of Technology; also served as a consultant to the residents at the Village at Techwood Rick White Public Relations, Atlanta Housing Authority Chicago: Jessica Caffrey Development Manage r, Chicago Housing Authority Felicia Dawson Developer, Community Builders Shirley Newsome Former Chairmen of the North Kenwood Oakland Conservation Community Council Toni Preckwinkle Alderme n, Chicago Fourth Ward 79


LIST OF REFERENCES Abels, Paul. (1986). Fifty Years of Public Housing: The Maligned Social Experiment. Journal .. of Applied Social Sciences 11(1) 65. ABT Associates, Inc. (2001). Interim Assessm ent of the HOPE VI Program: Case Study of the Ellen Wilson Dwellings in Washington DC Cambridge: ABT Associates. American Planning Association (APA). (2007, July 5). Hearings Examine HOPE VI Reauthorization APA Advocate. Retrieved January 29, 2008, from http://www.planning.org/apaadvocate/2007/july05.htm#article1 Atlanta Housing Authority. (1993). Urban Re vitalization Demonstration Implementation Grant Application for Techwood/Clar k Howell Homes. May 26, 1993. Atlanta: AHA. Atlanta Police Department. (2008). Uniform Crime Reports. Retrieved January 4, 2008 from, http://www.atlantapd.org/index.asp?nav=Stats Boston, Thomas D. (2005). Environment Matters: The Effect of Mixed-Income Revitalization on the Socio-economic Status of Public Housing Residents: A Case Study of Atlanta Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://www.econ.gatech.edu/semina rpapers/boston_environ.pdf. Bratt, Rachel, G. (1989). Rebuilding A Low -Income Housing Policy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Brodt, Bonita. (1986, December 3). Dream of Pr ogress Died Quickly at Taylor Homes. Chicago Tribune. Brophy, Paul C., and Rhonda N. Smith. (1997) Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 3(2), 3-31. Buron, L., Popkin, S. J., Levy, D., Harris, L.E., Khadduri, J. (2002). The HOPE VI resident tracking study: A sn apshot of the current livi ng situation of original residents from eight sites. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Cabrera, Orlando J. (2007, June 6). HUD Testimony. Reauthorization of the HOPE VI Program. Presented At the hearing before the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity United States H ouse of Representatives. Washington DC Retrieved January 29, 2008, from http://www.hud.gov/offices/cir/test060607.cfm. Centennial Place Website (2008). Home Page. Retrieved January 15, 2008 from, http://centennialplaceapar tments.com/default.asp 80


Chicago Homes Estates. (2008). Darrow Homes. Retrieved March 28, 2008 from, http://www.chicagohomeestates.com/neighbo rhood/t/Darrow_Homes/real_estate. Chicago Housing Au thority. (2007). FY 2008 Moving to Work Annual Plan. Plan for Transformation Year 9. Retrieved December 28, 2007 from, http://www.thecha.org/transformplan/plans.html Chicago Housing Au thority. (2008). CEO Statement Retrieved February 19, 2008 from, http://www.thecha.org/aboutus/ceo_statement.html. Council of Large Public Hous ing Authorities. (2004). HOPE VI Retrieved December 3, 2007 from, http://www.clpha.org/page.cfm?pageID=441. Cunningham, M.K., (2004). An Improved Living Environment? Relocation Outcomes for HOPE VI Relocatees. Wash ington DC: Urban Institute. Epp, Gayle 1996. Emerging Strategies for Revitalizing Public Housing Communities. Housing Policy Debate 7(3), 563-588. Fosburg, Linda, Susan Popkin, and Gretchen Locke. 1996. A Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI: Volume I Cross-site Report. Reported prepared for U.S. Department of Housing and Ur ban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Fuerst, J.S. (2003). When public housing was paradise: Building community in Chicago. Praeger: Westport, CT. Gans, H.J., (1962). The Urban Villagers: Group and Class in the Life of ItalianAmerican. New York: The Free Press. Goering, John, Ali Kamely, and Todd Richar dson. (1994). The Location and Racial Composition of Public Housing in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Goetz, E. (2003). Clearing the Way: Decon centrating the Poor in Urban America. Washington DC: Urban Institute. Goetz, E. G. 2000. The politics of pove rty deconcentration and housing demolition. Journal of Urban Affairs 22 (2 ) 157-173. Greer, S., (1965). Urban Renewal and Ameri can Cities. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. Grogan, Paul S. and Tony Proscio. (2000). Co meback Cities: A Blueprint for Urban Neighborhood Revival. Boulde r, CO: Westview Press. Gutzmann, Jon. (2006, June 20). Testimony of Jon Gutzmann, President, The Public Housing Authorities Director s Association before the House Government Reform 81


