the dismantling of baltimore’s public housing...escalating since the implosion of the high-rise...

Response by Housing Authority ofBaltimore City begins on Page 9

By Joan Jacobson

While more than a quarter ofBaltimore City families areliving in poverty, more than

2,4001 homes for the poor are quietlybeing removed from the already deplet-ed inventory of the Housing Authorityof Baltimore City (HABC).2 With littlepublic input, this plan will eliminate thesame number of homes as thoseremoved when Baltimore imploded fourpublic housing high-rise projects adecade ago.3 On its seventieth anniver-sary, the Housing Authority - once on amission to replace slums with safehomes for Baltimore’s poor - is now inthe demolition business; its occupiedinventory has dropped by 42 percentover the last 15 years – from 16,5254

units in 1992 to 9,625 in the spring of2007.5 With virtually no plans to replacethe deteriorated units being razed orsold, tenant representatives and housingadvocates have watched with growingalarm as they wonder if the HousingAuthority has abandoned its mission tohouse the poor.

Housing Authority officials blametheir predicament, in part, on an aginghousing stock, federal cutbacks, andincreased utility costs. The agency’sbudget for operating, capital, and drugelimination funds has been cut by $79million over the last six years, and itsfinances are far short of the hundreds of

millions of dollars needed to repair itsaging housing projects.6 The agency isalso diverting more than $20 millionfrom funds usually earmarked for newpublic housing and rent vouchers tohonor a court order to retrofit 830 unitsfor disabled public housing tenants.

Nevertheless, the Housing Authorityis not in complete financial distress:

• It has a $26 million reserve it canspend for operating or capitalimprovements.7

• It has yet to spend $18.5 millionawarded six years ago to replace1,000 units lost in the demolition ofHollander Ridge in East Baltimore.8

• In a special arrangement with HUD,reserved for a select number of hous-ing authorities, Baltimore’s HousingAuthority gets to keep operating sub-sidies for every public housing unit ithas abandoned or demolished since2005. This year, Baltimore expectsto receive $4 million for 3,201homes that no longer exist.9

• In 2004 it had enough funds tofinance a half-million-dollar studyanalyzing the supply and demand oflocal low- and middle-income hous-ing markets. The study — whichurged creation of more homes for thevery poor — was never released tothe public or shown outside thehousing authority.10

September 2007Volume 20, Number 4

What we think about, and what we’d like you to think aboutPublished as a community service by The Abell Foundation

The building—Ft. Worthington Ele-mentary at Oliver Street and LakewoodAvenue in East Baltimore—is long andlow in the architectural model popularafter WWII. But when Ms. ShaylinTodd, principal of Ft. Worthington Ele-mentary, talks about “the building,” sheis not referring to its physical presence.The “building” she is referring to ismore comprehensive, as in “turn thebuilding around,” as in “gathering datawithin the building,” and as in “know-ing everything that is going on in thebuilding,” also known among principalsas “mapping out the building.” Thebuilding is her universe; it is school andoffice, home and laboratory, where sheand faculty and students live and workas many as 12 hours a day, 12 months ofthe year, and where, within its walls,she is committed to personally knowingat all times the complexity of itsdynamics: exactly what is going onamong teachers and students, exactlywhat in the community outside is

continued on page 20

The dismantling of Baltimore’s public housing: Housing Authority cutting 2,400 homes for the poor from its depleted inventory — A 15-year trend shows a decrease of 42 percent in occupied units.

continued on page 2

ABELL SALUTES:New Leaders For NewSchools, and New Leaderprincipal Shaylin Todd —for building a learning community by “mapping out the building.”

The Abell Report

2

• The Housing Authority is razingsome of its homes with money from anon-public housing fund controlledby the city. Earlier this year, forexample, the city granted $4 millionfrom the Affordable Housing TrustFund for the demolition of 257 unitsat Somerset Court.11 (The fund wascreated during a 2005 controversyover financing the Convention Cen-ter Hotel, when church leaders andcity council members complained thecity wasn’t addressing affordablehousing needs.) However, there arecurrently no plans to rebuild afford-able housing on the site of SomersetCourt (or at Westport Extension12,another project being razed with thetrust’s money.)13

A city in need“Baltimore contains a ring of blighted

residential tracts of the most seriousimportance and size…any belief that Bal-timore has no blighted districts complete-ly ignores the present known facts.”14

This was written in 1934 by theMaryland Emergency Housing and ParkCommission in its Report of the JointCommittee on Housing in Baltimore. Itcould also be written today, as more thanone-third of Baltimore’s private rentalhousing is in substandard condition15.With 29,477 households on the waitinglist for public housing or Section 8 rentalvouchers,16 poor Baltimoreans have fewplaces to turn. Today’s downsizing of thecity’s public housing stock makes theirplight even more urgent.

The situation is particularly grim forfamilies with children, who make up Bal-timore’s poorest population.17 Due largelyto demolition, the number of occupiedunits has decreased overall by 42 percent,and the number of occupied homes forfamilies with children has decreased by52 percent, from 13,589 to 6,496, over

the same 15-year period.18 This declinemakes the current decision to eliminatehundreds of homes – most of them forfamilies – even more troubling.

A diminished option for the poorIn 1996, the federal government

dropped its requirement that housingauthorities replace each home theydemolish. Since then, the massive reduc-tion in Baltimore’s inventory has obvi-ously put the squeeze on other poor fam-ilies waiting to get into fewer and feweravailable public housing units. Andwhile displaced public housing tenantsare being offered homes in other publichousing projects (or are offered Section8 rent subsidies), qualified new familiesmove further down the waiting list.

Today’s quiet plans for demolitionare in contrast to the dramatic implosiona decade ago of the city’s four troubledhigh-rise projects that once housed thesame number of families being displacedtoday.19 Starting in 1995, when the dem-olition of Lafayette Courts, just east ofdowntown, was celebrated with a paradeas television cameras rolled, the implo-sions led to the creation of better, saferhomes for the poor within mixed incomecommunities through the Hope VI pro-gram. Today’s demolition plans offer nosense of hope for Baltimore’s neediest.20

Demolition PlansThe city’s demolition plans mirror

those of public housing authoritiesacross the country. Nationwide, 64,164public housing units have already beenrazed, with another 43,377 approved byHUD.21

Other cities, also faced with federalcutbacks and aging housing stock, haveused creative financing techniques toturn around their deteriorated publichousing projects to renovate and replacethousands of units. The Seattle HousingAuthority “is committed to maintainingan equal or greater number of housing

units for very low-income residents” andis replacing 2,279 public housing units.22

Kansas City’s agency, once under a courtreceivership plan, has renovated orrebuilt its public housing projects andincreased its scattered-site inventory bynearly 500 homes.23

By contrast, in Baltimore, while theHousing Authority is financing a smallnumber of new public housing units, theagency is also concentrating on plans toreduce its deteriorating inventory. Theagency is planning to spend almost twiceas much on demolition ($24 million) as itwill spend for redevelopment ($14 mil-lion) in 2007 and 2008.24

A summary of Baltimore’s demolition activities:• The Housing Authority plans to raze

the 64-year-old Somerset Court justwest of Johns Hopkins Hospital. Earlythis year the agency told tenants theywould have to leave “voluntarily” byMarch for other public housing proj-ects or to private rentals with Section8 vouchers. Otherwise, they wouldface “a formal 90-day notice tovacate….remaining at the site is justnot a feasible option or reasonablesuggestion.”25 The tenants’ representa-tive argued that there was nothing“voluntary” about the move if remain-ing in their homes was not an option;more than 150 of the 257 homes werealready vacant when warning letterswere sent in late February.26 HousingAuthority officials say they have noplans for redeveloping the eight acresin the heart of the city, or for replacingthe homes elsewhere.

• In Westport, half of the 232 units inthe Westport Extension public hous-ing project are in the final stages ofbeing prepared for demolition. HABCdid not have HUD’s permissionbefore relocating most of the tenants.Paul T. Graziano, executive director

continued from page 1

The Abell Report is published bi-monthly by The Abell Foundation111 S. Calvert Street, 23rd Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-6174 • (410) 547-1300 • Fax (410) 539-6579

Abell Reports on the Web: http://www.abell.org/publications

of the Housing Authority (who alsoserves as Baltimore’s housing com-missioner), said the deterioratedhouses would cost too much moneyto rehabilitate under HUD guidelines,but a federal official said the Balti-more agency never asked for a HUDassessment to rehabilitate.27 TheHousing Authority has no plans forreplacing the units and filed a demo-lition and relocation plan in April2007, several months after most ofthe tenants were moved.28

• At the sprawling O’Donnell Heightsproject on the city’s eastern edge,where 900 units were once occupied,nearly 600 are being demolished.29 Amaster plan, written by a private con-sultant after holding meetings withtenants in 2003, called for 612 lowincome units to replace some ofthose being demolished, but thoseplans were not implemented.30

• The city has significantly scaleddown a program started 38 years agothat converted vacant rowhousesscattered throughout the city to pub-lic housing. At its height, there were2,848 rowhouses in the Rehab Hous-ing, or Scattered Site, program.31

Vandalism and poor management leftmore than 400 houses vacant by1992. By the spring of 2007 only 838were occupied, a 71 percent drop.32

The city has already demolished 233of the houses and is planning totransfer another 1,399 to the city’sProject 5000 program for demolitionor reuse. So far, only 383 of the prop-erties have been transferred. Newuses include church parking lots,reconstituted low-income housing,and use in East Baltimore Develop-ment Inc.’s biotech project.33

An unsettling trendThe elimination of aging homes from

the public housing stock without replac-ing them is part of a trend that has been

escalating since the implosion of thehigh-rise projects.

For example:

• In 2000 HABC demolished 1,000homes at Hollander Ridge on thecity’s Southeast side. The HousingAuthority sold the land for $3.5 mil-lion.34 HABC recently lost a bid tobuy a vacant Northeast Baltimoreapartment complex for replacementhousing.

• Cherry Hill in South Baltimore haslost 428 public housing units in thelast ten years, as HABC demolished193 units at Cherry Hill 17 in 1997,122 units at Charles K. Anderson in2003, and 113 units in Cherry Hill 12in 2006.35 Though families had livedin the demolished units, there havebeen no new family homes built toreplace them.

• The new Orchard Ridge in NortheastBaltimore will replace the demol-ished Claremont Homes, which had292 public housing units, and theadjacent Freedom Village Apart-ments, which had 308 units of low-income housing under another pro-gram. The new project will containonly 142 low-income rental units,using Section 8 subsidies, with a netloss of 459 low-income homes.36

Finances and the housingauthority’s deregulated status

In recent years, operating subsidiesfrom HUD have not kept up with infla-tion, making it difficult to run the day-to-day operation of the city’s aging housingprojects, said Graziano.37

In the past, Baltimore’s strategy ofdemolishing units has harmed its budg-et; it has lost subsidies for hundreds ofabandoned homes, many that were themost costly to manage. (This changedafter 2005 when HUD allowed Balti-more to keep subsidies for lost units.)

The Housing Authority has cut staffby 314 positions (from 1,480 to 1,166)since 2001 and has seen a budget short-

fall of $31 million in operating subsi-dies and $30 million in capital funds.38

The agency’s net loss for 2006 and 2007was $22 million “in funding eligibility,”said Graziano.39 It also lost a $3.6 mil-lion Drug Elimination Grant in 2001that helped the now-defunct HousingAuthority Police to fight crime. (Crimefighting has been taken over by the Bal-timore City Police Department in anearlier cost-saving measure.) The totalbudget for FY 2008 is $239 million.Each year HUD estimates how muchmoney Baltimore should receive, butCongress only funds a portion of thebudget. In 2006, for example, Baltimoreonly received 86 percent of its expectedoperating funds ($58.7 million, insteadof $68.2 million).40

Cost estimates for maintaining itsaging public housing stock vary – butthey all exceed the agency’s budget. TheHousing Authority estimates that itwould cost $862 million to maintain itsinventory in standard condition over thenext seven years.41 A private, independ-ent study commissioned by the HousingAuthority gave a much lower number —$270 million over five years.42 Whateverthe figure, Graziano said the aging proj-ects, “cannot be remedied with existingfunding.”43 He noted this is part of anational $22 billion backlog of neededpublic housing capital repairs.44

Though the budget has shrunk andhousing officials say the costs of ade-quately maintaining aging projects areout of reach, the agency has a healthyreserve of $26 million, which it couldspend on operating or capital improve-ments.45 Housing officials say the moneyis an emergency rainy day fund that theydo not want to tap into.46 “Depleting thismodest reserve is in no way an appropri-ate or sufficient response to the capitalneeds facing HABC,” said Graziano.47

Additionally, as stated above, theagency has not spent $18.5 million,granted in 2001 to replace the demol-ished Hollander Ridge development.

