Public housing for sale
Related Content
More About
Nina Shapiro's article on the Seattle Housing Authority's massive $160,000,000 redevelopment of public housing at Holly Park ("Dressing up the projects," 12/23/99) was frustrating reading. Parts of her piece were dead-on, such as the sections on the high cost of the so-called "affordable" for-sale homes and on the likelihood that SHA won't be able to live up to the promises of homeownership and good jobs that SHA made so freely to former low-income residents of Holly Park. But in focusing primarily on what was built, Nina missed the major story, which is the devastating impact the project is going to have on those most in need of housing in Seattle. It's a shame that Nina simply dismissed this discussion—which has much to do with the complexities of housing policy—as "weirdly abstract."
Here are just four of the many troubling policy precedents being set at Holly Park: (1) viable public housing serving the poorest of the poor is torn down and only about half—at best—is replaced within the project's budget; (2) tens of millions of dollars that could have been used by other nonprofit housing providers to expand our local stock of public housing for very low-income families are instead wasted on a dressy, costly, "mixed income" gentrification project; (3) additional tens of millions of dollars will be lost to replacement housing that could otherwise have also been used to expand our stock of very-low income housing; and (4) all of the above was approved by the mayor and City Council, in spite of the fact that housing levy funds are being used for a project that results in lost housing. And all of this at a time when we have over 15,000 families in Seattle on the waiting list for public housing, when we are in danger of losing at least 1,500 units of project-based Section 8 housing in the next few years, when housing costs are increasing dramatically everywhere in the region; in short, when we need to be setting policy precedents that serve those most in need of increasingly scarce low-cost housing.
The history of how SHA foisted this disturbing precedent onto Holly Park residents, the neighborhood, the mayor, City Council, and well, just about everybody, is also a story that needs to be told. While it's not a pretty tale, it would be a good follow-up to Nina's first article, and I hope she writes it. Somebody has to, and soon, because SHA has been planning to do the same damn thing to our public housing resources at Rainier Vista, Yesler Terrace, and High Point.
JOHN MCLAREN
SEATTLE
In fact, the story goes into the widely publicized debate over replacement housing at some length. While important, that debate takes place as if nobody had stepped foot on the place, which is why I called it weirdly abstract.—Nina Shapiro
A new community
The December 23 cover story "Dressing up the projects" did a disservice to the residents of Holly Park who are engaged in a struggle to improve their personal circumstances. Nina Shapiro makes it sound as if the Holly Park residents were "done to" by the Seattle Housing Authority. As president of the Holly Park Community Council, I can attest that the residents of Holly Park were involved in decisions about the redevelopment all along the way. We helped determine strict lease guidelines, and helped choose and evaluate service providers. We served as partners with the SHA, not as victims. While that partnership has often been a challenging one, it has helped to shape NewHolly.
Shapiro claims that NewHolly doesn't "look" like public housing and that it is too costly. Just what is public housing supposed to look like? Why shouldn't the federal government and the city invest in high-quality housing for poor residents, built to last into the future? Her persistent use of the term "housing project" is an insult to both the original Holly Park residents and the new neighbors joining us.
Pointing to the Elder Village in Phase II as evidence that the SHA will not meet its commitments to one-for-one replacement housing is flagrantly disrespectful of senior citizens in this community. We were a large part of the original community and deserve housing suited to our specific needs. Peter Steinbrueck, chair of the City Council Housing Committee, stated of the plans for the Elder Village, "Seniors are families, too."
Finally, it is simply too soon to be making the kind of snide, judgmental remarks found in this article. Give this new community a chance!
DORIS MORGAN, PRESIDENT
HOLLY PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL
In the same boat
"Dressing up the projects" (12/23/99) leaves out a most important element about public housing. The funds for continued building of low-rent apartments are no longer coming from Washington, DC. No newspaper nor air media alerted the public of this disaster; no funds for public housing—so what? Instead the Housing and Urban Development did what it does best: It brought "nonprofits" into the housing picture. Now the real estate industry is able to extend its expertise to use government funds to build for future profits. Just as they were able to use Section 8 funds to pay for the landlords' mortgages in the guise of allowing poor people to live in nonproject apartments, so today they are using HOPE VI to build homes for "not-so-poor." Eventually, these homes will be the source of profit for the banks, etc.
