Posts tagged Housing

Demolition Man: Bringing The Data

January 12th, 2008 by Loki

Dear New Orleanians,

The city’s notification process for demolitions has been notoriously ineffective. Lists of Imminent Health Threat and Imminent Danger of Collapse properties are posted to the city’s website, and then disappear within days. The city has been hauled into federal court in two separate cases since Katrina because of its poor notification procedures for demolitions.

However, one should realize that the city’s failure to notify homeowners about pending demolitions is not due to a lack of information. In fact, the city has a bunch of information about demolitions, but they are - for whatever reason - wildly reluctant to release it.

I have obtained two lists of properties cleared by FEMA in December 2007 for demolition. I believe they have been compiled by a company called Beck Disaster Recovery (BDR), which has a contract with the city for property management of demolition properties. BDR has offices in 1515 Poydras, across from City Hall.

These lists are different than any other lists previously published, because it is a near certainty that these houses are targeted for demolition. They have already been cleared by FEMA as “eligible” for federal funding. Also, the raw numbers of properties (about 1400) matches closely with what has previously been announced as a total still to be taken down (about 1800, according to a FEMA press release from November).

We have seen these lists validated over the past few weeks, as Safety & Permits has assembled HCDRC agendas from them, and permits have been granted based on them.

Here’s what I have done - I have taken the simple raw lists of addresses and have bulked them up with all the information I could glean about a given property. I have added whether the property is HCDRC- or HDLC-eligible, and if it is HCDRC-eligible, whether or not it has yet come before the Committee. I’ve added previous demolition permit dates, a comparison of IHT status between the information on the original list (shown in column B) and what has been released publicly by the city over the last year. I’ve added damage estimates. Basically, if there’s any public information I could get about a property, I’ve added it to these lists (which I combined into one spreadsheet) [I have converted the spreadsheet into a Google document you may view here. -Loki].

So here’s a key of the information on the spreadsheet:
Date of release: date of the list on which the property appears. The lists were released on 12-13-07 and 12-19-07

File/WO#: I’m not sure what this is - I assume there are work orders for each property. This was on the original lists as received.

Type of demo: this is information that came with the lists. The types are IHT (Imminent Health Threat), IMA (Imminent Danger of Collapse), VOL (voluntary, i.e. homeowner-initiated), and there are a few noted as COMM (commercial, though this is not really a type of demo so much as a type of building). Imminent Health Threat demos are quite controversial, since there is no objective standard for what constitutes an Imminent Health Threat, and the notification process is poor.

Street number, street direction, street name, street suffix, ZIP code: these make up the address for the property

Demo permit? Demo permit date?: Whether or not there is a demo permit on the property, and the date it appeared in Safety & Permits’ system

12-31-06 damage assessment, 11-1-07 damage assessment, Dam assess incr above 70%?: City damage assessments, obtained from the city’s website. Also, whether the damage assessments were increased above 70% (presumably to avoid review by the Housing Conservation District Review Committee).

Review type: The demolition can be reviewed for its impact on the historic fabric of the city. The review can be either HCDRC (just the Housing Conservation District Review Committee), HCDRC & NatReg (property is within a National Register District, which could entitle it to review by the Historic District Landmarks Commission if its damage assessment is greater than 70%, under Section 26-10 of the City Code), HDLC (review by Historic District Landmarks Commission), or “No review” (outside all historic areas). I’ve done my best to determine this based on city-produced maps.

HCDRC review date: if the property has come before the HCDRC, this is the date it happened.

Extra review under City Code Section 26-10: if the property has a damage estimate over 70% and is within a National Register Historic District, it is entitled to extra review by the HDLC before demolition.

Imminent Health Threat (according to publicly released lists): The city has released various IHT lists since the beginning of the year. There was a partial list in March, a list with IHT and voluntary demos mixed together in July, and at least four different IHT lists since late September (only two of which are available on the city’s website). I checked the addresses on this latest list against those IHT lists.

Match col B & col Q: I then checked the IHT status from those publicly released lists against the status that was on this list when it arrived. They don’t always match, as indicated by “NO MATCH.”

