I need to respond to this editorial published in the Contra Costa Times on February 27. Without defending or excusing the Housing Authority staff for anything they have actually done wrong (and they have), I submit that the editorial continues to portray an inaccurate picture of the Richmond Housing Authority and ignores or misstates key facts, the most important of which is that HUD simply does not provide sufficient funding for the Housing Authority to operate effectively.
With funding dropping every year, the Housing Authority, like most others across the nation, has been placed on an increasingly meager starvation diet. Then HUD criticizes it for not performing satisfactorily. Why no media source has explored this is beyond comprehension.
Media stories, including the Contra Costa Times, delight in pointing out that “the agency ranks among the most troubled in the nation” and that it is $7 million in debt. No one has looked into why the agency is $7 million in debt. Ironically, the $7 million came from the City of Richmond General Fund and was needed to replace HUD funding that had been drastically reduced.
Ironically, in a Catch 22 moment, the $7 million debt of which HUD is so critical is the main reason for Richmond’s low score.
The editorial included the passage, “They branded the council, which serves as the housing authority board, insufficiently informed about its operations and finances, and threatened to create an independent authority to run the program.” Taking the Housing Authority away from Richmond’s control would be like throwing Br’er Rabbit in the briar patch. HUD’s threat is empty. The last thing they want is having to take responsibility for operating an underfunded agency, and they know it. I say, “Let them have it,” if they want it.” There is absolutely no upside for Richmond to have a Public Housing Authority. Just trouble.
Finally, the editorial, lake all the other media coverage, fails to acknowledge that Richmond Housing Authority’s problems are mostly behind it. In a different article, the Contra Costa Times noted:
HUD spokeswoman Gene Gibson said the city's agency is working with HUD to resolve the issues.
"There were problems in years past, but now that (the Richmond Housing Authority) and HUD are in the Public Housing Authority Recovery and Sustainability (PHARS) plan, RHA has been successfully providing the required documentation," Gibson wrote in an email Thursday.
If anyone had asked me to write the editorial, the headline would have read, “HUD Funding shortfalls drive Richmond Housing Authority into debt; residents complain about unfunded deferred maintenance.”
Contra Costa Times editorial: Richmond move to fix housing authority long overdue
Contra Costa Times editorial © 2014 Bay Area News Group
Posted: 02/27/2014 11:43:55 AM PST
Updated: 02/27/2014 12:34:13 PM PST
Related Stories
As much as Richmond city officials are ripping an investigative report on their housing authority, they would still be ignoring the agency's festering problems if not for that expose.
Instead, city leaders who have been advised for years about the concerns of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development have suddenly jumped to attention.
Mayor Gayle McLaughlin wants an independent investigation. Councilman Tom Butt visited the city's most troubled property, which apparently makes him the first council member to set foot there in at least 16 years.
And City Manager Bill Lindsay has quickly devised a series of steps to improve the quality of Richmond Housing Authority apartments, starting with finding a new security firm and inspecting each unit to ensure it meets "a high standard for decent, safe and sanitary housing."
Housing Authority Executive Director Tim Jones, after reports of rude and verbally abusive staff members, issued a directive to employees to be "professional, courteous and respectful."
It's about time. Although the necessity of such a directive boggles the mind.
It turns out, as The Center for Investigative Reporting revealed, that HUD has issued sharply critical reports for years. The feds found Jones ineffective managing the agency's performance and regulatory compliance programs.
They branded the council, which serves as the housing authority board, insufficiently informed about its operations and finances, and threatened to create an independent authority to run the program.
HUD spokeswoman Gene Gibson says things are starting to improve. But the agency is still among the very worst in the nation. Gibson says her department still has concerns about Jones' ability to resolve the problems. Moreover, she says, council members should have been aware of these problems before now.
At least Councilman Nat Bates isn't trying to feign surprise. "We knew what was going on, but collectively we did nothing," he told our reporter Robert Rogers.
No one expects public housing projects to be pristine and luxurious. But they should be clean, devoid of vermin and mold, watertight and reasonably warm. That has not been, and still is not, always the case.
Which is why we found Lindsay's initial reaction to the investigative report so troubling. On one hand, he attacks the work of the Center for Investigative Reporting as inaccurate and distorted, "calling into question (its) veracity."
But he then admits the housing authority's challenges and deficiencies "may be more severe than other (city) departments," and that the report "raises serious concerns that must be addressed."
Rather than shooting the messenger, he would better serve the city and the residents by fixing the problems. Now.
|