The Housing Authority also operateswith advantages over other public hous-ing authorities. Since 2005 HUD has

3


designated Baltimore as a “Moving toWork” agency, which gives it latitude tocombine its assets (public housing andSection 8 budgets, for example) into onefund and be exempt from many federalregulations.

The Moving to Work (MTW) desig-nation also comes with a special perk thatallows the agency to keep operating sub-sidies for the level of housing units it hadin 2005. Therefore, the more units itremoves from its inventory, the moremoney it will have to manage what’s left.Today Baltimore receives subsidies for13,958 homes, even though it only had10,757 available earlier this year for ten-ants – with 10 percent of them vacant.48

The agency expects to receive almost $4million more this year than it did twoyears ago, even though it is operating3,201 fewer homes.49 Graziano noted thatthe extra money “will not even cover theannual BG&E utility rate increase forHABC’s properties.”50

The agency’s financial difficultieshave been exacerbated by the high costof honoring the Bailey court decree,requiring it to retrofit 830 homes for dis-abled tenants and to rebuild the exteriorof buildings for handicap accessibility.The court order was a result of a suitfiled by the Maryland Disability LawCenter and U.S. Justice Department onbehalf of low-income people with dis-abilities who were denied access to pub-lic housing.51 The cost to retrofit andrebuild has skyrocketed from an originalestimate of $46 million to $74 million.52

In its ongoing work to complete thehandicap-accessible units, the agency istapping into capital funds ($16 million)and bond funds ($33.8 million) over thenext two years.53

The Housing Authority’s deregulateddesignation allows it to divert $5.6 mil-lion over the next two years fromReplacement Housing Factor Funds,usually designated to build new publichousing, and another $14.5 million fromits fund for Section 8 rental vouchers inorder to honor the Bailey court decree.54

That money, said Graziano, could havepaid for three years of rental vouchersfor 626 households.55 Without the MTWdesignation, the agency would not beallowed to do this.56

At the same time the agency may beviolating a part of its MTW agreement to“continue to assist substantially the samenumber of eligible low-income familiesunder MTW, and to maintain a compara-ble mix of families by size, as wouldhave been served or assisted if HUDfunding sources had not been used underthe MTW designation.”57

Between 2005 and 2006, Baltimorelost 1,107 public housing and Section 8rental vouchers (from 20,918 to 19,811).58

Housing Authority officials, howev-er, believe they are not in violation of theMTW agreement. Earlier this year, theysaid, they met with HUD officials whowere pleased with Baltimore’s strategyto get the units for the disabled complet-ed and to “identify the nonviable unitsand dispose of them, take the balance ofthe public housing inventory, renovatethe units that need renovating and getthem reoccupied,” said Graziano.59

Vacancies: a perpetual problemAnother limitation on available pub-

lic housing units is the high vacancyrate. Though the average vacancy rate inhabitable projects stood at a little morethan 10 percent in early 2007 (not count-ing thousands of units being prepared fordemolition), it has ranged from 11 to 26percent since 2001,60 with higher vacan-cy rates for family projects, which aregenerally older and in worse conditionthan buildings housing the elderly andthe disabled.61 The city’s family projectswith unusually high vacancy rates as ofJune 2006 included Brooklyn Homes(24) percent), McCulloh Homes (19 per-cent), and Mount Winans (44 percent).62

(The vacancy rates, for Brooklyn Homesand McCulloh Homes, however, havesince been reduced to 15 percent and 10percent, respectively.63) Graziano attrib-utes current vacancy problems to theneed to keep some units empty whilethey are retrofitted for the disabled.64

High vacancy rates have been a problemfor more than a decade, with HABCrepeatedly vowing to reduce the numberof vacant units by making repairs andturning around vacated units for newtenants faster.65

Uncertain future plans The Housing Authority’s future

plans for new housing are unclear.Graziano said a recent “ReplacementHousing” report sent by his office toHUD on future public housing construc-tion is based on “crude estimates. . . it’salmost a meaningless document.”66 Thereport sent to HUD in January 2007states that Baltimore will build “1,255low-income rental units over the nextten years to replace severely distressedunits in its current inventory.”67 JemineBryon, the Housing Authority’s deputyexecutive director added, “That’s whatinformation HUD asks for and youmake your best guess.”68

Graziano and Bryon blamed federalbudget cuts for the Housing Authority’sindecisiveness. (A HUD official was sur-prised by the comments and said heexpected the Housing Authority’s num-bers to be a true projection of what theagency plans to build.69)

Graziano also blamed the HousingAuthority’s inability to build new publichousing on the HUD v. Thompsondecree, a 1996 federal court ruling thatlimits building in “impacted areas,” areaswith high poverty rates, high percentagesof African Americans, and a high con-centration of subsidized housing. In thedecree, the federal court set out to undodecades of housing segregation by order-ing the Housing Authority and HUD toreplace about 3,100 units previouslyrazed with new public housing units andsubsidized rent vouchers, many in “non-impacted” areas that do not have highpoverty rates or largely African Ameri-can populations. Ironically, whileGraziano and his staff blame the Thomp-son decree for the agency’s failure tobuild new public housing, it is actuallythis court order that has propelled thehousing authority to build most of its

4


new units during the last decade.The court order was issued after

African American public housing ten-ants, represented by the American CivilLiberties Union, succeeded in showingthat HUD practiced a racially discrimi-natory housing policy. Eleven years later,HABC has provided only two-thirds ofthe court-ordered homes and subsidies.70

As for plans to replace projects cur-rently being demolished, the HousingAuthority is still bound by the restric-tions on where it can rebuild publichousing. Graziano said, “There are very,very limited options in terms of landavailable in non-impacted areas.” Whilea court-approved agreement lists 43 cityfull and partial census tracts where theHousing Authority can rebuild publichousing.71 Graziano said many permittedareas are “prohibitively expensive,”such as Federal Hill and Roland Park.72

If the housing authority chooses to buildin non-approved areas, it can ask per-mission to build on a case-by-case basis.Housing Authority officials acknowl-edged that they have only made a formalrequest on one occasion.73

“We’re not building any new publichousing projects,” said Graziano, addingthat the city prefers building mixed-income projects that combine a smallnumber of subsidized homes for thepoor with homes for sale and rent topeople with higher incomes.

The strategy, though a laudable idealfor integrating a diverse group of peoplein one neighborhood, allows for only asmall number of the lost public housingunits to be replaced. For example, asidefrom the units being replaced undercourt order from the Thompson decree,HABC currently has definite plans foronly 134 public housing units: 40 inReservoir Hill, 23 in Sharp Leadenhall,55 in Barclay, 16 in Greenmount West.But none of these units are new to thepublic housing inventory. They will bereconstituted scattered-site public hous-ing rowhouses that have been vacant.74

The city is also involved in a small

number of other development projectsthat include low-income housing thatwill not use public housing funds, suchas Section 8 subsidies and Low IncomeHousing Tax Credits.75

A half-million-dollar studyThe Housing Authority has never

released to the public a voluminous mar-ket research study it commissioned fouryears ago to analyze the needs of hous-ing the poor and offer solutions. Com-pleted in 2005 and financed with nearlya half million in tax dollars, a copy ofthe study provided to the Abell Founda-tion was still marked “draft.”

The study, called An Analysis of Sup-ply and Demand Conditions of Low andMiddle Income Housing Markets in Bal-timore City and Region: Based on Mar-ket Research Conducted from July 2004through June 2005, was conducted byReal Estate Strategies Inc. of Philadel-phia. It found a pressing need to housevery low-income families. For example,in 2004 there were 66,472 householdswith incomes below $15,000 and morethan 78 percent of “small family renterhouseholds” had incomes below 50 per-cent of the area median income.

The study examined housing condi-tions in the city and suburbs throughoriginal data collection and severalfocus groups. It analyzed the needs ofthe city’s public housing projects, exam-ined conditions of buildings and sur-rounding neighborhoods, then rankedthe projects (and neighborhoods)according to their capital maintenanceneeds. The study’s authors concludedthat although HABC is building somelaudable mixed-income projects, thecity’s housing officials failed to aggres-sively leverage federal dollars with oth-er financial incentives (such as low-income housing tax credits) to build newlow-income housing. It concluded:

“It is critical for Baltimore Housingto continue serving as many very low-income residents as possible by main-taining those public housing develop-ments that can be reasonably maintainedand do not offer possible redevelopment

options. Priority should be given toredevelopment options that will lever-age other funds for public housing,thereby freeing up public housing capi-tal for properties that require routine anddeferred maintenance.”

The study also recommended that,“new housing is needed to serve a rangeof very low income and lower incomeand middle income households.” Thestudy was financed with $466,32376 fromthe Housing Authority’s capital budget,money usually earmarked for publichousing repairs and rehabilitation. AHUD official monitoring Baltimore’shousing authority said he’d never seenor heard of the study.77

Graziano said his agency has beenusing the study as an internal guide.“There’s certainly no objection to releas-ing it to the public,” he said. “It wasn’tintended to be a major public study...It’sjust that it’s a document to be used in ourstrategic planning.”78

Erroneous reporting leads to alack of public concern

“Baltimore Housing currently servesover 40,000 residents in more than14,000 housing units.” This statementappears (as this study is being written) onthe city’s public housing website.79 HUDalso reports a similar number — 14,446.

But the true numbers of public hous-ing units being used in Baltimore are farlower and can be found in the HousingAuthority’s most recent annual plan,80 aswell as City Hall’s Citistat Reports.81

Nevertheless, the Housing Authority andHUD continued to use these outdatednumbers in 2007.82 The HUD officialwho oversees Baltimore’s housingauthority appeared unaware that as ofspring 2007, Baltimore only had 10,748available units in its inventory (with1,123 of them vacant).83

The absence of accurate and consis-tent reporting and the lack of analysis ofthe loss of public housing has served asa convenience in a political climatewhere even a suggestion of building asmall number of public housing unitscan cause a neighborhood uproar.

