LAST UPDATED 08/15/19
ALL LEGAL DOCUMENTS PERTAINING FOR THIS CASE ARE ON PUBLIC RECORD AT THE BOSTON FEDERAL COURT HOUSE AND THE INTERNET WORLD WIDE.
Website is updated daily please check back periodically.
MANDELA
Citizens Research Center
1855 Washington Street
Roxbury, MA 02120
(617) 445-0026
Rules Docket Clerk
Room 10276
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 Seventh Street, S.W,
Washington, D.C. 20410-0500
PRIORITY. CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
RE: Reference Docket Number N-93-3652
(Multifamily Property Disposition; State Housing Finance Agency Demonstration Grant)
Dear Sir/Madam:
The Mandela Citizens' Research Center and concerned citizens of Roxbury, Massachusetts, protest the proposed transfer of certain low-income public housing properties (Grant Manor, Roxse Homes and Camfield Gardens) from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). The legal basis for this transfer is contained in various amendments to the Housing and Community Development Act. The guidelines for the proposed transfer are set forth in the Federal Register of September 1,1993, at page 48528.
Our chief objection to the transfer concerns the lack of citizen participation in transfer process as well as the lack of adequate assurance that the property will remain affordable subsequent to the transfer, in light of the Commonwealth's de facto policy of urban gentrification which has historically lead to large-scale displacement of residents in many of Boston's neighborhoods. We also call your attention to the poor track record held by the Commonwealth ol Massachusetts as a " landlord," the deplorable conditions of its state-owned, low income housing facilities, and the Commonwealth's inability to maintain these facilities in safe and habitable conditions. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the proposed transfer of HUD-owned property to the Commonwealth will jeopardize both the health and safety of the project residents, and ultimately fracture the surrounding local communities and cultures through urban displacement, hence the concern of the entire community, rather than only of residents of the directly affected properties.
With reference to the lack of community participation in the "transfer" process, we call to your attention the fact that certain properties contemplated within the demonstration are governed by the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, C.121A (urban renewal taxation), which requires that any transfer of C.121A property be approved by the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) before such transfer can occur. Although the BRA must approve any contemplated transfer, the BRA is required to conduct a public hearing concerning the ability of any transferee (in this case the MHFA), to operate the property in an adequate manner. We are disturbed by the conspicuous absence of intention of, or notice by the BRA to conduct these hearings in accordance with the law. Accordingly, please be advised that under our initiative a petition is currently circulating among lower Roxbury residents, demanding that the BRA conduct the required public hearings in order that residents' concerns be satisfactorily addressed. We sha forward a copy of the same to you when circulation has been completed.
If the BRA approves the transfer, then the MHFA has one year from the date of the transfer to apply for removal of the C.121A designation and accompanying regulations, which a designed to preserve affordability. The citizens have a right to demand a hearing if the MHFA requests that the properties be removed from c.l21a regulatory control. If removal is granted, tl the BRA no longer has control over any sale to a private developer and provisions concerning affordability and maintenance will be nonexistent. If removal is not granted, and the MHFA decides to sell the property to a private developer while the property is still subject to c. 121A, tt the BRA must conduct a public hearing on this transfer as well.
Without C.121A controls, the MHFA would have the right to re-finance the properties, n them itself as the owner/manager, or sell the properties to private developers, free of all HUD or BRA control. While HUD has indicated that it might continue the Section 8 subsidies currently applicable to the properties, the Federal Register notes that "HUD is hopeful that [the MHFA] v, be able to meet the "affordable rent" provisions contained in the property disposition statutes by using sale methods that comport with the affordable rent requirements in the absence of a Sectiol subsidy." (emphasis supplied). In addition, it is the intention of HUD to make these transfers ai final dispositions "without retention of a contractual relationship to the Department (i.e., based o Section 8 subsidy contract, and/or insured financing)."
