Latest Draft of HOPE VI Shows Promise, But Additional Changes Are Needed

On September 11, 2007, U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), with Reps. Christopher Shays (R-CT.), Barney Frank (D-MA), Mel Watt (D-NC), and Steve Cohen (D-TN.) of the House Financial Services Committee as cosponsors, introduced H.R. 3524, a bill to improve and reauthorize the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program. The bill is a vast improvement over present practice, especially regarding the “one-for-one replacement” requirement. Original federal law required that each unit of public housing demolished be replaced with another unit of public or affordable housing, so that there would be no “net loss” to the nation’s public housing supply. However, since the repeal of that mandate in 1996, public housing demolitions continue to shrink the number of homes available to low-income earners. Of over 135,000 units lost without guaranteed replacement, many (57,000) demolitions were financed through the HOPE VI program.

H.R. 3524 attempts to stay America’s affordable housing crisis by requiring that all future HOPE-financed demolitions of public units occur on a one-for-one replacement basis, with reconstruction limited to either the original site or within the jurisdiction of the public housing authority. The Housing Justice Network (HJN), a national organization of attorneys and advocates for public and subsidized housing tenants, has been working with the committee for the past several months through the redrafting of HOPE VI legislation. Most recently, the HJN submitted comments urging that the Committee make two amendments to the bill on this point to improve its effectiveness.  See the Shriver Center letter of September 18, 2007, submitted to the Committee on behalf of the HJN.

The recommendations regarding the one-for-one replacement requirement:

•     That the number of units demolished be determined based on the number of units on the site as of the date three years before the enactment of the bill, rather than on the date of application for the HOPE VI grant. HJN is concerned that public housing authorities may demolish units before applying for a HOPE VI grant to avoid the one-for-one replacement requirement. 
•     That replacement housing units not be limited to “the jurisdiction of the housing authority,” as currently provided in the bill, but rather “throughout the metropolitan area, consistent with the goal of expanding educational and economic opportunities.” This change would remove barriers to construction and allow for smarter development overall.

Despite these shortcomings, H.R. 3524 contains a number of strong amendments. The draft of the reauthorization bill eliminates “demolition only” HOPE grants, so that public housing authorities must replace all units demolished on a one-for-one basis.  The bill also expands the role of tenant participation in the HOPE VI process, so that public housing residents have more say regarding redevelopment. Finally, the bill provides that replacement housing must be made available to each household displaced as a result of the revitalization plan before any replacement housing is made available to any other eligible households.

The bill will have to be reconciled with the corresponding Senate bill. In addition, markup-up on the House bill begins on September 25.

For more, contact William Wilen at 312.2683.3830 ext. 251 or visit www.povertylaw.org/housing.