Public Housing: Reading Between the LInes

By: Cory Oldweiler and Brian J. RogalOn Feb. 5, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development approved the Chicago Housing Authority’s "Plan for Transformation," which calls for tearing down 52 high-rises within the next five to seven years. The plan envisions mixed-income communities and "compassionate" administration of Section 8 rent subsidies. It also guarantees all relocated residents the right to return to public housing.

Go to:
-Not Enough Units
-No Place to Live
-Half and Half
-Slow Growth
-Tight Market
-Tipping Point
-The Gautreaux Factor
-Sorting Out Chicago's Public Housing

But some public housing advocates say the plan does not provide enough replacement housing and therefore counts on attrition: Residents must either leave the system or choose Section 8 housing—and stay there. What follows is The Chicago Reporter’s analysis of key aspects of the plan.

Not Enough Units
The CHA plan says: "This Plan will produce enough units so that, following redevelopment and rehabilitation, the Agency can accommodate all lease-compliant families residing in CHA units as of October 1, 1999."

The plan doesn’t say: This statement is not true for residents living in family housing—about three-fourths of all CHA public housing units. Take away senior housing, and the CHA plan falls short by 1,153 units. More than 1,000 senior units now unoccupied will not be available to residents in family housing.

The fine print: Many of the family housing totals in the CHA plan are incorrect. For example, the plan refers to 710 "Hilliard" units, but only 346 of those units are family housing; the rest are senior housing.

No Place to Live
The CHA plan says: "Following redevelopment, all families relocating into Section 8 housing with a lease effective date on or after October 1, 1999, will have the right to return to public housing."

The plan doesn’t say: Displaced residents have the right to return, but many will have no place to live. Of the 5,000 replacement homes for developments subject to the viability test, 3,987 will replace mid- and low-rises. That leaves 1,013 units for 4,146 high-rise families.

The fine print: These families will be the first to feel any funding crunch, according to the plan: "To the extent that total funding … is less than the amounts projected, fewer dollars will be made available" to build the 5,000 units outlined in the plan. The funds are still subject to congressional approval.

Half and Half
The CHA plan says: The CHA’s Annual Plan, submitted to HUD with the Plan for Transformation, states: "The CHA will conduct an annual review of income in each development to ensure the ratio" of half at "0-30%" of median income and half at "30-80%."

The plan doesn’t say: Median income for a family of four in Chicago is $63,800 per year. Families whose earnings fall below 30 percent of median income earn less than $19,500 per year. Families from 30 percent to 80 percent earn $19,500 to $47,800.

The CHA’s current budget shows that 98.4 percent of current residents earn less than $20,000 a year. Not enough families earn from 30 percent to 80 percent of median income to fill half the family units. Many will have no choice but to accept Section 8 subsidies.

The fine print: That means 16,183 families could be vying for half of the available family units—7,647. So 8,536 families would be forced into Section 8—2,536 more than the CHA projects.

Slow Growth
The CHA plan says: "Overall, it is projected that 6,000 households will need to be relocated to private market housing (Section 8) as a result of redevelopment over the next five years, a rate that is less than the growth of the Section 8 Program in recent years."

The plan doesn’t say: The CHA is basing this claim on all the Section 8 subsidies awarded, not just those to displaced public housing residents. But just 1,904 displaced families received Section 8 in the past 41¼2 years, according to CHAC Inc., a private company that administers the CHA’s Section 8 program.

The fine print: More than 69 percent of displaced public housing families lived in areas with a per capita income below $10,000, compared to slightly more than half the city’s other Section 8 families, the Reporter found. ("CHA Residents Moving to Segregated Areas," July/August 1998).

Displaced Section 8



Notes: 1996 figures include some Section 8 at the end of 1995. *Average based on CHA estimate.
Source: CHAC Inc. Graphic by Desk Top Edit Shop, Inc.

Tight Market
The CHA plan says: "Based on the results of the Metropolitan Planning Council’s 1999 Regional Rental Market Analysis, the market can absorb this level of relocation activity."

The plan doesn’t say: The Council’s study found 38,700 units available for families earning up to 30 percent of median income, but 192,000 families in need—about five families for every available unit. About two units are available for every family earning from 30 percent to 80 percent of median income.

The fine print: HUD promised residents an annual market analysis to determine if the market can absorb that year’s Section 8 subsidies. If the private housing market is too tight, HUD will direct the CHA to slow down the pace of demolition. But if HUD doesn’t complete the analysis on time, the CHA is under no obligation to alter its plans.

Tipping Point
The CHA plan says: "Provide quality housing opportunities to very low- and low-income households in mixed-income settings."

The plan doesn’t say: Mixed-income communities include public, affordable and market-rate housing. But many developers say a high concentration of public housing will threaten the success of these developments. This view is shared by the CHA’s court-appointed receiver, The Habitat Co., which oversees construction of all Chicago public housing.

At the West Side’s Henry Horner Homes, one of Chicago’s few mixed-income experiments, redevelopment negotiations stalled over the percentage of public housing units to be built. In one session, Habitat Executive Vice President Valerie B. Jarrett said "more than 30 percent public housing jeopardizes chances for integration." Developers would be reluctant to invest in an area with a larger percentage of public housing, she added.

The parties agreed to at least 220 units of public housing. Families earning up to 50 percent of median income get 30 percent of the housing, with an additional 2.5 percent reserved for families earning 40 percent to 50 percent. Habitat argued that opening the 2.5 percent segment—one of every 40 units—to families earning below 40 percent would jeopardize integration.

The Gautreaux Factor
The CHA plan says: "As redevelopment proposals for individual properties move forward, CHA will confer with the Gautreaux Court for treatment of the property."

The plan doesn’t say: The longstanding court order also could affect the number of CHA tenants allowed to return after redevelopment. In August 1966, a group of CHA residents filed two separate lawsuits, one charging the CHA with deliberately keeping black families out of white neighborhoods, the other accusing HUD of contributing to the discrimination by funding the housing authority.

In July 1969, U.S. District Court Judge Richard B. Austin ordered the CHA to build three units in "white areas"—census tracts less than 30 percent black—for every unit built in tracts more than 30 percent black. That ratio was later changed to one for one.

But the CHA can build in minority areas if the court declares them to be "revitalizing," or likely that economic improvements will lead to racial diversity. The CHA needs a revitalizing order to build new units on-site.

The Central Advisory Council, made up of elected tenant leaders, wants the revitalizing orders to give more residents a home in mixed-income communities. But Alexander Polikoff, longtime attorney for the Gautreaux plaintiffs, said he would agree to revitalization only after reviewing specific plans for each development.

Attorney Richard M. Wheelock of the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago, which represents the council, called Gautreaux "the big monkey wrench" preventing all families from returning to public housing. He said the council is looking at legal challenges to Gautreaux.

Polikoff said he now views mixed-income developments as a way to achieve the racial integration envisioned by Gautreaux. "We are not talking about kicking anybody out of CHA. If the price you have to pay is that some families can’t return to the development of their choice, but they can go to another development," that is acceptable, he said.