Housing Authority purchase 4 SE apartment complexes (Huntsville: apartment complex, rent, buy)

[Reactionary]

macwell - I've been very frustrated with HHA Director Lundy's evasiveness. I've worked in some adversarial settings and he's pretty good at NOT providing information (back-handed compliment). Councilwoman Moon had to rephrase a question five different ways to get an answer at the City Council meeting - Lundy responded with non-answers or answers to unasked questions - he finally answered her question two different ways (contradicting himself).

Re: "how is he defining SE"? I can't even get an agreed definition of "self-sufficiency" out of Lundy - I think that if someone currently is living in a home and they are paying their bills - they are self-sufficient. Lundy offers public housing to those same people with the pledge to make them "self-sufficient". He's been called on that too. An attorney friend of mine tried to get him to explain that at least three times - Lundy just answered with circularly reasoned boilerplate.

I don't know what he means by "saturate" either.

The HHA did say that they have no plans to build on the 2 1/2 acres behind Stone Manor.

macwell - sad to say I agree with your conclusions - SE HSV is the only part of HSV that "works" (in the sense of relatively good schools, relatively low crime, relatively high property values). I hope that the City Leadership decides that experimenting with a failed social engineering policy carries too much risk of catastrophic failure.

[clamoore]

If the HHA pursues a Section 8 course of action, this could pose a problem for neighborhoods that have a high concentration of rentals. Is there an ordinance in Huntsville and/or Madison that limits the number of Section 8 tenants? How about house rental, apartment rental or duplex rentals?

[Reactionary]

clamoore - I share that concern - a high percentage of rentals in a neighborhood is usually a "bad" thing. I think I see where you're going with that - is there a way to set a max number of rentals plus public housing that would be below the 'tipping point' for an area. I would think that some kind of zoning overlay would be a workable solution.

I went to the HHA Board Meeting today:

“the HHA has no specific plans at this time to acquire more apartments in South Huntsville”, but “the HHA does plan to acquire more apartments” and “South Huntsville is not excluded”.

HHA Board Meeting - 20 April 2009 | flashpoint (http://www.flashpointblog.com/2009/04/20/hha-board-meeting-20-april-2009/ - broken link)

[deesonic]

Originally Posted by Reactionary

macwell - sad to say I agree with your conclusions - SE HSV is the only part of HSV that "works" (in the sense of relatively good schools, relatively low crime, relatively high property values). I hope that the City Leadership decides that experimenting with a failed social engineering policy carries too much risk of catastrophic failure.

I know Jay...er...I mean Reactionary has been sitting on pins and needles waiting for me to chime in...

I'd say most of the areas zoned for Huntsville High seem to "work" as far good schools, relatively low crime, relatively high property values etc. Even though some of the projects are zoned for HHS (Council Court, Butler Terrace, and the projects next to the VBC), it is still one of the highest rated high schools in the area.

I think there's a whole lot more behind the scenes politically motivating all this than simply "social engineering." There's obviously fiscal issues driving this. 'Social engineering' is a catchphrase that opponents are throwing around that sounds scary and throws out that S word to scare the bejesus out of blue blooded Americans. But I don't believe that fairly sums up the full scope of motives behind this. Let's be clear...I'm not saying the city's plan is necessarily a good one. BUT the city's housing projects are in pretty bad shape and the property they sit on could benefit the city in many ways. I'm against the notion of housing projects in principle, but that's another discussion for another day. The system being what it is...Would it be more beneficial for the city to tear down older properties and build more housing projects from scratch? Where would they build? What part of town would be most appropriate? Or who would complain the least? Wouldn't it cost tax payers more money in the long run to do this?

[Reactionary]

deesonic - you're right - I figured that you would have to chime in, even though I tried to define "works" in very specific terms.

HHS isn't rated as highly as (and doesn't make national rankings like) Grissom or Bob Jones - and it is noted for having 'two tiers' of students.

I agree that this is a complex issue: downtown redevelopment, big money, social justice, schools, property values, crime...

I did a quick and dirty look (http://www.flashpointblog.com/2009/04/21/no-area-excluded-by-housing-officials/ - broken link) at public housing using HHA numbers and city-data (the statistics were how I found this site to begin with).

