CITY OF GALVESTON

1. CITY OF GALVESTON By The Galveston Open Government Project A Bold New Approach For Subsidized Housing

2. Movement of the Population & Economic Center of Galveston County 1940 to 2008 (Map from Texas Windstorm, Risk Designation Areas for Galveston County) Texas City Housing Authority Galveston Housing Authority La Marque Housing Authority Migration path of economic/demographic center of county from 1940 to 2008. Demographic Facts Since GHA Founding in 1940 1940 City Of Galveston % of County Population – 75% 2008 City Of Galveston % of County Population – 19.8% 1940 Economic/Population Center of County – City of Galveston 2008 Economic/Population Center of County – Dickinson Area All 3 of Galveston County’s Housing Authorities are in the far south of the county: Galveston, Texas City, La Marque

3. HUD Has Not Kept Up With the Economic & Population Shift!!Result – Subsidized Housing Roll-Up *Census Data from U.S. Census Website www.census.gov/popest/cities *Public Housing and Section 8 Data from Housing Authority Profiles HUD website. *Section 8 – Funded vouchers, 697 on island, 516 on the mainland. *PH numbers from HUD HA profiles, GHA redevelopment plan said pre-Ike number was 979 *TDHCA operates Section 8 vouchers in county. They have not responded to our inquiries on numbers or distribution of vouchers.

4. HUD Has Not Kept Up With the Economic & Population Shift!!Result – Concentration of Subsidized Housing *Census Data from U.S. Census Website www.census.gov/popest/cities *Public Housing and Section 8 Data from Housing Authority Profiles HUD website. *Section 8 – Funded vouchers, 697 on island, 516 on the mainland. *PH numbers from HUD HA profiles, GHA redevelopment plan said pre-Ike number was 979

5. HUD Has Not Kept Up With the Economic & Population Shift!!Result – Concentration of Minority Population County Minority Population within Housing Authority Cities 48,180 County Minority Population 55,676 % Of County Minority Population located in Cities with Housing Authorities 86.5% % of Public Housing Units located in Cities with Housing Authorities 100% *Census Data from 2008 Estimate U.S. Census Website www.census.gov/popest/cities

6. HUD Has Not Kept Up With the Economic & Population Shift!!Result – School Districts of the 3 HA Cities Have The Highest Concentration of African-American Students * All school data from ISD websites.

7. HUD Has Not Kept Up With the Economic & Population Shift!!Result – School Districts of the 3 HA Cities Have The Highest Concentration of African-American Students

8. HUD Has Not Kept Up With the Economic & Population Shift!!Results – The 3 HA Cities Have the Lowest Income per Capita in the County * The solid line represents the northern migration of the population center of the county. *Census Data from U.S. Census Website www.census.gov/popest/cities

9. HUD Has Not Kept Up With the Economic & Population Shift!!Results – The 3 HA Cities Have the Lowest Income per Capita in the County

10. The Proposal We propose that the county’s three housing authorities merge, and immediately petition the County Government for recognition as the “Galveston County Housing Authority”. The overriding principle should be that subsidized housing should be de-concentrated out of the City of Galveston. Housing, educational and employment opportunities need to be addressed from a regional perspective. HUD through it’s local Public Housing Authority, the Galveston Housing Authority (GHA), has a statutory obligation to affirmatively further fair housing by ensuring that the GHA’s plan has a regional perspective, and furthermore, that GHA’s regional plan is in alignment with the regional plans of Houston HUD and surrounding Housing Authorities. Legal Basis – Thompson v. HUD, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, MJG-95-309 Academic Basis – Geography of Opportunity, Communities of Opportunity (Suggested links on last slide)

11. The Proposal Thompson v. HUD – Summary from NAACP Legal Defense Fund Website “The ACLU of Maryland filed the lawsuit in 1995 on behalf of a class of approximately 14,000 African American tenants, former tenants, and prospective tenants of Baltimore City public housing developments. Plaintiffs alleged that HUD denied Baltimore's African American public housing residents opportunities to locate throughout the region and instead concentrated them in predominantly minority areas within the city limits in violation of the Fair Housing Act.In January 2005, the District Court found HUD liable for failing to take affirmative steps to implement an effective regional strategy for desegregation and poverty de-concentration in Baltimore. The court found that HUD's programs "failed to achieve significant desegregation in Baltimore City." As Judge Marvin J. Garbis explained, "Baltimore City should not be viewed as an island reservation for use as a container for all of the poor of a contiguous region."