Subcmmittee On Federalism and the Census concerning: Poverty, public housing and the CRA: Have Housing and community investment incentives helped public housing families achieve the American Dream? Hirsch, A.R. (1983). The Making of the S econd Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago, 1840-1960. England: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Holin, M. J., Buron, L., Locke, G., & Cortes, A. (2003). Interim a ssessment of the HOPE VI program cross-site report. Prep ared by Abt Associates for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Holtzman, David, (2007). Here Comes the Neighborhood: Affordable Housing in the Wake of HOPE VI. Urban Land Institute. March/April, 2007. Jacobs, B.G., K.R. Hareny, C.L. Edson, & B.S. Lane. (1986). Guide to federal housing programs (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Jargowsky, Paul. (2003). Stunni ng Progress, Hidden Problems: The Dramatic Decline of Concentrated Poverty in the 1990s. Wa shington, DC: The Brookings Institution. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Founda tion. Revitalizing Bronzeville: Mixedincome housing is key to community strength. Retrieved November 14, 2007, from http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.1075127/apps/nl/content2.asp? contentid=%7B6563A639-F35A-449E-882B-825628588F7F%7D¬oc=1. Joseph, Mark L. (2006). Is Mixed-Income De velopment an Antidote to Urban Poverty? Housing Policy Debate, 17(2), 209-234. Keating, L. 2000. Redeveloping public housing: Relearning urban renewals immutable lessons. Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (4) 384-397. Keating, L. and C. A. Fl ores. 2000. Sixty and out: Tech wood Homes transformed by enemies and friends. Journal of Urban History 26 (3), 275-311. Kingsley, G. Thomas, Martin D. Abravanel, Mary Cunningham, Jeremy Gustafson, Arther J. Naperstek, and Margery Austin Turner. (2004). Lessons from HOPE VI for the Future of Public Housing. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Kleppner, Paul. (1985). Chicago Divided th e Making of a Black Ma yor. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press. Kreisler, B. (2005). Losing HOPE? Urban Land Institute, Winter, 2005. Lenz, T.J. and Coles, J. (1999). Providi ng Rental Housing in the Chicago Region: Challenges and Issues. Chicago: The Great Cities Institute, University of Illinois at Chicago. 82


Lester, P. (2006). The Bush Administrations FY 2007 Budget Retrieved January 29, 2008 from, http://national.unitedw ay.org/files/pdf/07budgetsummary.pdf Levy, Diane K., and Megan Gallagher. (2006). HOPE VI and Neighborhood Revitalization. The Urban Institute Me tropolitan Housing and Communities. UI No. 07032-001-19. Washington DC Library of Congress. (2008). To reauthorize the HOPE VI pr ogram for revitalization of severely distressed public housing, and for other purposes Retrieved March 25, 2008 from, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d110:HR03524:@@@D&summ2=m& Listokin, David. (1991). Federal Housing Policy and Preservation: Hi storical Evolution, Patterns, and Implications. Housing Policy Debate, 2(2), 157-185 Lusignan, Paul R. (2002). Public Ho using in the United States, 1933-1949. The National Register of Historic Places, 25 (01) 36-37. MacArthur Foundation. (2007). Re vitalizing Bronzeville: Mixed-income housing is key to community strength. Retrieved January 5, 2008 from, http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.1075127/apps/nl/content2.asp? content_id=%7B6563A639-F35A-449E-882B-825628588F7F%7D¬oc=1 Martinez, S. (2000). The Housing Act of 1949 and the American dream of homeownership. Housing Policy Debate, 11(2), 467-487. Moschetti, W. (2003-2007). An Exploratory Study of Participatory Evaluation and HOPE VI Community Supportive Services Institute of Urban and Regional Development. University of Californi a, Berkeley. Retrieved January 29, 2008, from http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/vie wcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=iurd National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing (NCSDPH). (December 1992). Working Papers on Identifying and Addressing Severely Distressed Public Housing. Washington, DC National Housing Law Project. (2000). Welfare and housing: How can the housing assistance programs help welfare recipi ents. Washington DC: National Housing Law Project National Housing Law Project, Poverty and Race Research Action Council, Sherwood Research Associates and Everywhere and Now Public Housing Residents Organizing Nationally Togeth er. (2002). False HOPE: A Critical Assessment of HOPE VI Public Housing Redevelopmen t Program. Washington DC: National Housing Law Project. Newman, Harvey K. (2002). The Atlanta Housing Authoritys Olympic Legacy Program: Public Housing Projects to Mixed Income Communities. Research Atlanta, Inc.: Atlanta 83