HHA OWNS 4% of HOUSING in HSV. Chaffee already has a 6% saturation of public housing (Section 8) - not counting Stone Manor. When you add in the 50 Stone Manor units the Chaffee area will have 12% public housing. Is that 'fair'?

[tammie2]

OK, I think I know the solution here. We all move next door to Battle, Moon, and most importantly Lundy. I bet they won't be purchasing any property there, despite the fact that the residents will learn to "embrace" the idea because it is such a great one.

Seriously, I have been watching this pretty closely as we aren't in the "Well, we are here, we will have to wait and see what happens crowd," we are in the "where should be buy to avoid this stinkin' mess? crowd"

I don't like any of it, but I would like to know how they will determine who will live where. DH and I were talking about it and the best they could at this point would be to have some type of merit system rather than a lottery system to determine who gets the "best" housing options. Such as children on honor roll, or better test scores, or whatever to show that this person "deserved" the better housing option over someone else. This would likely have the least impact on crime rates, property values, etc.

I know some will think that it is "unconstitutional" but that is how things are determined in the real world. If you work harder and/or perform better you typically have more and/or better things.

[deesonic]

Originally Posted by Reactionary

HHS isn't rated as highly as (and doesn't make national rankings like) Grissom or Bob Jones - and it is noted for having 'two tiers' of students.

Still playing devils' advocate here...

If there's a two-tier system at HHS, than I would argue that all the high achieving kids at HHS (kids with good families typically) are performing well in spite of kids who are not (presumably kids from housing projects and bad home situations?). See my point? All those doctors' and lawyers' kids at HHS are doing just fine.

Again, I disagree with housing projects in principle. But I would be less worried about the effect on schools than I would be property values if I lived in SE Huntsville.

[Reactionary]

deesonic - yes I see your point, high achieving kids are performing well - my point is that the School doesn't get the accolades (GHS, BJHS) because their achievement is negated by poor performers.

I'll have to drop by sometime to get your views on housing projects in person. I could use a beer (160 to choose from!).

[Reactionary]

tammie2 - the easy answer is move to Madison (higher average income, fewer poor people, fewer renters, good schools across the board). But I think they have a Housing Authority too.

I believe that the City of Huntsville will find a good solution, but right now it's messy. BTW, in the GOP Primary Runoff race for State Senate 7 - Paul Sanford defeated Sam Givhan, in part because Givhan is the real estate attorney for the HHA (but he's not a decision-maker there). The Chaffee area voted 80% for Sanford (after a tie between them in the primary). Local politicians know that this issue can be poison.

Homeowner Associations protect you from Section 8 housing (if they ban rentals).

[tammie2]

Originally Posted by Reactionary

tammie2 - the easy answer is move to Madison (higher average income, fewer poor people, fewer renters, good schools across the board). But I think they have a Housing Authority too.

I believe that the City of Huntsville will find a good solution, but right now it's messy. BTW, in the GOP Primary Runoff race for State Senate 7 - Paul Sanford defeated Sam Givhan, in part because Givhan is the real estate attorney for the HHA (but he's not a decision-maker there). The Chaffee area voted 80% for Sanford (after a tie between them in the primary). Local politicians know that this issue can be poison.

Homeowner Associations protect you from Section 8 housing (if they ban rentals).

True about Madison, BUT, they are experiementing too by bussing kids all over. I don't know that there is a good solution. Maybe I just know too much, I never had city-data before any other move.

I am glad that Chaffee residents spoke with their votes, hopefully a good solution will be found.

I am not so worried about one person with a section 8 voucher, but more concerned with a housing project being erected or bought in my backyard.

I will say that I grew up in an established neighborhood with good schools, low crime(they haven't had a murder since the 70's when one of my mom's classmates murder his ex-girlfriend and then killed himself). They have townhome apartments that are partially subsidized. The difference being that I too could move in. I would pay full price(which is less than other area complexes) and others with lower income would pay less. There is noone that pays nothing(or $1), I beleive the minimum is $150/month. Property values weren't effected, schools weren't effected, it worked. But there weren't other concerns with public transit and medical care, those weren't options if you wanted to live there.

I am glad we still have 6 weeks to make a decision.