12. The Proposal Thompson v. HUD – Decision Memorandum “In light of HUD’s statutory duties and the fact that its jurisdiction and ability to exert practical leverage extend throughout the Baltimore Region, it was, and continues to be unreasonable for the agency not to consider housing programs that include the placement of a more than insubstantial portion of the Plaintiff class in non-impacted areas outside of Baltimore City limits.” “In sum, the Court finds that HUD failed to consider regionally-oriented desegregation and integration policies, despite the fact that Baltimore is contiguous to, and linked by public transportation and roads to, Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties and in close proximity to other counties in the Baltimore Region.” “It is high time that HUD live up to its statutory mandate to consider the effect of its policies on the racial and socio-economic composition of the surrounding area and thus consider regional approaches to promoting fair housing opportunities…”

13. Thompson v. HUD – The Map that Got the Baltimore Housing Authority in Trouble Maryland 1990 Census – 24.9% African-American Population The Proposal

14. Galveston County’s Map Galveston County 2000 Census – 25.5% African-American Population The Proposal

15. The Proposal • Benefits to the Stakeholders • Subsidized Housing Residents • Choice of location that matches up with current job skills. • Choice of location for educational opportunities for new skills. • Choice of location for parents to choose schools. • Choice of location based on risk tolerance of storm damage. • Opportunity for residents to tie in to the employment and educational opportunities of Houston via the Houston Metro Park & Ride located right across the county line in Webster.

16. The Proposal • Benefits to the Stakeholders • Housing Authorities • Combined operation would be more cost efficient. • Larger HA would carry greater weight with HUD. • Site selection opportunities would increase exponentially. • Maximize client’s opportunities to graduate out of system. • Would have the expanded resources of a region to address housing issues, and the issues of the clients.

17. The Proposal • Benefits to the Stakeholders • Current HA Cities • Reduced total number of Public Housing units would increase the amount of property on City tax rolls. • City residents and business would no longer have to make up lost taxes due to exempt properties. • Restored tax equity would put these cities on better footing for rebuilding viable middle class populations. • Socio-economic burdens would be carried by all County residents equitably.

18. Planning Department Checkpoints Any plan submitted to this committee should pass three checkpoints before a recommendation for approval is given to city council. Check Point 1 – Agree on the number of units. (Thompson v. HUD, de-concentration) The number of proposed subsidized housing units (public housing + Section 8), as a percentage of households within the City of Galveston, shall not exceed the percentage of subsidized housing units within Galveston County. Check Point 2 – Agree on the location of units. Check Point 3 – Agreement on the type and mix of units in the agreed locations. Verification *U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimate data. *Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (State agency responsible for disbursing subsidized housing funds, and tracking the number of units.)

19. Summary • The Housing Authorities of Galveston, Texas City, and La Marque should merge and become the “Galveston County Housing Authority”. A regional approach should be used. • The expansion of the service area for the new County Housing Authority would benefit all stakeholders. • HUD/GHA has not lived up to it’s statutory responsibility to expand regionally, when the demographic data shows that the current working model results in concentration of public housing units and minorities within a contiguous area. • GHA’s current plan does not live up to the location criteria of the signed Consent Decree • The city has the guidance of judicial rulings upon which to base it’s decisions, and to minimize the risk of law suits to the city or delay in redevelopment. • A checkpoint system, using the judicial rulings and verifiable government data, can be used to responsibly move the proposed redevelopment plan through the system. • Agree to the number of units. • Agree to the locations. • Agree to the type and mix.

20. Research The concept of taking a regional approach to housing issues is not new, but renewed focus has come out of the Thompson v. HUD decision. The following links connect to further reading on the Regional approach in regards to housing issues: Future of Fair Housing – National Commission on Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Geography and Opportunity – Kirwan Institue for the Study of Race and Ethnicity (The Ohio State University), Director John Powell – Expert Witness Thompson v. HUD Inclusive Communities Project ACLU-MD's Fair Housing Department releases a report entitled "New Homes, New Neighborhoods, New Schools: A Progress Report on the Baltimore Housing Mobility Program" NAACP Legal Defense Fund – Thompson v. HUD Information

21. Legal Issues Thompson v. HUD– HUD obligated to address housing on a regional basis. Outline of Opinion.Analysis. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. v. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs– Current complaint that the way the TDHCA administers the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program perpetuates racial segregation. GHA’s proposal relies heavily on the LIHTC program. Texas Appleseed Administrative Complaint to HUD– CDBG funds to Texas put on hold because of non-compliance with Federal Regulations. TAA’s complaint includes that sub-recipient City of Galveston cannot certify that they are affirmatively furthering fair housing because the required AI is inadequate (pg 22) Residency of Public Housing Clients – The issue of where Galveston’s Public Housing Clients originated is a non-issue. Federal Regulations and GHA’s “Admissions and Continuing Occupation” policy have no residency requirements (pg 9). As a federal program, anyone from anywhere is allowed to apply to any HUD Housing Authority in the country. Galveston County, and all of the county municipalities listed as sub-recipients of the County CDBG, as a recipient of that CDBG, have an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. Legal basis – USA v. Westchester County, NY.

