CMHA Publishes Annual Plan for 2009

If You Have Concerns About Public Housing Comment on Their Plan

Every year during the summer, the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority publishes their plan for the next year. This plan goes to the federal government for approval, and in it they layout changes in admission criteria, buildings, leasing policy, support services, etc. We are concerned by a number of pieces within the plan, and feel that constant budget constraints have led to poor decisions made about the future of the organization. With the passage of the National Housing Trust Fund, CMHA will be a critical partner to finally beginning to build and repair affordable housing in Cleveland. We need to resolve all of these issues so that everyone has confidence in the housing authority acting as a partner for change.

First, the good news...most of the plan involves changes to better serve disabled residents and disabled applicants. Most of the plan needs to be commended for doing a great job in providing a hand up to the disabled population. This came about as a result of an audit, which found that the agency needed to do more to meet fair housing requirements. No matter how it came about it is good for the community, and for that we thank CMHA.

I am especially disturbed by the expansion of the number of senior housing buildings in our community contained in the plan. We all know those over 50 years of age are easier to serve, but we do not need a housing authority to serve our easiest to help. We need CMHA to lead in providing housing to the hardest to serve. Currently, 26% of your total public housing inventory is off limits to the major portion of our community in need. To expand the number of units off limits to single adults struggling to find stability is against the City’s Consolidated Plan. We do not need anymore senior housing in this community. We need CMHA to step up to put forward our plan to empty the shelters and not empty the nursing homes.

Other specific concerns include:

1. Set the Minimum Rent at $0 for both programs. We would ask that both the Housing Voucher program and Public Housing return to a rent structure based on what a person can afford. With the minimum rent, many of our clients are still eligible for $0 rent, but, in order to receive it, they must be informed of and then go through the hurdles of applying for a minimum rent exemption. CMHA’s implementation of the exemption rule has been uneven. Those between jobs or waiting for their disability should not be expected to find a way to pay rent of $50 or $25 (the current minimum rents). We believe that if you are going to put this burden on the tenant to file for a hardship exemption then we would prefer a $100 minimum rent so that it is high enough that everyone eligible will in fact take that option. At this time, the agency benefits from those not going to the trouble of asking for an exemption that they deserve, because it is not worth the effort.

2. We renew our opposition to any expansion of the senior only buildings contained in the plan. CMHA already limits 2,510 units to a select population. There are very few seniors or near-seniors on the waiting list. There is a short wait in the community for senior housing with most of the vacancies in Cuyahoga County in senior or near senior properties. This is a betrayal of one of the poorest communities in America to replace units and then allow only seniors back into these properties. CMHA is not acting as a good partner for the shelters, homeless people, and the anti poverty groups in this community by serving a population that is not in need. We ask that CMHA get back into the business of serving homeless people who happen to be under 50 years of age. At this point, the younger population wait 4 to 5 years to find a place to live. We do not believe that this further designation of senior housing is consistent with the City of Cleveland’s Consolidated Plan. If this goes through and is approved by the CMHA Board, we will ask that the Congress look into the Public Housing Senior Only designations and their impact on the community.
   

3. We believe that the Plan is missing information about the Replacement of units slated for Demolition: In addition to the pending demolition plan for 221 Garden Valley units and 61 Outhwaite units, the Plan calls for the additional demolition of 59 Cedar Extension units, 128 Garden Valley units, and 3-4 buildings at Lakeview Terrace. Meanwhile, CMHA is proposing new construction of only 81 units at Garden Valley and a possible, unspecified project at Outhwaite and/or Collinwood, Lee-Harvard, or East Cleveland. The Plan Summary makes the vague promise that CMHA “will continue to seek other development opportunities for creating replacement housing.” NEOCH firmly believes that there should be one-to-one replacement of all demolished public housing units. With homelessness on the rise, CMHA should not demolish any unit of affordable subsidized housing without replacing those units or making a concrete plans to do so.

4. We do not understand Why an Unborn Child is not classified as a person. First, in a conservative political environment this is a bad idea. this provision forces a mom to request a one bedroom and then have to move after the baby is born to a larger apartment. If a fundamentalist lawmaker received this plan they would be very angry that this seems to encourage abortion. Second, why would you want a new Mom to have to move? This policy seems to contradict with the moving policy, and should allow the staff to place the woman in an apartment that “best meets their needs.”

5. Maintenance and Housekeeping Classes should remain an option for CMHA residents not a requirement. We do not believe that these classes should be required for all tenants. We are not sure that they are universally convenient or accessible to all tenants including those with a disability or those who live in scattered sites. We do not want another milestone that a person must meet to maintain their tenancy. It seemed that allowing staff to assign the classes is a good compromise. Some of the tenants could teach these classes and should not be forced to go to a class that they do not need.

6. All of the Recommendations of the Re-Entry Task Force Should be Adopted. Over the last year two years, advocates have worked to reduce some of the barriers to housing for those coming out of incarceration. We did not see much attention to these recommendations in the plan. We ask that CMHA fully adopt those recommendations to allow those who have paid their debt to get on with their life with the fewest barriers as possible, and assure that all staff are aware of these changes.

7. Income Re-determination Should Occur Once Per Year. We would like to see both public housing and the voucher program have similar rules so that tenants can keep additional resources until their annual re-determination if that increase is less than 25% of their total income in order to save funds for non-subsidized market rate housing.

8. Assign a staff from Public Housing/Housing Choice Voucher to be the liaison to the homeless service providers. It is critical that we free up space within the shelters quickly. Therefore, when a person’s name or number is drawn for a public housing unit, the person should move quickly into housing. We need one staff person that we can talk to in order to cut through the bureaucracy and free up the space in the shelters for other homeless people.

If you agree with these recommendations, you can drop a note to CMHA by next Wednesday September 17 at 10 a.m. or attend their public meeting at their headquarters on West 25th near Detroit Ave (board room). Send concerns to 1441 West 25th St. Cleveland, Ohio 44113. All the documents are available on their website at www.cmha.net.

Brian

Posts by Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless staff and Board.