4/91 Pulaski-cross burning Richmond-anti-Semitic violence-synagogue & school 12/90 Fairfax-racial tension-high school RESIDENT TESTIMONIAL SHEILA REED-PALMORE My name is Sheila Reed-Palmore, mother of three, former welfare recipient and a 30 year resident of public housing. Thanks to a loving mother, Mrs. Essie Mae Reed, who instilled in me love for God and all mankind, regardless of race, creed, religion or social status. Inspite of many obstacles during my early childhood, including being handicapped, I never dreamed that I would eventually own my own business through the REAP program at the Tampa Housing Authority, I was given the opportunity to become an entrepreneur. The REAP program provided me an opportunity to learn business skills, how to deal effectively with people, how to manage my personal business and to develop an independent state of mind. Moreover, this independence led to my being able to leave public housing and move into home ownership. I am the proud owner of a four bedroom, 2 bath home in a nice neighborhood. All this was made possible through my involvement with the REAP program at Tampa Housing. I became the first resident to obtain a contract from the Tampa Housing Authority to perform landscape services. I started out with five workers and that number has increased to ten (10). At the time I received this contract, Central Park Village was the worst property. It has now set the standard for what a model property should be. Due to my interest in my community and hard work many residents have chosen me as their role model and want to emulate me. The next phase that I moved into was general maintenance. This consisted of preparing all vacant units for occupancy. After strong organizing of our Resident Council, I was elected President and am currently President of the Resident Management Corporation. Committees were structured activities have begun to take place, such as voter registration drives and monthly meetings. The technical training provided through the Resident Management Corporation has made a substantial difference on our property. Rent collections have increased from 64 percent to 96 percent, work orders are down to 25 units rolling base, crime reduced by 35 percent, school attendance increased, tutoring services and recreational activities are all controlled by tenants. When E&S Reed was founded, our property was deplorable. One of the goals we wanted to accomplish was to make our community cleaner, safer and a good environment in which to raise our children. We hired residents to assist us in this effort. We worked 7 days a week and eventually our property became one of the cleanest ones in Tampa Housing Authority stock. Taking on all of this job responsibility enabled me to hire residents and create an oasis of pride for fellow residents. This has motivated residents to care about the property and has caused them to become active on various committees and councils. Additionally, a maintenance, security and senior citizens committees have been formed. Residents are now seeking employment instead of welfare, talking of home ownership instead of living in the projects. Our major focus has become economic empowerment through small business creations such as mini-markets. The residents now feel they have taken steps necessary to take over day to day management of our development, all 483 units. This will provide more jobs for residents thru maintenance, small business creations and special programs that will assist us in changing the lives of our residents. When the riots were taking place throughout the country, Central Park Village (as stated earlier once was the worst public housing development in Tampa), the residents banded together, passed the word that we all need to continue to maintain the safety with peace and harmony of our community without police! This demonstrates true resident empowerment, all we ask is for a piece of the rock through economic empowerment. Sheila Reed-Palmore Central Park Village Homes RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR RIEGLE FROM JACK KEMP HOUSING BILL Q.1. Can you give us a commitment that you are willing to work with us in a bipartisan effort to move [the housing authorization] bill forward expeditiously? A.1. The Department has maintained the commitment made to you and the Committee to work actively to produce a housing reauthorization bill that includes several new initiatives proposed by the Administration and makes useful refinements in Federal housing policy. If a bill that is identical to the proposal recently hammered out by the Administration and the Committee were to be approved by Congress and sent to the President, I would recommend that it be signed. However, I am disappointed that the Senate and the Administration have not yet been able to reach agreement on the President's sweeping program of urban initiatives that are designed to give hope and opportunity to poor Americans living in the inner city. The Senate's housing reauthorization bill is part of what must be a bipartisan effort to develop effective solutions to our urban problems. However, much more remains to be done to meet the needs of the low-income families who continue to cry for our help. HOMEOWNERSHIP (Because Questions 2 and 5 are similar, we are combining these two questions.) Q.2. There are four million fewer housing units affordable to low-income families than there are families who need those units. There are, at the very least, one million homeless people in America. a. b. How will helping existing recipients of government assistance buy their apartments house those families who can't afford a place to live? Don't we also need to devote resources to increasing the supply of affordable housing? Q.5. Over half of poor households pay more than 50% of their income for rent and utilities, leaving little for food, clothing and health care. Don't we need also to help these people from being forced out on the street or going without food or medical care for their kids? A.2. and A.5. Your questions about disparities between housing 2 costs and income and the resulting high rent burdens of the poorest households are variants of the single most critical housing issue facing us under today's budget constraints: How can the U.S. most directly and cost-effectively meet the severe housing problems of the most needy households those, as you note, who are homeless or have high housing cost burdens? In last year's report to Congress, Priority Housing Problems and "Worst Case" Needs in 1989, HUD documented the housing problems and household characteristics of households with the most severe "worst case" priorities for housing assistance and set forth the basic elements of a strategic plan to reduce those needs within limited fiscal resources. In 1989, some five million very-low-income renters had such "worst case" problems, and over 90% of this group paid more than half of reported income for rent. As the report details, fully three-fourths of worst case households lived in adequate, uncrowded housing, with a severe rent burden their only housing problem. To solve the worst case problems of these households in their current housing and help other families afford available housing, any strategy to serve worst case families cost-effectively should rely heavily on tenant-based assistance. Vouchers and certificates are not only directly appropriate for three-fourths of worst case families and less costly than any alternative, but they are much better targeted on solving worst case problems. As HUD testified before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee in April, nearly all vouchers solve worst case needs, compared to less than onefifth of dollars appropriated for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), HOME, or Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). Decisions about programs to respond to affordability problems among low-income renters, moreover, should not assume that relative shortages of units with rents affordable to renters without rental assistance necessarily imply a need to construct or otherwise supply a larger number of units. Instead, because tenant-based rental assistance is cheaper, more flexible, and more quickly made available than is possible under any supply program, the report examined trends in the availability of units that could be made affordable to worst case renters through rental subsidies. During the 1980s, the number of units with rents below local FMRs far exceeded the number of lowincome renters eligible for rental assistance; below-FMR units grew by 4.4 million; and vacancy rates among such units rose to 6.5 percent in 1989. Nationally and regionally, vacancy rates for below-FMR units in 1989 were |