5


6

Housing advocates will not soon for-get the outcry of objection as the citytried to scatter ten public housing fami-lies in a large swath of Northeast Balti-more in 2006. A public meeting broughtout more than 1,000 angry residentswho were only mollified when then-Mayor Martin O’Malley promised topull back on the plan. Later, however,the ten families were moved into publichousing homes dispersed in the sameNortheast city neighborhoods – andanother 30 dispersed in other stablecommunities.84 Public opposition resur-faced recently when a private developerannounced plans to convert a vacantCatholic school into 30 subsidizedapartments.85

News of the diminished system isalso absent from recent city-widereports examining the impact of Balti-more’s housing policies. Critical oppor-tunities to discuss the future of publichousing in the city have been lost. Forexample, it is not documented in Balti-more’s 2006 Comprehensive MasterPlan, or in the report on future housingdevelopment called “At Home in Balti-more, a Plan for an Inclusive City ofNeighborhoods” that was presented tothe Baltimore City Council in 2006.Since the data are missing from the citycouncil study, it apparently was not tak-en into account when considering citycouncil legislation to require some pri-vate developments to include affordablehousing in their projects.86

Additionally, an explanation of hab-itable units and the agency’s plans forremoving some projects from its inven-tory are absent from the city’s Consoli-dated Plan (July 2005 to June 2010), a153-page guide to community develop-ment that is required by the federal gov-ernment.87 The plan does not, for exam-ple, mention that the Housing Authorityintends to demolish Somerset Court’s257 units or Westport Extension’s 232homes. (A Housing Authority officialsaid the decision to demolish these proj-ects was not yet made when the plan

was written88). It reported an inventoryof 2,872 units of scattered-site publichousing, with plans to remove 1,707,leaving 1,165. But these numbers can bemisleading, as they far exceed the num-ber of houses actually occupied by ten-ants. That same year, the 2005 Citistatreports showed an average of only 961scattered-site units occupied.89 By 2007,there were 838.90

The city’s previous ConsolidatedPlan for 2000 to 2005 named the neces-sity to “expand the supply of assistedhousing” as the department’s numberone priority for the future.91

A lack of public participationHousing advocates have complained

of a lack of public input in the demoli-tion plans, despite federal law requiringa housing authority to “conduct reason-able outreach activities to encouragebroad public participation” in its annualpublic housing plan.92 At a sparselyattended April 17, 2007 hearing on thefuture of Baltimore’s public housing,several advocates protested that theyfound no public notice of the event, andquestioned why it wasn’t posted on theagency’s website.93

Housing officials said sufficientnotice was given when they advertisedin The Baltimore Sun and the Afro-American in March and at the EnochPratt Free Library.94 The Baltimore Sunnotice, however, was a tiny, one inch bythree- and three-quarter-inch ad buriedin the classified ads that ran for threedays, a month before the hearing.95 Dur-ing the hearing, no copies of the 100-page plan were available (though anelectronic copy was on HABC’s web-site), and housing officials gave nooverview or public explanation for theirdecision to demolish projects.96 Oneadvocate accused housing officials oftrying to “circle its wagons” againstpublic participation and called the plan“a roadmap for the continued decline ofpublic housing.”97 Each of the eightpeople testifying was given two min-utes to speak. The hearing was over ina half hour.98

Section 8 rent vouchersThe loss of public housing units has

been mitigated, only in part, by anincrease in Baltimore’s use of Section 8subsidies (mostly vouchers), which arefederal subsidies paid to private land-lords. Over the last 15 years, publichousing units (and other HUD assistedhousing) have dwindled, as Section 8subsidies have increased from 5,96699 to11,700,100 an increase of 49 percent.

But, advocates argue, Section 8vouchers are an unacceptable substitutefor permanent public housing units.Section 8 subsidies can be difficult touse. Tenants must have the requiredsecurity deposit. And Baltimore land-lords are not required to accept vouch-ers, making it difficult to match privaterentals with prospective tenants. Addi-tionally, only homes that pass inspec-tion qualify, making it difficult to findeligible rentals in a city with so manysubstandard properties. Often, manytenants find rentals with landlords will-ing to accept a voucher, then must findanother qualified rental before the 120-day rental voucher expires101 when ahome does not pass inspection. Rents ofproperties in good condition are oftentoo high for voucher holders.102

Additionally, a large number of ten-ants already living in approved rentalhomes with vouchers must move (to asecond qualified home) if the first homelater fails a follow-up inspection. Dur-ing one ten-month period (from July 1,2006 to April 30, 2007), the HousingAuthority issued 2,156 vouchers, 1,593of them for tenants already in the pro-gram, but who had to move due toinspection failures.103

Historically, Baltimore’s Section 8program has had its share of manage-ment problems. The federal governmentreclaimed $117 million in unspent mon-ey between 1998 and 2002.104 Part of theprogram’s problem was a computer sys-tem that was not Y2K compatible, whichprevented the staff from tracking land-lords, tenants, and payments.105

The agency, while getting highmarks in 2007 from HUD on its use of


the program, is currently curtailing itsuse of Section 8 vouchers because of thediversion of $14.5 million from therental program (over a two-year period)to finance a portion of the Bailey courtdecree for disabled tenants. Another $14million will be used to modernize exist-ing public housing units.106

Loss of servicesThe Housing Authority’s Moving to

Work Annual Plan for 2007-2008 out-lines cutbacks due to reduction in federalfunding for several programs aimed atjob training and child-care services. Jobtraining services, for example, will beavailable to 185 people in 2007 and only65 in 2008. Employment readiness, jobplacement, and retention services will beoffered to 1,402 people in 2007, but only1,100 in 2008. Child day-care funds willbe available to 200 children in 2007 and150 in 2008. One of the programs offeredby the Housing Authority, however, willbe significantly enhanced. Its “Post andPre-Occupancy Program” will bemandatory for residents and will be pro-vided to 200 residents in 2007 and 2,000in 2008. This program helps tenantsbecome self sufficient in keeping theirhomes well maintained. The HousingAuthority plans to establish a non-profitsubsidiary to raise funds privately to con-tinue many of its resident programs.107

Despite the reductions in the numberof people served, a Housing Authorityofficial downplayed them, saying someof the declines in job training andemployment services simply showed a“natural drop” due to people graduatingfrom those programs.108

Recommendations for Change This report makes the following key

recommendations:

• Convene a group of private develop-ers, city representatives and publichousing experts to analyze the cur-rent state of public housing andfinancial resources and make recom-

mendations to the Mayor, HousingAuthority executive director, itsBoard of Commissioners, and HUD.

• Expand the public hearing notifica-tion process to conform with federalregulations so housing advocates andthe general public can attend thehearings and offer solutions to thecity’s housing problems.

• Reconstitute the HABC Board ofCommissioners by adding represen-tatives with complementary analysis,financial, and development skills.

• Baltimore should adopt a “one-for-one” replacement policy for unitsdemolished. City officials and repre-sentatives in Congress should alsoadvocate for more federal funds tofinance new public housing.

• HUD and the Housing Authorityshould update their websites to accu-rately reflect the numbers of Balti-more’s public housing units in use.

• The Housing Authority should studyand adopt solutions from other cities,such as Kansas City and Seattle thatare rebuilding their public housingstock and setting goals to replace asmany demolished public housingunits as possible.

• In an effort to make Section 8 Hous-ing Choice Vouchers more available,Baltimore housing leaders and thecity’s Maryland delegation to theGeneral Assembly should follow theexample of Howard and Mont-gomery Counties by introducing astate-wide fair housing bill in thenext legislative session that wouldrequire landlords to accept federalrent vouchers.

• The housing authority should workmore aggressively and in partnershipwith the litigants in the Thompsonconsent decree to finally completethe number of Thompson units

required in the federal consentdecree and find locations to buildreplacement public housing in “non-impacted areas.” The 30 new scat-tered-site units provided by St.Ambrose Housing Center in “nonimpacted neighborhoods” should beduplicated with the recruitment ofmore competent private developersto build and manage public housing.St. Ambrose has already shown agood track record under the Thomp-son decree, as the Housing Authori-ty’s most recent report shows thereare no vacancies at any St. Ambroseproperties.109

• HABC should stop moving tenantsout of housing projects it plans toraze until HUD has approved a relo-cation and demolition plan. Other-wise, Baltimore is missing out onSection 8 vouchers available to relo-cating tenants.110

• In communities that have historicallyresisted subsidized housing the cityshould convene public forumsinvolving public housing tenantsalready living in those stable neigh-borhoods — along with their home-owner neighbors — to talk abouttheir experience living side by side,as well as the condition and mainte-nance of the homes.

• The Housing Authority should con-sider using a small amount of its $26million in reserves to augment otherfunds to repair its inventory and cre-ate new public housing units.

• Every effort should be made to pre-vent deterioration of public housingprojects so they will not have to berazed in the future, even if it meansleveraging funds outside the publichousing allocation from HUD.

• Set into action the recommendationsoutlined in the half-million-dollarstudy, An Analysis of Supply and

7


continued on page 8

8

Demand Conditions of Low and Mid-dle Income Housing Markets in Bal-timore City and Region: Based onMarket Research Conducted fromJuly 2004 through June 2005, con-ducted by Real Estate Strategies Inc.In concert with the Department ofHousing and Community Develop-ment, local elected officials, andhousing advocates, the HousingAuthority should build more, notless, public housing, leveraging fed-eral dollars with low-income taxcredits and other funds.

If the study had been shown to thecity’s planning department during thewriting of its Comprehensive Plan or,more importantly, to the Baltimore CityTask Force on Inclusionary Housingand Zoning, those reports – and result-ing legislation – might have betteraddressed the housing needs of thecity’s poorest residents, as well as mid-dle income-residents.

Baltimore needs to set an aggressivehousing strategy for the future of itspoorest residents. The Housing Authori-ty, its Board of Commissioners, and thecity’s elected leaders failed to take aleadership role in solving the problems,both financial and logistical, of rehabili-tating old public housing projects,replacing those being razed, and makingvouchers easier to use. With the HousingAuthority under the city governmentumbrella (as Mr. Graziano is both Balti-more’s housing commissioner and theexecutive director of the HousingAuthority of Baltimore City), it shouldmake a logical partnership for the cityleaders to join with the public housingprofessionals to begin rebuilding Balti-more’s low-income housing system,rather than tearing it down.

A final word from a residentMichelle Holmes is president of the

Resident Advisory Board, the city-wideorganization that represents public hous-ing tenants. She feels the dismantling of

the city’s public housing on a personallevel, as O’Donnell Heights has been herhome since 1985, shortly after the proj-ect was renovated. In the spring of 2007,she was surrounded by blocks andblocks of bricked up homes being pre-pared for demolition. When she thoughtof O’Donnell and all the other projectsslated for demolition, she wonderedwhere the housing authority will send somany of the tenants being displaced.

“What’s going to happen to us?” sheasked. “We’re less than less. We’re notimportant and we don’t have a say.”111

Joan Jacobson is a former reporterfor The Evening Sun and The Sun,where she covered housing for morethan a decade. This report is based on afour-month review of hundreds of docu-ments, visits to public housing projectsand numerous interviews.

Endnotes1 U.S. Census data; Economic Profile – Selected

Statistics 2000 vs 2005, provided by the Balti-more City Department of Planning, Tara Penders,city planner.

2 Moving to Work Annual Plan, FY 2007-2008,interview with Paul Graziano, executive directorof the Housing Authority of Baltimore City,March 9, 2007.

3 There were 2,448 families living in the high rises,according to the Semi-Annual Statistical Bulletin,HABC, June, 1992.

4 Semi-Annual Statistical Bulletin, June 1992,Housing Authority of Baltimore City. This statis-tic was derived by subtracting the number ofvacant but viable units (1,843) from the totalinventory of 18,368. The number excludes vacantunits at Fairfield Homes, which was slated fordemolition at the time.

5 Interview with Jemine Bryon, deputy executivedirector HABC, March 9, 2007.

6 HABC figures provided to the Abell Foundation(“Funding Reductions by Programs”); An Analy-sis of Supply and Demand Conditions of Low andMiddle Income Housing Markets in BaltimoreCity and Region: Based on Market Research Con-ducted from July 2004 through June 2005. ByReal Estate Strategies Inc. 2005.The study estimates the projects need $270 mil-lion for repairs over the next five years.

7 HABC staff; this number includes reserves forpublic housing projects and Section 8 voucherprograms.

8 Interview with Rainbow Lin, chief financial offi-cer HABC, March 9, 2007.

9 Housing Authority of Baltimore City, FundingReductions by Programs; HUD interview January26, 2007 with William Tamburrino, director ofPublic Housing HUB for Maryland, D.C., Virginiaand West Virginia, and James Kelly; BaltimoreField Director, Baltimore HUD office; HABCworks under a Moving to Work agreement, aderegulated plan that gives benefits, such as main-

taining a higher level of operating subsidy; Balti-more Citistat report 2007.

10 An Analysis of Supply and Demand Conditions ofLow and Middle Income Housing Markets in Bal-timore City and Region: Based on MarketResearch Conducted from July 2004 through June2005. By Real Estate Strategies Inc. 2005.

11 Resolution of HABC’s “Board of CommissionersAuthorizing the Demolition of Somerset Homesand Acceptance of a Baltimore City AffordableHousing Trust Fund Grant for Demolition Costs.”May 15, 2007, signed by Paul T. Graziano, secre-tary/executive director and Joseph L. Smith,chairman.

