eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781504901031 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | AuthorHouse |
| Publication date: | 04/13/2015 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 36 |
| File size: | 3 MB |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
My Journey in Public Housing Management
By Joel Fisher Jr.
AuthorHouse
Copyright © 2015 Joel Fisher Jr.All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-5049-0102-4
CHAPTER 1
Origins And History Of Public Housing
Although the Housing Act of 1937, is generally accepted as the date of the first federal involvement in public housing in this country. The United States Congress first became interested in housing problem as early as 1892. In that year, the Commissioner of Labor was granted what now appears the paltry figure of $20,000.00 for a study of slums in 15 urban areas in the country.
That study found New York, Boston, St. Louis just awful. Chicago, Baltimore, and Philadelphia considerably less poisonous, but couldn't think of much the federal government could do about the problem other than restrict immigration.
Sixteen years later in 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt appointed a Housing Commission with only temporary powers, and that body comes up with a far more vast and specific program of Improvement then had the 1892 Labor Commissioner. The Roosevelt Housing commission recommended that the federal government condemn, purchase, and rehabilitate much of the nation's slum housing. However, at that time, unlike later in the depression years, the poor and the immigrants suffering the most in those slums simply did not have the clout to bring on themselves the kind of national attention they needed and the kind of attention, which would focus on the poor's housing needs in the 1930s. Therefore, the call for federal involvement went unheeded in 1908. In fact, the idea of federal ownership of housing for purposes of righting slum conditions has never proved a popular one in the United States. In 1918, however, the U.S. Government was involved in such ownership when it hurriedly constructed 16,000 units for war workers, although immediately after World War I, the units were sold.
The federal government first became deeply involved in housing problems only after those problems affected the lives of far more than merely the chronic poor and immigrants. With the Great Depression, the role of government in housing underwent a fundamental change in theory if not always in practice. The first federal responses to the housing side of the Depression crisis-construction of new housing plunged by the mid-1930s to one-tenth of the pre-depression level of 900,000 units a year were designed, in both the Hoover and the (Franklin Delano) Roosevelt administrations, largely to bolster the existing home-financing system.
However, it was clear that these and other related measure were adequate to deal with only a small part of the depression housing problems. These solutions merely helped to save families who were close to losing their homes and did bring some stability to a trouble housing industry.
History of the Glenarden Housing Authority
All housing authorities in Maryland have their origin in the Housing Authorities Law of 1937, which has withstood several cases at law and remains virtually unchanged. It is a humane law designed to eliminate the insanity and unsafe dwelling accommodations that persons of "low income" were forced to accept. It was recognized that such overcrowded and congested dwelling accommodations "cause and increase in and spread of disease and crime and constitute and menace in health, safety, morals, and welfare of the residents of the State and impair economic values.
The Housing Authorities Law provided that any incorporate town with population of more than one thousand could activate its housing authority by passing a proper resolution and upon approval by the Mayor. Resolution 6-64 of the Glenarden Housing Authority confirms that the Commissioners took oaths of office 30 December 1963 before Mayor James R. Cousin and again 8 January 1964 before the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Prince George's County. The earliest available minutes of the Glenarden Housing Authority (21 September 1964) seem to indicate that the first commissioners were Henry A. Davis (Chairman), Eugene Holmes (Vice Chairman), Patricia Trivers (Secretary), Redrick T. Rice, and Robert Chapman. Subsequently, a resolution passed at a special meeting of the Mayor and Town Council 24 June 1966 confirmed that the Mayor and Town Council gave recognition to the need for low rent housing, and to the fact that the Glenarden Housing Authority was competent to execute the required documents. The motion was introduced and seconded by Councilmen Obie Dodson and Frank Pridgeon, respectively. The motion passed six for to none against.
The most significant factor concerning Housing Authority Commissioner is that once they are appointed, they can only be removed for misconduct subject to a judicial procedure. It should be noted that the Glenarden Housing Authority is an autonomous agency of the Town of Glenarden, responsible to the citizenry itself and the federal government. The Glenarden Housing Authority must exist as long as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has financial interest in Hawkin Manor.
Autonomy of the Glenarden Housing Authority is now an accomplished fact. That is, the Authority conducts its business itself. It collects, deposits, disburses, and invests its own funds. It functions under its own personnel manual. It has its own lawyer. It has its own auditor. It voluntarily consults with town, State, and federal officials in developing and executing housing policies, which are best for the Town. Even so, the Commissioners realize that any legitimate criticism of GHA would be a criticism of the Town and hence, of the Mayor and Administration of the Town. It is therefore particularly incumbent upon us that we work closely with Town officials in public housing affairs.