In sum, since HUD will transfer the low income units to the MHFA in accordance with a contract between HUD and the MHFA, the contract could permit the MHFA to sell the property a private owner without any Section 8 subsidy or HUD insured mortgage, according to the foregoing Federal Register notation. This would leave the owner free to rent the units at market rent, which only middle income people could afford. If the BRA approves the transfer under c. 121A, then the MHFA can request that the development be taken out of C.121A controls. Thus, sale could be made to a private owner free from control by HUD or by the BRA. Both scenarios foreshadow the eventual displacement of low-income Black and Hispanic citizens who currenti;
reside in these projects and who constitute an integral part of the surrounding community and culture, hence the concern of the entire community, not just the residents of the directly affected properties.
Ironically, although HUD proposes to put its properties under state control, HUD had formerly allocated $450,000 through its HOPE program to conduct a tenant ownership feasibility study for the Roxse Homes, Grant Manor and Camfield Gardens Apartments. Later, HUD bid $20 million to protect the projects from foreclosure and "preserve affordable housing." Now HUD is "giving it all back" to the state, which, HUD acknowledges, will "entice private investors" (who will undoubtedly pursue an agenda of gentrification). The likely result of this latest round of "private investment" will be the eventual displacement of the tenants, similar to th of the West End, South End and Back Bay, all of which will yield increased tax revenue for the city and state. Further, multi-billion dollar Parcel Eighteen threatens to fold without an influx of investment capital, and investors have publicly stated that the only way to entice their participatio would be to eliminate the nearby housing projects. How can the city and state afford not to maximize the land value of this scarce, valuable property by converting it from public housing t luxury high-rises which would generate millions more tax dollars paid by a new community of white, middle class professionals.
Equally important, the concerned citizens of lower Roxbury protest, and will continue to protest the transfer of property to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on the grounds that stat and city owned and managed housing has long been associated with scandal, mismanagement an invariably, tenant suffering. For more than a decade, the Boston Housing Authority (BHA) operated under court receivership because of failure to maintain sanitary conditions in its developments. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was recently branded the state's "Secret Slumlord," by a television news feature which documented the deplorable, illegal conditions existing in many state-owned developments. The documentary also noted that since 1988, Massachusetts has paid more than two million dollars for lawsuits as a result of its negligent maintenance of properties, and that Massachusetts is also the largest offender of lead paint laws, taking more than three (3) times longer than legally allowed to remove lead paint from many of il units, while many underage inhabitants continue to suffer irreparable harm from high lead levels
The local press has also publicized the state's and city's shameful track records as propel owners and managers. It has been reported that inspections by HUD found that the BHA construction management division, long criticized as a "dumping ground for patronage employees," completed little required maintenance, and was characterized as "disorganized and painfully slow." Referring to state-owned Orchard Park Development, Alfonso Denson, Chief Inspector for the City of Boston stated in an interview with the Boston Globe, "Words cannot describe how bad it is over there ... It's one of the worst places in the city . . . there are human feces in the hallways, there's trash . . . You name it, it's there ." Asbestos has been found in many apartments. There have been reports of raw sewage leaking into apartments, and faulty wiring. Given the city's and state's admitted lack of financial resources, these deplorable conditions are sure to infect any HUD-transferred properties under the Demonstration Program.
For the foregoing reasons the concerned citizens of lower Roxbury protest the transfer o the above-mentioned HUD properties under the Demonstration Program and demand that full, public hearings be held regarding these transfers, pursuant to the law. We intend to avail oursel of our rights under state and federal law and intend to submit a petition signed by concerned residents of lower Roxbury, Massachusetts, demanding the same. Should authorities attempt t( effectuate the above transfers without holding the required hearings, and without properly considering the comments and concerns of the residents of the affected developments and surrounding neighborhoods, we intend to full} pursue our rights through a class action suit in federal court.
Please feel free to contact the Mandela Citizens' Research Center in order to address the1 concerns, or if you would like further information.
Very truly yours,
Helen Aizprura,
Director
Mandela Citizens' Research Center