| Releases & Statements
For immediate release:
Thursday, June 8, 2006
Contact: Frank Sobrino, Press Secretary
O: (212) 669-4193
Testimony
for New York City Housing Authority Hearing on
NYCHA’s Amended 2006 Plan and Draft 2007 Plan
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
First of all, I would like to thank NYCHA for implementing the
recommendation made by advocates and myself to loosen documentation
requirements for survivors of domestic violence seeking priority
status for NYCHA housing. This change demonstrates your compassion
for survivors and their children
I am here today because I believe
there are aspects of NYCHA’s amended plan for 2006 and draft
plan for 2007 that are not in the best interests of NYCHA’s
tenants and that tenants were not properly consulted in the preparation
of the plan. I am particularly concerned about NYCHA’s intention
of using Section 8 voucher funds to pay for the cost of operating
8,400 units of city- and state-assisted public housing.
NYCHA is proposing to attach project-based
vouchers to the units in questions. But project-based vouchers
cannot be attached to the units unless their current residents
move out. In order to provide the residents with an incentive
to seek housing elsewhere, NYCHA would provide them each with
a separate voucher. In other words, NYCHA would have to use two
Section 8 vouchers for each unit in order to implement its proposal.
That’s up to 16,800 vouchers that will no longer be available
to low-income New Yorkers on the waiting list for Section 8. That
is simply too great a hit.
I am well aware that NYCHA has no
choice but to seek new methods of making up its $168 million annual
operating deficit. With the Bush administration slashing funding
for housing authorities, and the state and city also reducing
their operating subsidies for public housing to zero, NYCHA has
been forced to fend for itself. But Section 8 vouchers are a precious
commodity. Their purpose is to help families pay the rent. They
should not be used to absolve the city and state of their responsibility
to support the housing they developed.
Furthermore, NYCHA’s
ability to transfer Section 8 vouchers to its operating budget
is dependent on it becoming part of HUD’s Moving to Work
program. This program exempts participating housing authorities
from most of the rules that protect public housing tenants. The
Philadelphia and Charlotte housing authorities have used the flexibility
provided by the MTW program to impose limits on how long residents
can live in public housing. The Seattle and Salt Lake City housing
authorities have forced families to pay more than 30 percent of
their income in rent.
While NYCHA has stated that it has
no intention of taking any of these actions, I believe that going
down this road puts NYCHA tenants at potential future risk.
Whatever decisions NYCHA makes with
regards to it operating deficit and all other aspects of its draft
annual plan, it is required under federal law to make them in
consultation with a Resident Advisory Board (RAB). Unfortunately,
the New York City RAB has indicated that it was not adequately
consulted by NYCHA on its 2006 amended plan and 2007 draft plan.
This is just the latest example of NYCHA’s lax attitude
towards resident participation. Since 2002, $17 million in federal
funding has been set aside for the purpose of stimulating resident
participation activities, but NYCHA has failed to distribute this
funding.
NYCHA’s primary
responsibility is to serve the interests of its tenants. There
is
no question that woefully
inadequate funding from all levels of government has put a strain
on NYCHA’s ability to fulfill this responsibility. But funding
cuts, severe though they may be, cannot become an excuse for actions
that reduce opportunities for low-income New Yorkers to get help
paying the rent. Nor do they explain the lack of consultation
with tenants, who will bear the brunt of whatever changes are
made. If anything, these difficult times demand that NYCHA and
it tenants cooperate more than ever before. I urge NYCHA to give
due consideration to the concerns and recommendations of tenants
and their advocates.
Thank you.
###
|