12 Agenda for Westport Homes Extension, presenta-tion to Westport Homes Resident Advisory Board:“Funds have recently become available for theproposed demolition through the City AffordableHousing Program.”

13 In an interview with Paul Graziano on March 9,2007, he said a master plan had yet to begin on thearea of East Baltimore that includes the SomersetCourt land. He also said no housing will be rebuilton the Westport Extension location because it istoo close to an industrial area and a highway.

14 Maryland Emergency Housing and Park Commis-sion, Report of Joint Committee on Housing inBaltimore, March 19, 1934.

15 Low-End Rental Housing; The Forgotten Story inBaltimore’s Housing Boom by Sandra J. Newman.

16 HABC Moving to Work Annual Plan FY 2007-2008.

17 U.S. Census data; Economic Profile – SelectedStatistics 2000 vs 2005, provided by the Balti-more City Department of Planning, Tara Penders,city planner.

18 Semi-Annual Statistical Bulletin, HABC, June1992; CitiStat report, February 2007.

19 There were 2,448 families living in the high rises,according to the Semi-Annual Statistical Bulletin,HABC, June 1992.

20 The Baltimore Sun, 1,000 pounds of explosives tolevel Lafayette Courts towers today, by JoannaDaemmrich and Joan Jacobson, August 19, 1995.

21 HUD Demolition/Disposition application infor-mation by date: http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/systems/pic/sac/#reports

22 Seattle Public Housing: http://www.seattlehous-ing.org/Development/replacement/Replacement-Housing.html

23 Housing Authority of Kansas City: http://www.hakc.org/jeffrey_lines.html

24 Interview with Graziano, HABC Moving to WorkAnnual Plan 2007-2008.

25 February 27, 2007 letter to Iris Bradford, Somer-set Tenant Council president, from Jemine Bryon,Housing Authority deputy executive director.

26 February 27, 2007 letter from Jemine Bryon to IrisBradford.

27 Tamburrino interview, April 19, 2007.28 Interview with Paul Graziano, Jemine Bryon,

March 9, 2007, Tamburrino interview. On May14, 2007 HABC spokeswoman Tania Baker saidten families remained at Westport Extension.

29 Numbers supplied by the Housing Authority ofBaltimore City, March 2007.

30 O’Donnell Heights Master Plan, final report,March 2003 by STV Incorporated. Interviewswith public housing officials and MichelleHolmes, president Resident Advisory Board andan O’Donnell Heights Tenant.

31 HABC Semi-Annual Statistical Bulletin June, 1992.32 CitiStat, February 2007.33 CitiStat, February 2007, HABC Moving to Work

FY 2006 Annual Plan; Table prepared by HABCfor the Abell Foundation on the status of reuse for


9

scattered-site public housing units.34 HABC A Moving to Work Agency, FY 2006

MTW Annual Report.35 Ibid; Interview with Graziano.36 HABC A Moving to Work Agency, FY 2006

Annual Report.37 Graziano interview, March 9, 2007, HABC Mov-

ing to Work Annual Plan 2007-2008.38 HABC Funding Reductions by Programs, Balti-

more Citistat reports, 2007.39 Letter from Graziano to Robert C. Embry Jr.,

Abell Foundation president, July 9, 2007.40 Ibid.41 Moving to Work Annual Plan 2007-2008.42 An Analysis of Supply and Demand Conditions of

Low and Middle Income Housing Markets in Bal-timore City and Region: Based on MarketResearch Conducted from July 2004 through June2005. By Real Estate Strategies Inc. 2005

43 Graziano letter to Embry, July 9, 2007.44 Ibid.45 HUD, Tamburrino. This number includes reserves

for public housing projects and Section 8 programs.46 HABC staff interviews.47 Graziano letter to Embry, July 9, 2007.48 HUD, Tamburrino, Kelly; Baltimore Citistat

report February 2007. 49 Housing Authority of Baltimore City, Funding

Reductions by Programs.50 Graziano letter to Embry, July 9, 2007.51 Letter to the Abell Foundation from the Maryland

Disability Law Center, June 12, 2007.52 Graziano interview May 8, 2007.53 HABC document, Capital Work for HABC, pro-

vided to Abell researcher. 54 Graziano interview May 8, 2007.55 Graziano interview May 8, 2007.56 Capital Work for HABC; Graziano interview;

HABC Moving to Work Annual Plan, 2007; Bai-ley, et al v. HABC et al., Civil Action No. JFM-02-CV-225 and United States v. HABC, CivilAction No. JFM-04-CV-03107.

57 Housing Authority of Baltimore City MTW agree-ment with HUD.

58 MTW Plans 2005, 200759 Graziano interview, May 8, 2007.60 Citistat reports from 2001 to 2006. The current

vacancy rate is from the March 16, 2007 Citistatreport.

61 Citistat reports from 2001 to 2006.62 HABC Moving to Work Annual Plan 2007-2008.63 Graziano letter to Embry, July 9, 2007.64 Graziano letter to Embry, July 9, 2007.65 The City of Baltimore Comprehensive Housing

Affordability Strategy 1994-1998, Dec. 30, 1993,DHCD.; Housing Authority of Baltimore City,PHA plans; 5 year plan for fiscal Years 2003-2007;Annual Plan for Fiscal year 2003, April 8, 2003.

66 Graziano interview, March 9 2007.67 Amended HABC Replacement Housing Plan – FY

2007, sent to HUD from HABC January 30, 2007.68 Graziano interview, March 9, 2007.69 Tamburrino interview, April 19, 2007.70 Carmen Thompson et al v. U.S. Department of

HUD Partial Consent Decree, Update on Replace-ment Housing Programs.

71 Thompson: Stipulation and Order Amending Par-tial Consent Decree.

72 Graziano letter to Embry, July 9, 2007. 73 Interview with Paul Graziano, March 9, 2007.74 Moving to Work Annual Plan 2007-2008.75 Ibid.76 April 4, 2007 letter to Joan Jacobson from Tania

Baker, director of communications, HABC.77 Tamburrino interview, April 19, 2007.78 Graziano interview May 8, 2007.79 http://www.baltimorehousing.org/index/ps_pub-

lic.asp80 Draft of Moving to Work Annual Plan, FY 2007:

http://www.baltimorehousing.org/index/pdfs/HABC_Annual_Plan_2007.pdf

81 http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/news/citistat/reports.html

82 Housing Authority of Baltimore City Website:http://www.baltimorehousing.org/index/ps_pub-lic.asp (as of March 21, 2007), Housing AuthorityInventory report from the U.S. Department ofHousing and Urban Development, provided bythe Baltimore HUD office, as of March 2007,reports 14,446 units in management.

83 Tamburrino interview, April 19 2007.84 American Civil Liberties Union, The Baltimore

Sun, October 5, 2000 by M. Dion Thompson.85 The Baltimore Sun, Apartment plan stirs Hamilton

residents by Eric Siegel, April 11, 2007.86 The City of Baltimore Comprehensive Master

Plan, A Business Plan for a World Class City,2007-2012, At Home in Baltimore, a Plan for anInclusive City of Neighborhoods, July 2006. CotyCouncil Bill # 06-0558.

87 http://www.baltimorehousing.org/index/ps_plans.asp88 Interview with Steve Janes, assistant commission-

er for research and compliance, Department ofHousing and Community Development/HABC.

89 Averaged from the three 2005 Citistat reports forHABC.

90 Citistat reports for February 2007 for HABC.91 Department of Housing and Community Devel-

opment Consolidated Plan, July 2000 to June2005.

92 HUD regulations: 24 CFR Ch. IX (4-11-04 edi-tion) Section 903.17, “What is the process forobtaining public comment on the plans?”

93 Housing advocates who protested included repre-

sentatives from Maryland Legal Aid, the Ameri-can Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, the Mary-land Disability Law Center and the University ofMaryland School of Law’s Clinical Law Office.

94 Letter from Graziano to Abell Foundation Presi-dent Robert C. Embry, July 9, 2007.

95 The Baltimore Sun, Classified Advertisements,Legal notices, March 19, 20 and 21, 2007.

96 http://www.baltimorehousing.org/index/pdfs/HABC_Annual_Plan_2007.pdf

97 Comments by Barbara Samuels, managing attor-ney for fair housing at the American Civil Liber-ties Union of Maryland.

98 Abell study author Jacobson attended the hearing.99 Section 8 Housing Programs, statistical bulletin,

July 1992, Department of Housing and Communi-ty Development.

100 Jemine Bryon interview, March 9, 2007.101 Interview with Iris Bradford, Somerset Court Ten-

ant Council president.102 Letter from Paul Graziano to the HUD regional

Inspector General, December 8, 2004. Grazianoblamed HABC’s difficulty using Section 8 vouch-ers on “extremely difficult market conditions” andcalled the situation “beyond the control of HABC.”

103 Graziano interview, May 8, 2007.104 HUD Office of the Inspector General report,

December 2004, OIG report, March 2001.105 Interview with HABC staff March 9, 2007; Janu-

ary 26, 2007 Interview with HUD officials Tam-burrino and Kelly.

106 Capital Work for HABC, document provided tothe Abell researcher.

107 HABC Moving to Work Plan 2006-2007.108 Bryon interview May 8. 2007.109 HABC Moving to Work Annual Plan 2007.110 HUD notice PIH 2007-10 (HA), Subject: Voucher

Funding in Connection with the Demolition orDisposition of Occupied Public Housing Units.

111 Interview with Michelle Holmes, president Resi-dent Advisory Board, March 21, 2007.


Response by Housing Authority of Baltimore CitySeptember 7, 2007Baltimore Housing

I. IntroductionJoan Jacobson’s report entitled “The

Dismantling of Baltimore’s PublicHousing” minimizes the funding crisiswhich affects the Housing Authority ofBaltimore City (HABC) and every otherPublic Housing Authority (PHA) in thenation (see attached news articles) whiletrivializing the highly complex chal-lenges facing Baltimore City’s publichousing program. The author’s point ofview represents a fantasy vision inwhich funding gaps disappear, the feder-al government recommits itself to sup-porting the public housing program, and

contentious and dense legal issues andrequirements can easily be resolved.

Jacobson’s report does little toinform a public discourse regarding thechallenges facing HABC as a result ofshifting national policies, many years offederal disinvestment, seismic shifts inthe population of Baltimore City, andthe severely distressed and obsolete con-ditions of much of HABC’s housingstock. These challenges are further exac-erbated by the need to comply withcomplex and expensive court-orderedConsent Decrees which significantlydefine how and where HABC can investits limited and inadequate funding.

The author’s complete dismissal of

1 Ms. Jacobson is also referred to as the author throughout this response.

continued on page 10

10

the enormity of the capital funding gapfacing HABC and unwillingness toacknowledge the significant successesachieved by HABC and its umbrellaagency, Baltimore Housing, includingproduction of 3,276 affordable housingunits since 2000, calls into question herobjectivity and undermines the validityof the report’s conclusions and recom-mendations. HABC attempted to set therecord straight with comments on a draftof the report; however, very few adjust-ments were made to the final report toreflect these comments. The deficienciesin the Jacobson report are myriad:

• Contrary to her assertion that we are“abandoning our mission to housethe poor,” the Housing Authority isat near record levels of householdsserved and will, over the next yearlease-up 2,500 new Section 8 unitsand increase public housing occu-pancy to 97%, and thereby be serv-ing significantly more low-incomehouseholds than at any other point inthe nearly seventy (70)-year historyof the Authority.

• The bottom line problem of HABC’slack of resources is minimized anddismissed by the author. In responseto the $862 million in capital needsto address physical conditions inHABC’s public housing portfolio,the author proposes using a “smallamount” of HABC’s operatingreserve, which currently totalsapproximately $27 million. HABC’soperating reserves are equivalent toabout six (6) weeks of public hous-ing and Housing Choice Voucher(HCV) operating expenses. Deplet-ing this modest reserve is in no wayan appropriate or sufficient responseto the capital needs facing HABC.