It is important to the Town that the Mayor appoints Commissioners who are dedicated to the improvement of the Town and who are willing in to devote all time necessary to do the fob even though they serve without pay. All of the Commissioners of the Glenarden Housing Authority live in the town of Glenarden, and appointed for five years. The duties of the Commissioners are to establish or modify all policies, rules, and regulations according to law and on the best interest of the Town. Regular meetings were held monthly on the third Thursday at Glenarden Housing Authority headquarters. Special meetings are held as needed and may be held anywhere or even by telephone. Thus, the Commissioners are continuously available to handle all GHA problems. They are assisted by the Executive Director but bear full responsibility for all matters related to the authority. During my last tenure as the executive director of the Glenarden Housing Authority, from 1 January 1988 to 1 January 1990, I had many duties. I have worked at GHA prior to the above duties in 1985 and 1996. The Executive Director is the secretary of the board or Authority. The Executive Director/Secretary shall have general supervision over the administration of its business and affairs, subject to the direction of the Authority. I was charged with the management of the using projects of the Authority.
The secretary should keep the records of the Authority, shall act as secretary of the meetings of the Authority, and record all votes and keep a record of the proceedings of the Authority in a journal of proceedings to be kept for such purpose, and shall perform all duties incident of the office. I kept and safe custody the seal of the Authority, and I had the power to affix such seal to all contracts and instruments authorize to be executed by the Authority. I also had the care and custody of all funds of the Authority and had to deposit the same in the name of the Authority in such bank or banks as the Authority may select. I signed all orders and checks for the payment of money, and paid out and disburse such monies under the direction of the Authority. Except as otherwise authorized by resolution of the Authority, all such orders and checks shall be countersigned by the Chairman. As Executive Director, I kept regular books of accounts showing receipts and expenditures and render to the authority, at each regular meetings (or when requested), an account of transactions, and also the financial condition of the Authority. I also had to submit a yearly budget to HUD for the Authority, approved by the Board of Commissioners.
Benefits and Disadvantages of Public Housing
Originally, the federal housing department's mission was to help communities or neighborhoods remain dynamic. Those responsible for housing programs intended that people of many income strata would live in the same area. Strata, being the plural of Stratum, a level or grade of people or population with references to social position, education, income, and occupation. The "working poor," being the more motivated people in public housing, were to provide examples of heightened attitudes, a sense of self-dependence, and knowledge of the value of one's own work.
In the beginning stages of public housing (from 1937 to 1950) sites were self-sufficient, relatively smooth running operation. Government dollars were used to build the units and to stimulate the housing industry. Rents were set at below market and charged to eligible families. Families selected had to be headed by two parents, who had to show they had control of their household. The family could not have a history of problems in the neighborhood or community. After World War II, the federal government began providing subsidies for training, education, and alternative housing. The G.I. Bill was an example, and this gave housing benefits to people who would have otherwise relied on public housing.
Problems began to appear in the 1970s when the Brooke Amendment was passed. This amendment dropped the amount of rent public housing families had to pay. Another result of this amendment was to change the selection process. Since there was no longer an established rent, but a percentage of rent (30% of monthly adjusted income), that a family had to pay, when the housing authorities had to equally qualify people for a unit, criteria other than income were significant. The results was that thousands of extremely low income people with limited work and social skills flooded public housing, and the more capable and responsible tenants begin to leave. Additionally, because rents were lowered, housing authorities was left with less revenue to serve a more needy population. They also became more dependent on HUD subsidies. Also, as families began to make more money, the policy of having tenants pay 30% of the adjusted gross income for rent meant they were often paying more than they would if they rented in the private market. This often discourage people from making more money, because they would have to bear the expense of moving up and paying higher rent.
One solution to this problem is to again establish a ceiling rent policy so that aspiring, ambitious tenants are not penalized for getting a good job, but are rewarded and encouraged to continue working so that they may one day acquire their own home. Current policies work against two-parent families. Public housing should be rewarding families that stay together. Another solution is to explore phasing in rent increases over a longer period of time.
One public housing project had another solution. At Hampton Port Apartments in Corpus Christi, public housing is once again being used as a temporary, transitional resource to provide housing needed by low and moderate income people and also to provide the incentive for these tenants to become independent homeowners. The program, target independence, is a demonstration program designed to measure the effectiveness of providing financial incentives to PHA families who attempt to improve their lives through education and employment. It established a method to break the poverty cycle by implementing literacy and GEC classes, drug elimination programs and a family planning clinic, an after school tutoring program, job skills training, and on-site childcare.
The most important aspect of the project is the apartment complex itself. It is an upscale, 110 unit complex located in a prestigious area of Corpus Christi. The units have central air and heat, wall-to-wall carpets, washer and dryer connections, paid cable TV service, fireplaces, and swimming pool. Once families meet certain criteria, such as residing in public housing for two years, maintaining and earned income of at least $8000 a year for at least two years, been drug-free without arrest records, have any history of paying rent on time and maintaining their residence, and having children who regularly attend school, then they may transfer to Hampton without a rent increase.