GPS coordinates: these came with the original list

Owner: these were on the original lists.

Due to some of the methods I’ve used to compile information, occasionally I’ve had to split addresses into two rows. So sometimes a property which is a fourplex with an address like “932-34-36-38 Smith Street” will appear across two rows. I didn’t have to do that very much, but it did happen a few times. I apologize for any confusion.

I am not going to claim that this list is 100% correct. I’ve had to correct typos and clean up information as best as I can, but there are almost undoubtedly errors. Plus, I can’t necessarily vouch for some of the raw information, like ZIP codes and GPS coordinates. However, I feel it’s best to get the information out so that people can have something in hand, as well as understand the scope and breadth of the entire demolition effort.

I hope you find this useful.

Best regards,

Matt McBride

[Syndicated from the email -Loki] 

Bookmark and Share

A Message for Jeanne Nathan on the Housing Issue

December 18th, 2007 by Loki

A message from Jeanne Nathan. To respond, email jnyno@aol.com
Dear New Orleans Citizen,

The debate over demolition of public housing buildings in New Orleans has been cast in either/or rhetoric that has undermined any serious consideration of what is the best way to improve communities that were once home for 4500 mostly working families, many of whom are still scattered far from home.

Using the fear of urban crime and drugs as the banner for destroying over 700 sturdy, well built and well designed bricks and mortar buildings, HUD officials have failed to provide the facts, plans or contracts on which New Orleanians can judge the sincerity or appropriateness of their plans for building mixed income housing in their place.

Violent crime in the city has risen since Katrina, despite the fact that most public housing is vacant, and closed off to former tenants, who were, by the way, leaseholders whose possessions still lie frozen in time in their former homes. Violent crime, most of it perpetrated by teen age males against teen age males is rising nation wide. It is a by product of a drug industry that has replaced disappearing entry level manufacturing, port and service jobs. The abandoned urban public school systems have also failed to educate our youth for the increasing high tech and knowledge based economies.

HUD has spread lies about what tenants do and don’t want; how many new affordable apartments it “plans” to create; about how many affordable apartments are available in the city. Former tenants warn that past promises for new development turned out to be a mirage; that new mixed income communities never deliver the promises of affordable apartments. Vast acreage owned by HUD and ready for new developments lies vacant, waiting for new housing units HUD promised long ago.

Our public officials, long silent on these plans, now seem ready to accept HUD’s lies and public policy on face value without further exploration. Our news media has done little better so far, quoting HUD’s numbers, inaccurate depiction of housing, much of it virtually untouched by the storm, as “flood ravaged and obsolete,” and failing to go beyond the street protests to look at the valid arguments against wholesale immediate demolition of 4500 units of housing.

In today’s New York Times Adam Nossiter quotes a former New Orleanian living in southwest Louisiana as saying she opens her windows to listen to the cows for company at night, missing her city, but finding no neighborhood where she once lived.

Anyone who believes HUD’s claims that tenants do not want to return has turned their back on reality and their fellow citizens.

No one can know all the true facts about the need, alternatives and plans for public housing right now. There has simply not been enough examination of the alternatives. Many of us participated in the three phases of planning after the storm, and learned what participation in planning means. HUD regulations require similar planning involvement by its tenants. Yet, in fact, HUD signed preliminary contracts with developers that required wholesale demolition without such participation, setting up a sham series of noon time West Bank meetings only after the contracts were inked.

In the face of this confusion, many professionals familiar with housing, planning, preservation and social issues are calling for a time out. Rather than vote for demolition, they call on the City Council to vote for a moratorium to allow more careful review of the best ways to perhaps demolish some of the buildings in worst disrepair, others that would open streets through the once isolated developments, renovate units as Historic Restoration Inc. did in five older public housing buildings in the St. Thomas projects that became the River Garden complex, and add features that would attract a wide range of tenants, while offering a real one-for-one opportunity for working families to return to these new developments.

Lets take a few months to dig beneath the surface, get the facts straight, and create a more informed mandate for HUD to follow in creating new housing for former and new tenants.