22. General Questions About Current GHA Proposal 1 of 3 HUD Regulations 4010.1 Definitions, Policy Statements and General Rules Chapter 4 Policy Statements Concerning Avoidance of Surplus Housing Conditions, Processing Priorities and Reviews (?) Have you received, or asked for, a determination letter from the local HUD office in regards to HUD-FHA obligations under sections 4-2, in regards to your proposed development plan? (4.2 Responsibility of Field Offices to Avoid Conditions of Surplus Housing) Chapter 7 Mandatory Flood Insurance Requirement in Special Flood Hazard Areas (?) Do you have commitments for obtaining flood insurance? (7-1) (?) Do you have a signed waiver, or opinion document, in regards to 7-9 (HPMC Flood Hazard Exposure Standards)? Specifically subsection c which reads, “Properties should be rejected if they are subject to frequently recurring flooding, or if there is any potential hazard to life or safety, or if escape from them to high ground would be infeasible during severe flooding.

23. General Questions About Current GHA Proposal 2 of 3 HUD Regulations 1390.2 Chapter 3 – Compliance Factors Compliance Factor #3 Flood Plain Management (?) Are in you in compliance with all of the requirements of CF3.2 Legislative and Regulatory Requirements, Use of Federal funds for development in Floodplains parts a thru e? Please provide a copy of the Initial Flood Hazard Screening, as required by CF3.3?

24. Current GHA plans do not seem to be compliant with this Federal Regulation. Please provide letter from HUD certifying your plans comply with this Federal Regulation? General Questions About Current GHA Proposal 3 of 3 • Title 24 – Housing and Urban Development • Part 941 – Public Housing Development • CFR 941.202 Site and Neighborhood Standards (Does the plan have approval from the field office that it is compliant with this section, as required by this section?) • Proposed sites for public housing projects to be newly constructed or rehabilitated must be approved by the field office as meeting the following standards: • (a) The site must be adequate in size, exposure and contour to accommodate the number and type of units proposed, and adequate utilities (e.g., water, sewer, gas and electricity) and streets must be available to service the site. • (b) The site and neighborhood must be suitable from the standpoint of facilitating and furthering full compliance with the applicable provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, E.O. 11063, and HUD regulations issued pursuant thereto. • (c) • (1)The site for new construction projects must not be located in: • (i) An area of minority concentration unless • (A) sufficient, comparable opportunities exist for housing for minority families, in the income range to be served by the proposed project, outside areas of minority concentration, or • (B) the project is necessary to meet overriding housing needs which cannot otherwise feasibly be met in that housing market area. An ‘‘overriding need’’ may not serve as the basis for determining that a site is acceptable if the only reason the need cannot otherwise feasibly be met is that discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, or national origin renders sites outside areas of minority concentration unavailable; or • (ii) A racially mixed area if the project will cause a significant increase in the proportion of minority to non-minority residents in the area. • (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph (c), public housing units constructed after demolition of public housing units may be built on the original public housing site, or in the same neighborhood, if one of the following criteria is satisfied: • The number of public housing units being constructed is no more than 50 percent of the number of units in the original project; • In the case of replacement of a currently occupied project, the number of public housing units being constructed is the minimum number needed to house current residents who want to remain at the site; or • (iii) The public housing units being constructed constitute no more than twenty-five units. • (d) The site must promote greater choice of housing opportunities and avoid undue concentration of • assisted persons in areas containing a high proportion of low-income persons. • (e) The site must be free from adverse environmental conditions, natural or manmade, such as instability, flooding, septic tank back-ups, sewage hazards or mudslides; harmful air pollution, smoke or dust; excessive noise vibration, vehicular traffic, rodent or vermin infestation; or fire hazards. The neighborhood must not be one which is seriously detrimental to family life or in which substandard dwellings or other undesirable elements predominate, unless there is actively in progress a concerted program to remedy the undesirable conditions. • (f) The site must comply with any applicable conditions in the local plan approved by HUD. • (g) The housing must be accessible to social, recreational, educational, commercial, and health facilities and services, and other municipal facilities and services that are at least equivalent to those typically found in neighborhoods consisting largely of similar unassisted standard housing. • (h) Travel time and cost via public transportation or private automobile, from the neighborhood to places of employment providing a range of jobs for low-income workers, must not be excessive. (While it is important that elderly housing not be totally isolated from employment opportunities, this requirement need not be adhered to rigidly for such projects.) • (i) The project may not be built on a site that has occupants unless the relocation requirements referred to in § 941.207 are met. • (j) The project may not be built in an area that has been identified by HUD as having special flood hazards and in which the sale of flood insurance has been made available under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, unless the project is covered by flood insurance as required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, and it meets any relevant HUD standards and local requirements. • [45 FR 60838, Sept. 12, 1980. Redesignated at 49 FR 6714, Feb. 23, 1984, as amended at 61 FR 38017, July 22, 1996]

25. CITY OF GALVESTON By The Galveston Open Government Project A Bold New Approach For Subsidized Housing END