• In response to the ongoing under-funding of HABC’s operating budgetwhich over the past two years alonehas resulted in reductions of $22 mil-

lion in federal funds needed to payfor utilities, maintenance repairs, andother ongoing operating expenses,the author points to a provision of theMoving To Work Agreement (MTW)which made HABC eligible for anadditional $4 million in funding. Theauthor implies that this $4 million isevidence of the agency’s financialhealth; however, the fact is that thisamount will not even cover the annu-al BG&E utility rate increase forHABC’s properties.

• The author acknowledges thatHABC’s demolition plans “mirrorthose of public housing authoritiesaround the country,” but makes noattempt to analyze the underlyingreasons why the demolition decisionswere made. These reasons vary byproperty, but always involve underly-ing serious physical distress whichcannot be remedied with existingfunding. The report ignores the factthat federal caps on funds available torenovate properties such as WestportExtension, O’Donnell Heights andSomerset make it impossible to con-duct these renovations. Despite theserestrictions, we are committed toredevelopment of mixed incomehousing at both O’Donnell Heightsand Somerset, subject to federalfunding and Thompson ConsentDecree related approvals.

• No discussion of the enormous andunique operating challenges faced byHABC is included in the report. Forexample, the Bailey and ThompsonConsent Decrees are only brieflymentioned in spite of the fact thatthese two court matters absorb anenormous amount of agencyresources and profoundly shape andconstrain agency development andoperational priorities.

• In an effort to paint a relentlesslynegative picture of the City’s afford-able housing options for low-incomehouseholds, the author mentions,

then discounts, the fact that the totalnumber of Section 8 recipients hasgone from less than 6,000 to almost12,000 in the past fifteen years. Thisincrease has been achieved despitethe fact that landlords are notrequired to accept Section 8 vouch-ers in the City and most of the sur-rounding counties. The author startsthe discussion of this very successfulprogram with the words, “But Sec-tion 8 subsidies often come withproblems…” While Section 8 is nota panacea or the solution to all of theCity’s housing affordability prob-lems, especially given the extremeage of most housing in the City, afair assessment of the programwould mention positive attributessuch as the program’s ability to openup a wide range of housing choicesand neighborhoods to program par-ticipants including metropolitan andnationwide mobility options. Itshould also have been noted that thecurrent administration has trans-formed the HABC Section 8 pro-gram from a “HUD troubled”agency with a rating of five (5) to a“HUD High Performer” agency witha rating of 140.

• The author’s wish list of recommen-dations includes urging HABC towork to reinstate “one-for-onereplacement of demolished units,accompanied with enough money tofinance new public housing.” Thisrecommendation is made without ref-erencing the current $22 billionnational backlog of needed publichousing capital repairs or the realitiesof national politics, which have result-ed in the systematic underfunding anddisinvestment in public housing.

• The extensive neighborhood revital-ization activities, including publichousing redevelopment, undertakenby Baltimore Housing and HABCover the past decade are virtuallyignored while the author lauds theundefined activities of other cities as


11

models for Baltimore. There is littleacknowledgement of HABC’s five(5) successful HOPE VI revitaliza-tion initiatives, the State PartnershipRental Housing Program develop-ment activities or other completed orplanned successful developmentactivities. The fact that HABC hasleveraged over $181 million in nonpublic housing funds to supportthese activities at just the completedHOPE VI projects is not mentioned.The author ignores these large-scaleefforts which have produced over1,100 affordable housing replace-ment units, while recommending thereplication of a thirty (30)-unit scat-tered site St. Ambrose development.This recommendation is made in avacuum, absent any discussion ofthe exorbitant acquisition, construc-tion and management costs of thisdevelopment.

• The author disingenuously uses twoparagraphs from a 220-page studycommissioned by Baltimore Hous-ing to criticize HABC’s perform-ance. These references distort theoverarching message of the study,which analyzes the dramaticchanges in Baltimore City’s demo-graphics and housing stock and pres-ents a thoughtful analysis of futurehousing development options andstrategies. In contrast to Ms. Jacob-son’s representation, the study actu-ally applauds a number of BaltimoreHousing’s ongoing mixed incomehousing initiatives such as Barclayand Sharp-Leadenhall. Further, acentral focus of the study is the needto attract moderate and market rateincome households into the City, apoint which is entirely ignored bythe author.

• The author makes repeated refer-ences to a purported lack of publicinvolvement or opportunities forinput into HABC’s redevelopment

policies. The facts tell an entirely dif-ferent story, i.e. that HABC conductsits business in a transparent and openmanner. As just one example, prior tosubmitting its most recent MovingTo Work Annual Plan, HABC: con-ducted fourteen (14) meetings withresidents; convened a public hearing;placed advertisements for the publichearing in the Baltimore Sun andThe Afro-American; posted the Planon its website, at all public housingsites and in the Enoch Pratt FreeLibrary; and, conducted a public voteof its Board of Commissioners.

There are many more errors andomissions in this deeply flawed andbiased report. A well researched, objec-tive analysis of the challenges facingpublic housing both nationally andlocally would have provided a much dif-ferent story than the one presented bythe author. The real story begins with anunderstanding of major national publichousing policy shifts and the resultantfunding problems facing HABC.

II. Public Housing: National ChallengesThe public housing program in Bal-

timore and nationwide has been steadilydecreasing in size over the past twodecades. This is a direct result of feder-al housing policy which has stoppedfunding public housing development,shifted resources to the Section 8 Hous-ing Choice Voucher program, all buteliminated the last remaining source ofpublic housing revitalization dollars(HOPE VI) and dramatically underfunded public housing operating andcapital programs.

The Center on Budget and PolicyPriorities (CBBP) summarizes the situa-tion as follows:

Recent funding cuts also are under-mining other housing policy goals, suchas the preservation of the public hous-ing stock, which remains an importantsource of affordable housing to familieswith very low incomes. Over the pastdecade, the nation has experienced anet loss of approximately 170,000 pub-

lic housing units to deterioration anddecay, and much of the remaining pub-lic housing stock has substantial repairand rehabilitation needs that must bemet if public housing is to be revitalizedand preserved. Efforts to meet this goalare being hindered, however, by a steepdecline in funding for public housing;annual funding for public housing oper-ating and capital costs fell by 25 per-cent between 1999 and 2006, afteradjusting for inflation. Without an infu-sion of new resources, the remaining 1.2million public housing units, about halfof which are home to people who areelderly or have serious disabilities, willcontinue to deteriorate. (Source: CBPP,February 1, 2007)

Using well-documented facts,CBBP goes on to describe the nationalshift from “project-based housing” to“tenant-based vouchers.” From 1995 to2005, there was a net gain of 700,000authorized tenant-based vouchers, while“project-based housing” (a term thatCBBP uses to include public housingand privately owned housing receivingproject-based subsidies) declined by500,000 units.

The CBBP report goes on to statethat, “Public housing is being starved ofresources despite substantial capitalrepair needs.” In terms of capital fund-ing, the report concludes that, “Between1999 and 2006, funding for the PublicHousing Capital Fund, which helps cov-er agencies’ costs for substantial repairsand modernization of deteriorated pub-lic housing, dropped by 33 percent, afteradjusting for inflation. The 2006 fundinglevel of $2.4 billion is slightly below theamount HUD estimates is required justto meet new capital repair needs thatarise each year, without taking intoaccount the substantial funding neededto address the $22 billion backlog ofneeded capital repairs.”

Thus, it is clear that Baltimore’sexperience over the past decades with adeclining public housing program andan increasing Section 8 program is con-sistent with national trends. Communi-ties all over the nation have been forced


12

to close down public housing because ofinadequate funding and decaying hous-ing conditions. Jacobson brieflyacknowledges this fact, but then dis-misses it, recommending instead thatBaltimore adopt the “creative financingtechniques” used by Seattle and KansasCity to renovate and rebuild publichousing. Just what those creative financ-ing techniques are, how Baltimore canaccess them or, more importantly, howthey differ from the creative financingstrategies already in use in Baltimore isleft to the reader’s imagination as theauthor provides no facts or details.

Public Housing Operating FundWhile the shortfall in public housing

funding is a national problem, it is par-ticularly acute in Baltimore. Withrespect to the Operating Fund, HABChas not received full funding to supportpublic housing operating costs such asmaintenance and utilities since FiscalYear 2003. Since that time, HABCOperating Fund resources have been cutby $26.2 million below the amount it isdue based on the federal funding formu-la. For calendar years 2006-2007 alone,the net loss to the agency is more than$22 million. HABC has taken aggres-sive measures to operate with reducedfunding including eliminating 314 staffpositions during this period; however,many of HABC’s costs, particularly util-ity costs, have continued to increase.Chart 1 illustrates the gap between theformula-determined operating subsidyamount and the actual funding amountsprovided by HUD.

In discussing the shortfall in operat-ing funds, the author basically dismissesthe issue stating, “Though the budgethas shrunk and costs of adequatelymaintaining aging projects are out ofreach, the agency has a healthy reserveof $26 million, which it could spend onoperating or capital improvements.” Infact, HABC does periodically usereserve funds for operating and capitalneeds including accommodating cash

flow needs associated with programbudgets in excess of $224 million. It isre-stating the obvious to note that theentire reserve balance (which is present-ly at $27 million) is only $5 millionmore than the 2006-2007 federal fund-ing shortfall. Further, it representsapproximately six (6) weeks of operat-ing costs for the public housing andHCV programs. Spending the reservedown would place the agency in a pre-carious financial position, one thatwould be imprudent and reckless in lightof the ongoing funding uncertainties. Itshould also be noted that the reserve bal-ance is less than the 20% previously rec-ommended under HUD guidelines.

The author then proceeds to discuss a“special perk” of the Moving To Workprogram that generates “almost $4 mil-lion” in additional funds this year, fur-ther stating that “…the more units itremoves from its inventory, the moremoney it will have to manage what isleft.” The additional $4 million refer-enced in the report is a result of anincrease in the utility component of theoperating subsidy. Even with this addi-tional subsidy, HABC has not receivedsufficient funding to properly maintainits occupied unit inventory. Further, aspreviously noted, the $4 million pay-ment did not even fully cover the costs

associated with the annual BG&E utilityrate increase.

Public Housing Capital FundJacobson faults HABC for not imple-

menting a “one-for-one” replacementpolicy for all of its obsolete and unin-habitable or demolished public housingunits, while offering no meaningfulfunding options. It should be noted thatHUD does not provide developmentfunds for “one-for-one” replacementand, with a recent HUD rule change,now only provides replacement vouch-ers for public housing units that areoccupied at the time of HUD’s approvalof a demolition/disposition application.HUD’s policy of limiting vouchers tooccupied units only will cost HABCover $12 million per year in funding. Asan MTW site, HABC could have usedthese funds to develop “hard” units.

Further, the capital investment needsfor HABC are staggering in light of thelimited resources available to addressthese needs. In the aggregate, HABC’sportfolio of public housing unitsrequires greater than $862 million incapital investment over the seven (7)-year MTW term to maintain its invento-ry in standard condition and redevelopnon-viable sites.

These needs are in stark contrast to


Chart 1

13

the approximately $22 million in CapitalFund program grant funds expectedannually in each of the next severalyears. In an attempt to leverage andexpedite the impact of Capital Fund dol-lars, in 2004 HABC issued bonds thatgenerated over $65 million in revenue.However, more than 50% of the bondproceeds were used to make units acces-sible per Bailey Consent Decree require-ments. The balance was used for publichousing vacancy reduction and criticalcapital replacement items such as eleva-tors, fire management systems, roofsand heating systems.

HABC will also utilize its flexibilityunder MTW to use a limited amount ofHCV funds to help support additionalpublic housing vacancy reduction andprovide hundreds of accessible units forpersons with disabilities. Both the bondissuance and the use of HCV fundsreflect creativity and innovation inattempting to improve conditions andincrease overall occupancy.