The citizens of New Orleans, whether tenants, neighbors, or residents anywhere in our city, deserve informed decision making and plans. We talked about a new New Orleans in those desperate days after the storm. Lets not abandon that dream so fast.

We are seeking individuals and organizations to communicate with City Council members on these issues no later than tomorrow, before the Council meeting this Thursday. Please use the email addresses below to contact the council members.

Arnie Fielkow - Council Member-At-Large
AFielkow@cityofno.com

Jacquelyn Brechtel Clarkson –Councilmember-At-Large
jbclarkson@cityofno.com

Shelley Midura - District A
SMidura@cityofno.com

Stacy S. Head - District B
SHead@cityofno.com

James Carter - District C
JCarter@cityofno.com

Cynthia Hedge-Morrell - District D
CHMorrell@cityofno.com

Cynthia Willard-Lewis - District E
CWLewis@cityofno.com

Bookmark and Share
Tagged

Let the Good Times Roll

December 2nd, 2007 by Loki

Karen has managed to sum up the housing situation and all of its attendant woes in this simple chart. (Click the image, as usual, to see it larger or leave her direct comments.)

Bookmark and Share

FEMA: Reprise

September 1st, 2007 by Loki

Dear New Orleanians:

This past Monday, FEMA announced a new program for those displaced by hurricanes Katrina & Rita. It is meant to provide reimbursement for relocation expenses incurred by any disaster victims. But there is a serious problem.

First, here’s the press release on the program.

and here’s the Times-Picayune’s article about it.

What the new program does is provide up to $4000 for expenses incurred in moving back to your home or somewhere else after the storms. According to the press release, here’s what’s covered:

“Relocation Assistance will be limited to travel costs including airfare, train, bus and/or a rental vehicle. Furniture transportation expenses also are eligible, including commercially rented equipment for hauling and commercially purchased moving materials or moving services. Mileage, gas and other travel-related expenses such as food, incurred while using a privately owned vehicle are not eligible costs. Moving costs for recreational or large luxury items such as boats or recreational vehicles are not eligible expenses under this program either.”

But here’s the rub: you must have incurred the costs after February 1, 2006. So if you moved back to the city before then (like I did, on January 27, 2006), or perhaps you settled somewhere else before then, you are out of luck.

This ignores the reality of what was going on then. We were being strongly encouraged to come back as soon as possible and help rebuild. Others had already made the decision to stay somewhere, and incurred expenses doing so. The folks that came back (or permanently settled elsewhere) before February 1st are being unfairly penalized for making a decision that is not in line with FEMA’s arbitrary timing.

So, you may ask, why was the arbitrary date of February 1, 2006 chosen? For purely bureacratic reasons.

Right after Katrina, FEMA had a program called the Facilitated Relocation Program. From what little I can find about it now, it’s the program that paid for one-way airplane, bus, and train tickets for evacuees to come back to the disaster zone. It didn’t pay for moving expenses or rental cars, so it’s not an exact analogue. In fact, it’s very different. But (and this is the important part) it apparently officially ended on January 31, 2006. Here’s a FEMA press release on it.

Yes the press release says it was to end December 31st, but I’ve confirmed with FEMA that it actually ended a month later.)

Despite the significant differences in the two programs, FEMA views the new one as simply a continuation of the old one. It is NOT.

You cannot compare paying for a one way bus ticket to the costs incurred in renting a moving van in Houston or Atlanta (where U-Haul and Penske were charging triple and quadruple their normal rates after the storm) and hiring movers to bring back what you salvaged from your flooded home, along with what you had acquired in the first few months after the storm (some of which, such as furniture, was funded by FEMA!).

While this January 7, 2007 article in the Times-Picayune says that even 16 months after the storm, truck rental companies were charging through the nose, I can tell you that from personal experience, it was already expensive just five months after the storm. That article also talks about what finally led to the new policy. There is no discussion of the earlier bus-ticket program, because that program had nothing to do with people renting a moving truck. How FEMA can conflate the two is beyond me.

So this policy has to be changed to move the start date back to something more common sense.