Newman, Sandra J., and Ann B. Schnare. 1997. . And a Suitable Living Environment: The Failure of Housi ng Programs to Deliver on Neighborhood Quality. Housing Policy Debate 8(4) 703. Parish, Norman (2007, October 14). "Descent in to a 'hell hole'; Reporter Norman Parish revisits the Ida". Chicago Sun-Times Pitcoff, W. (1999). New Hope for Public Housing? Shelterforce Magazine, 21(2), 1822. Pomerantz, Gary. (1991, December 25). Fe ds Rebuke AHA Plan to Revamp Techwood. Atlanta Journal/Constitution. Popkin, S.J. (2002). The Hope VI Program-W hat about the Residents? Washington DC: Urban Institute. Popkin, S.J. (2006). The HOPE VI Program: Wh at Has Happened to the Residents? In Where Are Poor People to Live? Tran sforming Public Housing Communities. Bennett, L., Smith, J.L., and Wright, P. A., Ed.). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Popkin, S.J. and Cunningham, M.K. (1999). C HAC Inc. Section 8 Program: Barriers to Successful Leasing Up. Washi ngton DC: The Urban Institute. Popkin, S.J. and Cunningham, M.K. (2002). CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment Final Report. Report prepared for th e John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Washington DC : The Urban Institute. Popkin, Susan J., Mark K. Cunningham, and Will iam T. Woodley. (2003). Residents at Risk: A Profile of Ida B. Wells and Madde n Park. Report prepared for the Ford Foundation. Washington DC: The Urban Institute. Popkin, S.J., Katz, B., Cunningham, M.K., Brown, K.D., Gustafson, J. and Turner, M.A. (2004). A Decade of HOPEVI: Research Findings and Policy Challenges. Washington DC: The Urban Institute. Quercia, Roberto G. and George C. Galste r. (1997). The Challenges Facing Public Housing Authorities in a Brave New World. Housing Policy Debate, 8(3), 535569. Rosenbaum, J. E., & Popkin, S. (1989). Empl oyment and earnings of low-income blacks who move to middle-class suburbs. Paper presented at a Northwestern University conference on The Truly Disadvantaged, Evanston, IL. Salama, Jerry J. (1999). The Redevelopment of Distressed Public Housing: Early Results From HOPE VI Projects in Atla nta, Chicago, and San Antonio. Housing Policy Debate, 10(1), 95-142. 84