In Maryland, a project solve its problem differently. Of the 18,000 public housing units dispersed among 53 developments in Baltimore, the least desirable development howls the most "at risk" population mostly young female headed families. Some years ago. The abrupt termination of federal funds for new public housing constructions and reductions in operation subsidies left the city of Baltimore, like the rest of the country, with a serious shortage of low income housing.
In 1984, the city consolidated multiple programs into one public agency, the Neighborhood Progress Administration (NPA). This allowed multiple funding and greatly facilitated the integration of assistance. In 1986, the NPA became involved with the Lafayette Court Homes, having 816 units and 2400 residents, and started the Lafayette Court Family Development Center demonstration project. After the survey taken, planned by both tenant and NPA representatives, tenants recommended making the center membership organization complete with family identification cards. To reinforce upward mobility, incentives to encourage all family members to participate and developmental activities, and childcare was only available for mothers who pursued education, training, all employment. A literacy program for adults was also developed.
Despite these programs, they are challenges still to be met. One goal is to reduce the number of tenants on public assistance. Other goals are to increase the number of employed family household heads, improve the preparation of children entering kindergarten in the academic performance of school age children, and decreased pregnancy in addiction rate.
Another problem associated with public housing is that many developments remain segregated and unequal. Reason for this is that anti- discrimination's and fair housing strategies have not been aggressively pursued. While successful lawsuits yield results for individual plaintiffs in classes, and even establish important legal precedents, these decisions often do not benefit the majority of the victims of discrimination. Recently, the Public Housing Affirmative Compliance Action (PHACA) Was formed to give PHA's the capacity to conduct their own Title VI Compliance Reviews, and where appropriate, in cooperation with HUD, to undertake action to promote the desegregation.
Other programs concentrate on helping low income people buy their first home, having found that the most effective way to stabilize a decaying, Inner-city neighborhood is to create home ownership opportunities for the families that live there. The city of Greenville, South Carolina, my hometown, develop such a program. The Greenville Home Loan Program enable low income families to purchase a new home in two inner-city neighborhoods. The decaying housing stock was removed and the neighborhood has been enhanced by new roads and sidewalks, and other improvements giving people new hope for a better future.
Public Housing and the 1937, Housing Act: Public Housing Comes of Age
The FHA's mortgage insurance system serve he house and needs of nuddke income Americans, and the Roosevelt Administration moved to help low income Americans' housing needs through the 1937 Housing Act.
In 1937, the leaders of the three-year projects through the Public Works Administration realize that the program was not doing the job. The PWA needed to be expanded and reformed, and the United States Housing Authority created under the 1937 Housing Act was designed to perform that task. The basic federal public housing program created under the 1937 act provides for local communities, through their own special housing authorities, voluntarily to develop, own, and manage low-rent housing. The federal government in turn provides major subsidies to cover the costs of development and construction (originally through the U.S. Housing Authority, later through the Public Housing Administration, and today through the Department of Housing in Urban Development.) The local government provides additional subsidies in the form of property tax exemptions.
Although, the Glenarden Housing Authority paid the Town of Glenarden, Maryland a "PILOR", which is a Payment And Lieu Of Taxes. The purpose of Public Housing from 1937 on was that, the Pacific aim of the 1937 subsidies was to lower rent toe the point where housing was made available to families who are in the lowest-income group and who cannot afford to pay enough to cause private enterprise in their locality or metropolitan area to build an adequate supply of decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings for the use (Cong. Record (1)).
(Continues...)
Excerpted from My Journey in Public Housing Management by Joel Fisher Jr.. Copyright © 2015 Joel Fisher Jr.. Excerpted by permission of AuthorHouse.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Contents
Introduction, 1,Origins And History Of Public Housing, 2,
History of the Glenarden Housing Authority, 3,
Benefits and Disadvantages of Public Housing, 5,
Public Housing and the 1937, Housing Act: Public Housing Comes of Age, 8,
Public Housing (1937-1957): The First Twenty Years, 9,
Public Housing: 1960 to the Present, 10,
At this time, I wanted to Reflex my Vietnam Tour: (1965-1966) during the same time that President Johnson pushed major Housing programs through Congress, 11,
Public Housing at the Present, 11,
Hawkins Manor (Glenarden Housing Authority) Case Study Drug Relative Crime, 12,
Glenarden Apartments Demolished, 15,
The Social, Economic and Political contexts of Public Housing, 20,
Changes in Income and Expenditures, 21,
In Public Housing Authorities (1966–1988), 21,
Conclusion: The Future of Public Housing, 26,
Public Housing Manager Certification Certificate, 28,
Work Cited, 29,