As with the issue of operating funds,the author acknowledges the capitalshortfall, then minimizes it as somethingthat could be solved through more cre-ative financing, more public input andthe like. There are numerous inaccurate,misleading references to the capital pro-gram in the report. In discussing capitalneeds, the author cites the “…more than$200 million needed to repair its aginghousing projects.” Again, the estimatedfigure is $862 million including the costof redeveloping non-viable sites.

The author also implies that the Hol-lander Ridge HOPE VI grant could beutilized to address agency-wide capitalneeds; however, the grant is restricted bystatute to the provision of replacementhousing units or total renovation of unitson a single site. For years, HABC hasbeen thwarted first by HUD and then theACLU in its efforts to build replacementhousing using the Hollander Ridgegrant. HABC is hopeful that recent dis-cussions with the ACLU regarding addi-tional options will yield positive results

and help us to move forward with build-ing these critically needed housingresources. Again, however, the fundscannot be used for general capitalimprovement purposes.

The report’s discussion of HABC’sReplacement Housing Factor Fund pro-gram also presents a distorted view ofHABC’s plans and priorities. Contraryto the author’s statement, the agencystands behind the figures reported toHUD, while acknowledging that thespecifics of these future developmentprograms can and will change over time.

III. Public Housing: Local ChallengesIn addition to ignoring the powerful

impacts of national policy and budgetdecisions on public housing in Balti-more, the author ignores or distorts someof the most fundamental challenges fac-ing public housing in Baltimore includ-ing demographic changes of historicproportions and court-ordered consentdecrees which severely limit theagency’s development agenda.

Baltimore’s Demographic ChangesDespite its gains over the past few

years, Baltimore remains a city with sig-nificant concentrations of poverty,severe population loss, and disinvest-ment, particularly when compared to theregion. While the counties grew andprospered, Baltimore City lost much ofits middle class base but experiencedincreases in the number of individualswho live in poverty. Household incomesincreased in the surrounding jurisdic-tions, but earning power continued to lagin the City. As the middle class fled, dis-investment became a more practical andviable economic option. Properties were

not maintained or, in many instances,were abandoned leaving entire neigh-borhoods debilitated.

These are not new trends, but onesthat have been evident since the 1950’s.Between 1950 and 2006 the City’s pop-ulation declined by slightly more than33% from 949,708 individuals to631,366 individuals. Baltimore Citynow includes only 25.5% of the region’spopulation. According to Living Citiesdata Baltimore lost 34% of its middle-income households between 1990 and2000. Households earning between$34,000 and $52,000 decreased by 14%while households earning between$52,000 and $81,000 decreased by 20%.

At the same time the City’s povertyrate has increased from 18.4% in 1970when the Census first began trackingthis data to 22.6% in 2006. The childpoverty rate in the City stands at 33%versus 7.1% in the surrounding counties.Half of the census tracts in BaltimoreCity contain poverty rates of 50% ormore; for example, 32.4% or 83,601households in Baltimore City earned$18,000 or less, ranking Baltimore fifthamong 23 major metropolitan areas.

While the City’s median householdincome increased, it still lagged signifi-cantly behind its suburban counterparts.Table A compares Baltimore’s medianincome with the region:

The City’s changing and challengingdemographics are also reflected in theconcentration of Housing Authority-owned properties as a percentage of theCity’s overall housing stock. In 1950,the Housing Authority had 6,021 avail-able units, representing 2.24% of theCity’s total housing stock. By 1990, thenumber of available public housing units


Table A1990 2000 2006

Baltimore City $24,045 $30,078 $32,456Anne Arundel County $45,147 $61,765 $71,961Baltimore County $38,837 $50,667 $56,295Howard County $54,348 $74,167 $91,194Source: US Census & Baltimore Metropolitan Council

14

increased to over 21,000 (includingHABC-owned units and Section 8units), or 10% of the City’s households.It is also true that in the 1990’s thedecrease in the number of available Pub-lic Housing units exceeded the increasein Section 8 units by approximately 500units. However, it is equally important tonote that from 1999 to 2007, the increasein Section 8 units exceeded the decreasein available Public Housing units bymore 1,200 units. Table B illustrates theabove point.

An equally important point to note inany discussion concerning the HousingAuthority’s inventory is the ThompsonConsent Decree requirement that theconcentration of Public Housing bereduced on the redeveloped sites. Thisrequirement has resulted in 850 PublicHousing units being rebuilt on fiveHousing Authority owned sites. Theremaining 3,340 units are being replacedby scattered Public Housing and Hous-ing Choice Vouchers. The HousingAuthority has not, as Ms. Jacobsonalleged, moved away from the businessof providing affordable housing, butcontinues to operate under a hamperingset of circumstances that limits how andwhere housing can be provided.

Even without these constraints, Seat-tle and Kansas City do not come close tomaintaining the inventory that Baltimoredoes. Seattle currently has 6,156 publichousing units and 8,451 Section 8 unitsor a total of 14,607 units – 8,145 fewerunits than Baltimore. Kansas City has atotal 9,803 units, or 12,949 fewer thanBaltimore. HABC’s viable public hous-ing inventory alone is five times as largeas Kansas City, while Baltimore’s popu-lation is about 50% larger. Table C illus-trates the significant differences in theratio of public housing units to eachcity’s population.

In spite of Ms. Jacobson’s asser-tions, Seattle and Kansas City portray adramatically different set of demo-graphics. Between 1950 and 2000, Seat-tle’s population increased by 24.5%

from 467,591 individuals to 582,454.Kansas City’s population remained rela-tively constant decreasing by only 2%.In this same time period, Baltimore lost33% of its population. Seattle’s povertyrate is about half of Baltimore’s: 12.3%compared to 22.6%. With a poverty rateof 16.5% Kansas City is also well belowthe City’s level of poverty. While Balti-more’s share of low-income householdsincreased, Seattle’s actually decreasedby 7.4%.

Both Kansas City and Seattle havevacant house rates well below Balti-more’s 17.4% vacancy rate. Accordingto the Census, Kansas City had a 13.7%vacancy rate in 2006 while Seattle had a6.7% vacancy rate. Obviously, highvacancy rates due to disinvestments andabandonment, as in the case of Balti-more, compound the challenges of pre-serving or producing affordable housingopportunities.

Ms. Jacobson’s use of cities that arenot comparable to the Baltimore experi-

ence reiterates the overall lack ofmethodology and academic rigor that istypically demonstrated in this type ofreport. Table D further illustrates the dif-ferences between Baltimore and Seattleor Kansas City.

The best and most effective way toreverse the above referenced trends isthrough the approach currently followedby Baltimore Housing: strategicallyfocusing on areas for redevelopment.This is the approach that is recommend-ed and reinforced in the Real EstateStrategies, Inc. 2005 report, An Analysisof Supply and Demand Conditions ofLow and Middle Income Housing Mar-kets in Baltimore City and Region.” Thereport confirms that Baltimore faces a“number of powerful, overriding marketrealities that should be understoodbecause they exert a strong influence onBaltimore’s housing markets…” Thereport also notes that the most effectiveway to rebuild distressed communities isby providing mixed-income housing, an


Table BDec. 1980 Dec. 1990 Dec. 1999 June 2007

Viable Public Housing Units 16,355 16,637 13,640 11,028Sec. 8 Units 2,306 4,747 7,624 11,724TOTALS 18,661 21,384 21,264 22,752Source: Baltimore Housing

Table CPublic PH Total PH PH Units &

2006 Housing Housing/ units Section 8/ Population Units Population & Section 8 Population

Baltimore 631,366 11,028* 1/57 22,752 1/28Kansas City 447,306 2,193 1/204 9,803 1/46Seattle 582,454 6,157 1/95 14,607 1/40Source: US Census & Council of Large Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA). * As of June 30, 2007 HABChad 13,454 public housing units in its inventory. 2,400 are slated demolition or disposition and 26 are convert-ed to non-residential units leaving a balance of 11,028 public housing units.

Table D% of

1950 2006 Increase/ % Living % of Population Population Difference Decrease in Poverty Vacancy

Baltimore 948,708 631,366 -317,342 -33.44% 22.60% 17.40%Kansas City 456,622 447,306 -9,316 -2.04% 16.50% 13.70%Seattle 467,591 582,454 114,863 24.56% 12.30% 6.7%Source: US Census

15

approach lauded by the Baltimore Sun inan August 28, 2007 editorial. Many spe-cific recommendations in the RESReport are in place and evident in Balti-more Housing’s policies, programs, andoperations. The RES report alsoacknowledges that much of the City’shousing stock is not suitable for rehabil-itation and that a majority of the rentalstock is also in need of a significantamount of repair. Rather than allocatealready scarce resources, the report rec-ommends focusing on leveraging publicdollars in a concentrated fashion — theapproach that is being implemented inOrchard Ridge, Uplands, Barclay, Pop-pleton, and EBDI, Baltimore Housing’sstrategic focus areas. This decisionensures that a wide variety of housingwill be available throughout the City,especially to those who are in the mostneed of affordable housing.

Thompson Consent DecreeDespite the author’s assertion, the

eleven-year old partial consent decreewas not the result of the ACLU’s “show-ing that HUD practiced a racially dis-criminatory housing policy.” The partialconsent decree, an agreement reachedby both parties, resolved only some ofthe issues in the Thompson complaint.The parties litigated the remainingissues at a trial held in December 2003.In January 2005, Judge Garbis, the pre-siding judge, issued a decision absolvingHABC and the City of all wrongdoing.The Judge also held that HUD had vio-lated the Fair Housing Act by failing totake a regional approach to the desegre-gation of public housing.

In discussing the restrictions placedon HABC development activities underthe Thompson Consent Decree, thereport states that there are, “ …43 citycensus tracts where the Housing Author-ity can rebuild public housing.” In fact,out of a total of 200 census tracts in Bal-timore City, thirty-two (32) full censustracts and eleven (11) block groups (par-tial census tracts) are eligible locations

for housing units under Thompson.Note, however, that this includes prohib-itively expensive and largely built-outareas including Federal Hill and RolandPark along with several other areas thatpresent few if any opportunities to buildrental housing.

The report recommendationsinclude a statement that HABC should“…work more aggressively and in part-nership with the litigants to finally com-plete the number of Thompson unitsrequired in the federal consent decreeand find locations to build replacementpublic housing in non-impacted areas.”This recommendation ignores the factthat the vast majority of the hard unitshave been completed. All 850 of theHOPE VI on-site replacement unitshave been completed and 265 of the 353off-site replacement rental units aredone. Thus, of the 1203 hard unitsrequired by the Thompson partial con-sent decree, only eighty-eight (88)remain to be completed. HABC hasselected a contractor to complete ten(10) of the units. This contractor is inthe process finalizing the design plansand phasing of the project. Another con-tractor was selected to complete fifty-seven (57) of the units. One of theseunits has been completed and that con-tractor is now in the process of identify-ing units for purchase and rehab of theremaining fifty-six (56) units. HABC’splans for acquiring the remaining twen-ty-two (22) units are being finalized. Itshould be further noted that, under theterms of the partial consent decree,these twenty-two (22) units were to bebuilt in Sandtown Winchester (a heavilyimpacted area). HABC has voluntarilyagreed to seek opportunities in lessimpacted areas, which will increase thediversity and range of housing options.

HABC has and will continue to worktowards fully implementing the Thomp-son requirements, regardless of whetherthese requirements make for sound pub-lic policy today. The author’s citation ofSt. Ambrose Housing Aid Center, Inc. asa model for future development ignoresthe fiscal realities of this very complex

and expensive undertaking and under-scores her lack of knowledge of thecomplexity and cost associated with thistype of endeavor. For example, the perunit monthly operating costs of this thir-ty (30)-unit development are more thandouble the average cost of other private-ly managed scattered sites.