I’ve already alerted the Times-Picayune to this, and they will probably be writing something about it next week. I’ve also spoken to the bureaucrats at FEMA in Washington. At first, they claimed they couldn’t tell me why February 1, 2006 had been chosen (in fact, I had to pry even to get the name of the person to whom I was talking). They claimed it was a matter of internal policy deliberation, and that I had to submit any questions in writing to a generic email box (fema-correspondence-unit@dhs.gov).

When I asked if it was because the Facilitated Relocation Program had ended on January 31, 2006, they said that was indeed the reason. I’m pretty sure I was speaking with - if not the person who crafted the policy - at least someone who knows its history.

So please let anyone you know about this, and how ridiculously unfair it is. Every individual is entitled by law to $26,200 in individual disaster assistance from FEMA. If this latest allowed allotment does not cause you to exceed that amount, I don’t see why FEMA should arbitrarily limit it with a silly date on a calendar. Hopefully we can get this policy changed to something that recognizes the enormous struggles Katrina and Rita victims went through in the immediate aftermath of the storms.

Matt Mc Bride (via email)

Bookmark and Share

Ten Commandments

February 10th, 2007 by Loki

A big hat tip to Morwen for unearthing this before I did!
Of course the real Bill of Rights is pretty tattered under the current administration, so this one’s chances of being adopted and followed is slim. Still, I love the content:

From the T-P:

A newly formed group advocating for Road Home grant applicants has released “Bill of Rights,” which it calls “minimal guarantees that we believe grant applicants deserve.”
The document comes from the Citizens Road Home Action Team, or CHAT, and seeks to prod more efficient delivery of federal grants from the $7.5 billion hurricane aid program to owners of flooded homes and rental properties. In the short time since the group formed, it has succeeded in getting several policies it believes will smooth the application process.

CHAT’s bill of rights:
I. The right to the complete rules of the program.
II. The right to timely processing of your application.
III. The right to a fair and swift resolution of errors, disputes, and appeals.
IV. The right to a fair and accurate calculation of your benefits and tender of your award (acceptance of grant money without losing the right to dispute resolution and appeal).
V. The right to simple, fair, and easily understood closing papers.
VI. The right to simple and fair rules for lenders to administer grant funds (disbursement accounts) that make it easier to rebuild, not more difficult.
VII. The right to accurate information about the status of your application by informed and trained personnel within 24 hours of your request.
VIII. The right to reasonable residency requirements for grants and loans and fair rules for grant benefit assignment or compensation if you must sell your home.
IX. The right to receive sufficient affordable or forgivable loans to enable you to rebuild or repair if you have a low pre-storm appraised value.
X. The right to have the disposition of LRA-acquired RHP properties benefit grantees and the neighborhoods in which such properties are located, with neighborhood input in the process.

Seem like simple things, eh? The type of things Americans should not even have to bitch about, right? Well, we have not been treated as Americans since the 28th of August in 2005…

Bookmark and Share

From WWW.LEVEES.ORG

May 31st, 2006 by Loki

Last week, Congress could not agree on funding for housing and levees in time for hurricane season before breaking for vacation. Yet, yesterday, Congress convened an extraordinary recess to hold hearings about the raid of Rep Bill Jefferson’s office. They sacrificed their vacation time to draft legislation that would bar the FBI from searching Congressional offices in the future!

Please tell Congress how you feel about these actions by our Congress Members by writing a letter to the Washington Post and the New York Times. Here are some talking points:

1. 95,000 homes were destroyed by flood water in metro New Orleans due to broken levees.
2. Community block grants for housing are still not approved and are in danger of being slashed in the House.
3. A recent study by the U.C Berkeley lays the majority of the responsibility for the flooding on the US Army Corps of Engineers.
4. Hurricane Season begins on June 1. (which means it is probably hurricane season already by the time you’re reading this -Loki)

Your letter will more likely get published if you use your own words. Please send your letter in separate emails to:

letters@washpost.com and to letters@nytimes.com

Writing letters not your thing?   Go to: http://www.levees.org/advocacy/congress1.php and use our letter writing tool and with one click of a mouse, send a letter to your Congress Members! The letter is already there, just add your address and click “Send.”

Thank you,

Sandy

Bookmark and Share