Sard, Barbara & Staub, Leah. (2008, January 16). House Bill Makes Significant Improvements in HOPE VI Public Housing Revitalization Program: But any Exception to the Requirement to Replace all Demolished Housing Must be Narrow Center on Budget and Policy Prio rities. Retrieved January 29, 2008, from http://www.cbpp.org/1-16-08hous.htm. Schill, Michael. (1993). Distressed Public Housing: Where Do We Go From Here? The University of Chicago Law Review 60 497. Schubert, Michael F. and Alison Thresher. (1996). Lessons from the Field: Three Case Studies of Mixed-Income Housing Development. Great Cities Institute Retrieved March 21, 2008 from, http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/gci/publicatio ns/workingpaperseries/pdfs/Lessons%20f rom%20the%20Field.pdf Schwartz, Alex F. (2006). Housing Policy in the United States: An Introduction. New York: Routledge. Smith, J.L. (2006). Public Housing Transformation: Evolving National Policy. In Where Are Poor People to Live? Transforming Public Housing Communities. (Bennett, L., Smith, J.L., and Wright, P. A ., Ed.) Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Teaford, Jon C. (2000). Urban Renewal and Its Aftermath. Housing Policy Debate, 11(2) 443-465. Turbov, Mindy and Valerie Piper. Septem ber 2005. Hope VI and Mixed-Finance Redevelopments: A Catalyst for Neighborhood Renewal. The Brookings Institution Turner M.A., Popkin, S.J., Kingley, G.T., (2005) Distressed public housing-what it cost to do nothing. Washington DC : The Urban Institute. Turner, Margery Austin, Mark Woolley, and G.Thomas Kingsley, eds. (2007, March). Severely Distressed Public Housing: The Costs of Inaction. Washington DC: The Urban Institute. United States Census Bureau. (2008). American FactFinder. Retrieved March 28, 2008 from, http://factfinder.census .gov/servlet/CTFilter?_ts=224758879217. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (1993). Funding Availability (NOFA) for Urban Revitaliz ation Demonstration. Federal Register 58, no.2. Washington, DC. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (1999). HOPE VI: Building Communities, Transforming Lives Retrieved January 29, 2008, from http://www.huduser.org/publica tions/pubasst/bldgcomm.html 85


United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2001). Glossary of HOPE VI Terms Retrieved September 24, 2007 from, http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/pubs/glossary.pdf. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2005a). Affordable Housing Needs: A Report to Congress on the Significant Need for Housing. Office of Policy Development and Research. Retrieved January 29, 2008, from http://www.huduser.org/Public ations/pdf/AffHsgNeedsRpt2003.pdf United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2005b). Overview of HOPE VI program Retrieved January 29, 2008, from www.hud.gov. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2007). Community Planning & Development. Affordable Housing. Retrieved January 29, 2008, from http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/index.cfm United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2008). Revitalization Grants Retrieved March 25, 2008, from http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/grants/revitalization/ United States General Accounting Office (GAO). (1998). HOPE VI: Progress and Problems in Revitalizing Distressed Public Housing GOA/RCED-98-187. Washington DC July 20, 1998. United States General Accounting Office (GAO). (2003). Public Housing: HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites GOA04-109. Washington DC November 23, 2003. United States Housing Act of 1937. (1999). U.S. Housing Act of 1947, As Amended. Retrieved March 25, 2008 from, rograms/ph/hope6/grants/mainstreet/mainstreet. pdf. Varady, D.P., Preiser, W.F.E., and Russell, F.P. (1998). New Directions in Urban Public Housing. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research von Hoffman, Alexander. (1996). High Ambitio ns: The Past and Future of American Low-Income Housing Policy. Housing Policy Debate, 7(3), 423-446 Weicher, John C. (1972). Urban Renewal: National Program for Local Problems. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. White, R. (1997). Reinventing public housing: The Atlanta experience. Journal of Housing and Community Development 4 (July/August) 1-5. Wilen, W.P., and Nayak, R. D. (2006). Reloca ted Public Housing Residents Have Little Hope of Returning: Work Requirements for Mixed-Income Public Housing Developments. In Where Are Poor Pe ople to Live? Transforming Public 86


Housing Communities. (Bennett, L., Smith, J.L., and Wright, P. A., Ed.). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wright, P.A. (2006). Community Resistan ce to CHA Transformation: The History, Evolution, Struggles and Accomplishments of the Coalition to Protect Public Housing. In Where Are Poor People to Live? Transformi ng Public Housing Communities. (Bennett, L., Smith, J.L., a nd Wright, P. A., Ed.). M.E. Sharpe. Armonk, NY. Zielenbach, S. (2002). The Economic Im pacts of HOPE VI on Neighborhoods. Washington DC: Housing Research Foundation. www.housingresearch.org. 87


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Amanda Montgomery was born in Jackson, Mississippi. After living in over ten cities, Amanda made Gainesville her temporar y home while pursuing a Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Florida. In 2006, Amanda graduated summa cum laude from Bethune Cookman College in Daytona Beach, Florida, with a Bachelor of Arts in political science. While an undergra duate, Amanda served as the president of her chapte r of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. Currently, Amanda works as a graduate research assistant at the Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing. Amandas future aspirations are to become a public servant that serves as the voice for the under represented segments of the population. Amanda is a firm believer that To whom much is given, much is expected. 88