IV. Leveraging Public Housing Assets to Support NeighborhoodRevitalization

While the future of Baltimore’s pub-lic housing program is challenging,HABC remains committed to preserv-ing viable public housing communities,increasing occupancy in both the publichousing and HCV programs, and revi-talizing neighborhoods through well-planned mixed income housing devel-opment. Leveraging public housingassets to support neighborhood revital-ization is a fundamental component ofHABC’s strategy, one that helps supportsustainable neighborhood developmentwhile avoiding non-viable concentra-tions of extremely low-income housingunits as was done in the past. Moreover,Mayor Dixon is committed to taking aholistic approach to revitalizing neigh-borhoods. This approach not only pro-vides safe, decent and affordable hous-ing, but also gives residents access toquality education, recreation and arange of family services.

In addition to achieving full compli-ance with court ordered mandates,HABC and Baltimore Housing’s afford-able housing strategy focuses on theseelements:

• Promoting neighborhood revitaliza-tion and expanding affordable hous-ing choices through support of awide range of mixed income housingdevelopments throughout the City.As detailed below, all of these devel-opments include significant afford-able housing components.

• Increasing occupancy at viable pub-lic housing developments. Work iscurrently underway in developments


16

across the City, using scarceresources to rehabilitate and reoccu-py vacant public housing units. Asdetailed below, vacancies have beensubstantially reduced over the pasttwo (2) years and nearly 500 unitshave been made accessible forhouseholds with disabilities.

• Restructuring the scattered site port-folio. HABC operates one of thelargest scattered site public housingportfolios in the country. Large num-bers of these units are located in pro-foundly distressed neighborhoodswith high levels of crime and hous-ing abandonment. The costs associat-ed with managing these units arehigh, creating significant asset man-agement challenges. HABC is work-ing to restructure this portfoliothrough conveyances, as appropriateand feasible, to the City’s dispositionprogram and affordable housingdevelopers. This is an approach suc-cessfully implemented at Sharp-Leadenhall and planned at Barclay.

• Demolition/disposition and identifi-cation of redevelopment options forsites deemed “non viable”. Underfederal regulation, HABC is requiredto proceed with demolition of West-port Extension, O’Donnell, Somer-set, and portions of Mt. Winans. Thisis an immensely complicated andexpensive undertaking for whichthere are few available resources.However, the agency will use thesame level of innovation and creativ-ity in the pursuit of successful fund-ing and development options. Fundsfrom the City’s Affordable Housingprogram are being utilized to clearO’Donnell and Somerset in prepara-tion for new affordable/mixedincome housing.

• Expanding housing choices throughincreased utilization and lease up ofHousing Choice Voucher program

resources. This program has provento be an enormously importantresource in promoting housingaffordability, allowing participatinghouseholds to find their own decent,safe and sanitary housing that is thensubsidized by HABC. As notedabove, the dramatic rise in the num-ber of HCVs in use in Baltimore Cityhas offset reductions in non-viablepublic housing units.

These strategic elements represent arealistic and attainable vision of howHABC’s limited resources can be usedto support housing affordability whileencouraging the renaissance of Balti-more neighborhoods.

Neighborhood RevitalizationMost importantly, the strategies

adopted by HABC and Baltimore Hous-ing are working. Significant revitaliza-tion programs using HOPE VI, LowIncome Housing Tax Credits, privateequity and other resources have beenimplemented at:

• Pleasant View Gardens – The pro-foundly distressed Lafayette Courtspublic housing development hasbeen transformed into a 338 unitdevelopment, of which 311 units arefor public housing eligible house-holds and the balance are homeown-ership units.

• The Terraces – The former Lexing-ton Terrace public housing site isnow a 391 unit mixed rental andhomeownership community. Of thetotal units, 250 are for public housingeligible households.

• Heritage Crossing – Once the site ofthe dense, non-viable Murphy Homesand Julian Gardens public housingdevelopments, Heritage Crossing isnow a mixed rental-homeownershipcommunity with 75 units for publichousing eligible households and 185homeownership units.

• Broadway Overlook – This mixedincome, rental and homeownershipdevelopment replaced The Broad-way public housing developmentwith 166 units, of which 84 are forpublic housing eligible households.

• Albemarle Square – Located on thesite of the Flag House Courts publichousing development, this new com-munity includes 336 homeownershipand rental units, of which 130 rentalsare for public housing eligible house-holds and ten (10) are affordablehomeownership units.

These major initiatives are barelymentioned in the Jacobson report, astunning omission given that these five(5) redevelopment projects alone created850 public housing and 641 homeown-ership and other units, leveraging totalinvestments of more than $369 million.

With the exception of St. Ambrose,nor does the author acknowledge otherprojects supported by HABC and Balti-more Housing to create affordable hous-ing units as part of mixed income devel-opments throughout the City. Theseinclude:

• Reservoir Hill – This rental commu-nity will include sixty-four (64) unitsof which forty (40) are for publichousing eligible households and theremaining twenty-four (24) areaffordable rentals.

• Sharp-Leadenhall – This affordablerental community will consist of 31units, of which 23 are for publichousing eligible households.

• Orchard Ridge – Situated on the siteof the once distressed ClaremontHomes public housing and the longvacant, FHA-foreclosed FreedomVillage, Orchard Ridge will be a 442unit rental and homeownership com-munity. Of this total, 157 are afford-able rentals and fifty-four (54) areaffordable homeownership units.


17

• Uplands – This failed FHA site willbe combined with adjacent parcels tocreate more than 1,100 units ofmixed-income housing. According tothe terms of the Sales Contract withHUD, 74% of the units on the FHAsite must be affordable housing (forsale or rental), and a maximum of26% of new construction units at thesite can be market rate rental orhomeownership. The Sales Contractalso requires that affordable unitsmust be made available to familiesthat are considered very low and lowincome.

• Barclay – This major redevelopmenteffort encompasses approximately300 properties in the Barclay/OldGoucher neighborhoods. The planincludes replacement public housingunits, other affordable rental andhomeownership units, and market-rate rental and for sale units.

• East Baltimore –This 80-acre, largescale mixed-use, mixed-incomedevelopment will include 2,100mixed-income housing rental and forsale units, that will include one-thirdaffordable (at or below 50% of theArea Median Income), one-third forworkforce housing, and one-third formarket rate housing.

There are also several other afford-able housing projects in the pipelineincluding the planned acquisition offifty-seven (57) units of housing dis-cussed above as part of the ThompsonConsent Decree.

As indicated in Chart 2, since theyear 2000, these combined efforts andothers have resulted in the production of3,267 units of affordable housing.

In addition to the above identifiedunits, Baltimore Housing assisted 1,263low-income renter households inbecoming homeowners via mortgageand down payment assistance during thesame time period.

Increasing Occupancy at Viable Public Housing Developments

While expanding affordable housingproduction, HABC remains focused onreducing public housing vacancies atviable public housing sites. By nextyear, HABC intends to achieve 97%occupancy of its available public hous-ing units, up from approximately 88%on June 30, 2006 and 94% on June 30,2007. Utilizing the flexibility of itsMTW designation, HABC has expendedsignificant efforts over the past twoyears to increase occupancy at its viabledevelopments, a goal made more chal-lenging by the need to accommodatetransfers of existing residents. Over thepast two years, a total of 3,391 vacantunits were made ready by HABC staffand contractors. Nine hundred forty-sev-en (947) units accommodated the trans-fer of current residents that requiredaccessible housing features or for con-solidation of occupancy into viabledevelopments.

The vacancy rates at a number ofviable HABC sites over the past severalyears is due largely to the extensiveaccessibility modifications requiredunder the Bailey Consent Decree orsevere, unfunded capital needs whichmust be addressed in order to makevacant units livable. The Bailey-relatedcosts to retrofit public housing units isnow estimated to total $70 million.

Among HABC’s many accomplish-ments to date in meeting the Bailey

mandate is the completion of 425 unitsthat are compliant with the UniformFederal Accessibility Standards (UFAS)for wheelchair accessibility, the comple-tion of an additional 73 “near UFAS”compliant units, and the rehabilitation of29 common areas in HABC develop-ments to meet UFAS/ADA standards.

Promoting Affordability and Housing Choice

In response to shifts in federal hous-ing policy and resources, HABC hascontinued to expand the number ofhouseholds who receive subsidiesthrough the Housing Choice VoucherProgram. The HCV program is and willcontinue to be a crucial element of Bal-timore’s efforts to support housingaffordability while opening up morehousing choices to low-income house-holds. While the number of public hous-ing units in Baltimore and nationwidehas gone down as a result of federal dis-investment, the number of units leasedunder the HCV program has skyrocket-ed. From zero units in the mid-1970s,Baltimore City’s Section 8 program hasexpanded to serve nearly 12,000 house-holds. In August 2007, HABC began aprocess to lease up 2,500 new house-holds, which after allowing for attritionwill result in a net increase of approxi-mately 1,700 new units. This new leas-ing effort was made possible byHABC’s MTW authority and a recentlyannounced increase in federal funds for


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Chart 2

HCV – an exception to the generallydownward funding trend experienced inrecent years. In the fall of 2006, HABCcontracted with a private firm to com-mence lease up of 1,350 HCV units fornon-elderly persons with disabilities aspart of the Bailey Consent Decree.Finally, HABC has just set-aside 75vouchers to provide emergency reloca-tion resources for families with childrenwith elevated blood levels.

Conclusion In sum, the Jacobson report is filled

with inaccuracies, distorts the historicalrecord, and offers no useful recommen-dations to respond to the crisis caused bythe steady erosion of federal support forpublic and other types of affordablehousing. The author has chosen to ignorecreative efforts to mitigate draconianfederal funding cuts. These include:

• HABC’s successful designation asone of fewer than thirty (30) housingauthorities in the nation to receive aMoving to Work (MTW) designationallowing for unprecedented pro-grammatic flexibility

• The Revenue Anticipation Bond issuance

• Energy Performance Contracting

• The creation of a $59.8 millionAffordable Housing Fund

• Tax Incremental Financing (TIF)

• The use of FHA Up-Front Grants and,

• Significant utilization of LowIncome Housing Tax Credits(LIHTC), Tax-Exempt Bonds, Statesubsidies, and private capital.

Despite a very difficult nationalfunding situation and complex localchallenges, HABC and the entire Balti-

more Housing organization continue tomake progress in providing quality,affordable housing resources to Balti-more City’s low income households inmixed income communities. HABCwelcomes the opportunity to engage inmeaningful dialogue, grounded in factsand careful analysis, on the future direc-tion of Baltimore City’s affordablehousing policies and programs.

NEWS ARTICLES

Harrisburg Housing AuthorityMorrison Towers is a 126-unit high-rise pub-

lic housing facility operated by the HarrisburgHousing Authority. Because the authority willlose $3 million in federal money, it will lay off 22employees, Executive Director Carl Payneannounced yesterday. The layoffs came after thefederal government cut funding for public hous-ing authorities nationwide by 24 percent.Patriot-News (Harrisburg PA), 1/10/07

Pittsburgh Housing AuthorityAn emerging plan to merge the Pittsburgh

Housing Authority’s 30 police officers with theCity’s 840-man force has aroused the ire of theFraternal Order of Police. “I oppose it, per se,because of the fact that they’re actually loweringthe standards of the Pittsburgh Police Bureau tosecure $3 million” in federal housing police fund-ing said FOP President James Malloy yesterday.His comments came on the eve of today’s eventby the authority protesting $9 million in federalfunding cuts that will prompt service reductionsand 57 job cuts according to authority ExecutiveDirector A. Fulton Meachem.Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 1/10/07

Philadelphia Housing AuthorityCiting severe federal budget cuts, the

Philadelphia Housing Authority announced yes-terday that it was laying off about 350 employees,roughly 22 percent of its 1,600-person workforce.

PHA Executive Director Carl R. Greene saidthe layoffs, which he has warned about formonths, would do particular damage to theauthority's maintenance operations, meaning ten-ants will face longer waits for repairs.

At a news conference at PHA's Martin LutherKing Plaza in South Philadelphia, Greene placedthe blame for the layoffs on the Bush administra-tion, which has reduced the budget for the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Developmentmore than 20 percent during the last six years.

"In Washington, 'the Decider' has decided toabandon the nation's mission of serving the verylow income, those people who are elderly andthose who are disabled," Greene said.

Phildelphia Inquirer, 1/10/07Wilmington Housing Authority

The Wilmington Housing Authority’s annualoperating budget will be cut by more than$800,000 this year, officials learned Thursday,potentially jeopardizing new security measures. IfCongress or the Bush administration doesn’t addmoney to the U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development’s budget, that will mean lay-offs for some of the authority’s 125 full-timeemployees. This will be the third consecutive yearthe authority has taken a funding hit from HUD, itsole money source.The Wilmington (DE) News Journal, January 5, 2007

Camden Housing AuthorityThe authority, which manages public housing

in Camden and serves 4,000 residents in thoseunits, is due to have a budget deficit of up to $1.3million this year. Utility bills have gone unpaid.Because of that, the authority approved laying off19 of its 70 union workers and another 18 in Sep-tember, including maintenance, security and cler-ical workers.Courier-Post, December 10, 2006

Jersey City Housing AuthorityThe Jersey City Housing Authority is expect-

ed to lay off at least 60 people by early next year,representing the largest job cuts in the history ofthe city's housing agency, according to city offi-cials. The cuts come as the JCHA expects a $3.4million cut in federal funding next year, whichfollows a series of budget cuts over the pastdecade and a pullback in the role of the federalgovernment to provide low-income housing,Maria Maio, Jersey City Executive Director said.

Three years ago, the JCHA had a staff of 450personnel to run and maintain its 11 conventionalpublic housing developments and its two HOPE VIdevelopments. The projected cuts - combined withprevious layoffs and cuts through attrition - willbring the staff to below 300, Maio said. "We justcan't maintain our services in light of the cuts infederal funding," she said. The cuts are expected toinvolve personnel from maintenance to administra-tion, Maio said. "This is not the case of losing bademployees, these are great employees," she said.Jersey Journal, December 7, 2006

Akron Metropolitan Housing AuthorityAkron Metropolitan Housing Authority

(AMHA) tenants can expect reductions in serviceif Congress doesn't find more money for subsi-dized public housing, AMHA Executive DirectorTony O'Leary said. A lame-duck Congress recon-venes in December and must decide whether topass a federal appropriations bill or postponeaction until a new Democratic-controlled Con-gress convenes next year.

18


19

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, anonprofit group that analyzes government policiesaffecting low- and moderate-income people,reported last month that the House's $3.6 billionappropriations bill for HUD next year doesn'treflect inflation in utility costs since the start of2005. The report cites data that show utility pricesrose by 16 percent from December 2004 throughDecember 2005.

O'Leary said that the utility bills for AMHAhave risen by about 15 percent over the last yearand make up 22 percent of the agency's overalloperating budget. Reduced services at AMHA alsocould include reductions in security provided bySummit County sheriff's deputies, reduced after-hours maintenance and higher maintenancecharges for tenants.

The House bill provides agencies ``with onlyabout 79 percent of the public housing operatingsubsidies for which they are legally eligible underthe federal formula for determining operating sub-sidy needs,'' according to the center's report.``This would be the deepest shortfall in operatingsubsidy funding in more than 25 years.''Akron Beacon Journal, 11/20/06

San Joaquin Housing AuthoritySJHA has notified staffers that job reductions

are among the cost-cutting measures being consid-ered after federal funding was reduced because ofhigh energy costs. Officials are also looking atpotential reductions to programs and other operat-ing costs to save money. The agency is attemptingto meet a 15% to 20% reduction in federal funding.Record.net, 9/21/06

Housing Authority of Winston-SalemThe Housing Authority has discharged eight

of its nearly 100 employees and has reduced oth-er expenses to save money. The Authority has a$4.6 million debt to HUD arising from the inap-propriately expenditure of federal funds by a pre-vious administration. To address the debt, theAuthority will sell several properties, includingOak Hill Apartments, Pinnacle Place and LansingRidge and will refinance the agency’s new centraloffice building.Winston-Salem Journal, 9/13/06

Newark (NJ) Housing AuthorityThe agency expects to lay off nearly half of

its employees, 425 of the agency’s 989 workers.Newark needs to address a 20% reduction in fed-eral subsidies and the agency’s failure to make10% and 15% reductions in previous years.New York Times, 8/31/06

Peoria (IL) Housing AuthorityThe Authority has cuts 25 full-time positions,

nearly one-third of its full time staff of 82, in orderto comply with new HUD guidelines on propertymanagement. Peoria Journal Star, 8/29/06

St. Paul (MN) Housing AuthorityMinneapolis Public Housing Authority

St. Paul is facing difficult choices with years offunding cuts and skyrocketing utility costs. Toughchoices include selling off housing, delayingrepairs and upgrades and cutting staff.

The Minneapolis Housing Authority is facingthe same difficulties as St. Paul and recently laidoff 32 employees.Pioneer Press, 8/24/06

San Francisco Housing AuthorityThe Housing Authority faces a $7 million

shortfall in 2006 as it addresses a 23% reductionin operating assistance, from $454 to $342 perunit. The agency expects employee layoffs, anincrease in the backlog of repairs and a reductionin social services.San Francisco Indymedia, 8/23/06

In June 2006, HUD announced a 15% cut tothe SFHA operating budget. HUD has indicatedthat the SFHA will face a $4 million or 22% cut toits operating budget in 2007. The cuts will resultin reductions to security and maintenance. Thisyear’s loss was absorbed by laying off 24 employ-ees and spending operating reserves. City supervi-sors, Mayor Gavin Newsom and advocates arereaching out to Senator Diane Feinstein to restorefunding.San Francisco Examiner, 9/19/06San Francisco Chronicle, 9/18/06

Boston Housing Authority2006 is the fourth year with no growth. In

1996 Boston had 1,100 full-time employees.Staffing is now at 870 and additional lay-offs areunder consideration.Boston Globe, 8/17/06

Nashville Metropolitan Development and Hous-ing Agency

Lay off of 31 staff members out of 317employees to offset an estimated $5 million fund-ing cut.Nashville Post, 8/3/06

Buffalo Municipal Housing AuthorityThe Housing Authority disbanded its public

housing police force as federal funding for its 26member safety force has dried up.Associated Press, 6/30/05

Akron (OH) Metropolitan Housing AuthorityThe Housing Authority is preparing contin-

gency plans to address a potential $3 million loss offederal funding. Plans include ending 24-hourmaintenance, fewer social services for residents,higher tenant fees and employee layoffs.Akron Beacon Journal, 6/19/06

Philadelphia Housing AuthorityEstimates 300-500 layoffs if funding reduced

from $150 million to estimated $112 millionPhiladelphia Daily News 6/13/06

Birmingham (AL) Housing AuthorityMore than half the 325 member staff will be

laid off due to a $5 million loss of federal fundingand a directive from HUD that the Authority reviseits management responsibilities. 200 staff mem-bers were given layoff notices.Associated Press, 5/9/06Mobil Housing Board

2006 budget gap of $3.1 million has causedthe Housing Authority to lay off 28 employeesand shifts $2.6 million from its capital budget tocover unfunded operating expenses.Mobil Press Register 3/31/06

Jersey City Housing AuthorityJersey City Housing Authority workers

accepted 10-day furloughs to forestall layoffs. TheAuthority has exhausted its reserve of $5 millionand was advised by HUD that its allocation willbe $500,000 less than requested. The 15-personadministrative staff took a vote and agreed thateach would take a 10-day unpaid furlough, includ-ing the agency’s Executive Director.Jersey Journal, 4/27/05 and 5/7/05

Utica Municipal Housing AuthorityTo close a $500,000 budget gap, the Housing

Authority has cut its staff by 10%. More layoffsare expected.Utica (NY) Observer-Dispatch, 3/23/05

Greenville (NC) Housing AuthorityTo address a 12% deficit or a $300,000 short-

fall for 2006, the agency elected to eliminate ormake part time six positions.The Daily Reflector, 3/11/05

Baltimore Housing AuthorityTo close an $11 million funding gap, the

Housing Authority of Baltimore City decided todisband its 65-officer police force. The city policewill assume responsibility for public housingsecurity.Baltimore Sun, 9/24/04

20

affecting life inside, and exactly howand where the school as a place to learnis functioning. This particular style ofleadership defines her as a member ofthe New Leaders For New Schools(NLNS) —a national organization thatis “attracting, preparing and supportingthe next generation of outstandingurban school principals.” Ms. Todd isone of 21 principals, and three assistantprincipals, in Baltimore City selectedfrom a talent pool who has received thistraining thus far. In its third year, NewLeaders has an additional 14 residentprincipals in training.

NLNS came into being in responseto a critical need: at a time when schoolreform and effective leadership are sourgently needed, urban schools faceshortages of qualified school principals.The crisis can be attributed to risingretirements and the need to create highperforming schools. In Baltimore City50 percent of the current principals are ator near retirement age (higher than thenational average of 40 percent). The tra-ditional route to the principal position,through promotion from assistant princi-pal in the city system, has proven insuf-ficient to fill every new opening with aprepared and competent principal.

To address the problem, three yearsago The Abell Foundation and the AnnieE. Casey Foundation turned to NewLeaders For New Schools — a promis-ing national program with a mission todevelop outstanding urban principals.

Ms. Todd’s own NLNS trainingstarted in the classroom of the Universi-ty of Pennsylvania. Five weeks, 9:00

a.m. to 5:00 p.m., she attended the lec-tures and study groups over the summer.Focus was on how to “map out a build-ing”—which she did when she arrivedat Fort Worthington, bringing into itsclassrooms and halls the positive effectsof the discipline—which in school-speak translates as “what’s going on,”and then developing creative responses.The components of the New LeadersSummer Institute include: “Building aschool community and culture,” “Nur-turing student efficacy,” “Human rela-tions policies and procedures,” and“Ensuring effective teaching and learn-ing” -- all toward understanding “what’sgoing on.” This is followed by a year’sassignment as a principal fellow in Bal-timore, working under an accomplishedschool principal.

What was going on one school dayin one class at Ft. Worthington was acase of one unhappy third grader, whoin his frustration with a math problembecame unruly. Ms. Todd, it so hap-pened, was sitting in the classroom toobserve (“know at all times what’sgoing on in the building”) and decidedto step in. She said, “He couldn’t addcoins. He could tell you what each wasworth but he couldn’t figure out whatthey were worth together. So I askedhim to come with me to my office andwe sat down together. Working with ahundreds’ chart (designed to help youngchildren learn counting concepts), in avery few minutes that boy could addthose coins. That’s pure New Leadersphilosophy at work— understand at alltimes what the problems are in your

building, and do something about them,even if you have to use your own twohands to solve them!”

The goal of NLNS is to promoteacademic excellence by attracting,preparing, and supporting the next gen-eration of city principals, and it pro-vides an aggressive recruitment andselection process of local and nationalcandidates. Typically, only 6 percent ofcandidates are admitted to the program.In addition, the program offers appliedtraining from education and businessleaders during a six-week summer foun-dation program, and four five-day sem-inars throughout the year. Each NewLeaders fellow is trained by MentorPrincipals in his or her own school, aswell as by consulting principals during aone-year residency. NLNS assists in theprincipal placement process after thefirst year and continues to support newprincipals with on-the-job networkingand support for another two years.

Ms. Todd was born and raised inNew Jersey. She graduated from Vir-ginia State and earned her Master’s inEducation from Johns Hopkins. Shecame to Baltimore City in 2000 withTeach For America, and taught at Bel-mont and Waverly Elementary schools.While teaching at Waverly she saw pub-licity about New Schools and appliedand was accepted.

The Abell Foundation salutes NewLeaders For New Schools; its executivedirector for Baltimore City, Peter Kan-nam; and New Leaders graduate Ms.Shaylin Todd for building a learning com-munity by “mapping out the building.”

ABELL SALUTESContinued from page 1

The full text of the “The dismantling of Baltimore’s public housing” report is available onThe Abell Foundation’s website at www.abell.org or: write to

The Abell Foundation, 111 S. Calvert Street, 23rd Floor, Baltimore, MD 21202

the dismantling of baltimore’s public housing...escalating since the implosion of the high-rise...

Documents