LET THE FACTS SPEAK: "Landlords refused to even consider voucher holders, some candidly citing the low subsidies and their desire to cash in on a hot market."

Previously:

If local "progressives" aren't holding City Hall's feet to the fire about Housing Choice vouchers, are they really progressive?

We'll be reinforcing this point again and again as the 2019 primary draws closer, because at a time when the federal housing voucher program is only minimally effective, our Mayor Jeff Gahan, David Duggins and their hand-chosen takeover administrators at the New Albany Housing Authority continue to insist their plan to half-size public housing in our city is viable because those slated for displacement will be handed vouchers.

The real-world evidence differs rather dramatically from bunker dogma.

With Market Hot, Landlords Slam the Door on Section 8 Tenants, by Glenn Thrush (New York Times)

 ... For most of its existence, the main shortcoming of the Section 8 program, created in 1974 as an alternative to ghettoizing public housing projects, was its inability to keep up with demand. But the recent economic boom in Philadelphia, long one of the most affordable big cities in the Washington-to-Boston corridor, has led to rent increases even in poor and working-class neighborhoods, and many landlords are now refusing to accept the vouchers when they can get higher rents, without the bureaucratic red tape that plagues the program, on the open market.

A survey by the nonpartisan Urban Institute, commissioned by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and released in August, documented the problem in stark terms. It found that 67 percent of Philadelphia’s landlords refused to even consider voucher holders, some candidly citing the low subsidies and their desire to cash in on a hot market. The rejection rates were even higher in Fort Worth and Los Angeles, where three-quarters of landlords turned away Section 8 tenants.

Put at risk by these market forces is the future of a core federal housing program that now serves 2.2 million low-income families and was started with a simple goal: to enable those families to escape neighborhoods increasingly segregated along racial and economic lines for a place with decent housing and better schools, stores and transportation ...

Harvest Homelessness in New Albany: Who do you believe, Mayor Gahan or your own two eyes?

Exit 0 didn't mince words today: "Yes, homelessness is real in New Albany." For Jeff Gahan's alternative Pollyanna point of view, let's rewind to this newspaper report from 2016.

SATURDAY SPOTLIGHT: New Albany Homeless population struggles to cope, by Aprile Rickert (Kaleidoscopic Tom May)

Local officials notice growing number of homeless

 ... Not everyone agrees on the scope of the problem.

New Albany Mayor Jeff Gahan’s office sent an email to the News and Tribune addressing queries about homelessness in New Albany Gahan stated in the release that homelessness is not something to take lightly, but that is not a large issue in New Albany.

“Anytime someone is homeless without a safe place for the night, it’s a serious issue for those individuals,” the email states. “However, the data does not support an assertion that New Albany has a homeless problem.”

Except that in 2016, the data didn't support Gahan's blindness optimism.

The Indiana Housing Community and Development Authority (IHCDA) reported that through point-in-time counts from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), when homeless individuals are literally counted on the streets, Floyd County had 74 homeless counted in early 2016, alongside an estimated total population of 76,668 for 2015. This translates to .09 percent homeless in Floyd County as compared to 5,863 or .08 percent homeless in the state, according to IHCDA, which reports a 2 percent drop in homelessness in Indiana from 2014 to 2015.

In light of what has occurred in New Albany since Rickert's article first appeared, the most appropriate word is "surreal."

The City of New Albany has worked in recent years to provide safer and more affordable housing, the mayor’s email states, operating more than 1,100 homes through the New Albany Housing Authority — more than Charlestown, Clarksville and Jeffersonville combined.

In early 2017, just a few months after praising the housing capacity of the New Albany Housing Authority, Gahan staged a hostile takeover of NAHA, announcing a non-negotiable goal of eliminating half of these "1,100 homes" -- which he'd told Rickert was the single best reason to believe homelessness doesn't exist in New Albany.

Was he lying, or confused like a duck hit on the head?

The City has also initiated a rental registration program to ensure that the 40 percent rented homes in New Albany are regulated for safety.

Um, no.

Not at all.

The program is registration only, utterly without enforcement teeth. Seems Gahan took significant factual liberties with the newspaper's reporter, then acted in a manner (the NAHA putsch) almost guaranteed to increase a homelessness problem that he refuses to believe exists.

And, to place an exclamation mark on all this, Gahan's ongoing "solution" for housing insecurity in New Albany remains the one alternative consistently proven time and again to be inadequate: housing vouchers (more here).

IamHoosier provides the best coda.

Indeed. The homeless have come nowhere near Axis Architecture and Interiors as it pertains to thanking the mayor for everything he's done on their behalf.

If local "progressives" aren't holding City Hall's feet to the fire about Housing Choice vouchers, are they really progressive?

According to the Green Mouse, the last time a News & Tribune reporter was allowed into the inner sanctum for an interview with Mayor Jeff Gahan, there was a precondition that all questions first be submitted for approval by City Hall.

The answers were printed and ready when the reporter entered the mayor's office, and after a few moments of small talk, so ended the "interview."

Welcome to non-transparent governance, Nawbany-style.

Way back on March 16, 2017, the newspaper's then-reporter Elizabeth Beilman provided an overview of Gahan's recently facilitated hostile public housing takeover. While only Beilman herself knows whether her questions required City Hall pre-approval, here's a paragraph of interest.

(Gahan's NAHA seizure) will also signal a paradigm shift that more closely mirrors the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s changing model for public housing — fewer “brick-and-mortar” options and more affordable housing flexibility through a voucher system. Gahan believes this will position New Albany for better success when applying for tax credits and other applications.

Beilman also spoke with David Duggins, appointed by the mayor to serve as Gauleiter of the annexed NAHA territories.

New Albany is instituting measures meant to open up more opportunities for affordable housing that will accept Housing Choice Vouchers, Duggins said.

The city’s recently updated comprehensive plan states any new private housing development that receives incentives from the city, such as tax breaks, would be required to set aside 8 percent of its units for voucher holders, Duggins said. The plan was passed unanimously by the city council.

The council also approved an ordinance requiring landlords to register their rental units with the city. An inspection component of the ordinance was removed by the council, but city officials hope registration of units will increase communication with property owners to prevent deterioration of homes.

“If we start now encouraging affordable development, if we work now and enforce 8 percent [reserved units for vouchers], then there are units that will be available as this goes through,” Duggins said. “It will simultaneously work together, but it is a process.”

And if voucher holders can’t find eligible housing in New Albany when the time comes?

“I think we’re happy that they would go and find any place — if it’s in the city, great, if it’s outside the city that makes them happy and gives them a quality of life that they’re looking for, I think that’s the whole concern,” Duggins said.

It's almost as if both Gahan and Duggins knew their words about the utility of Housing Choice vouchers were meaningless drivel even as they uttered them -- as Chen discusses below.

Someone should ask them.

The newspaper, perhaps?

Better yet, shouldn't the so-called local Democratic Party progressives -- who insist against all prevailing evidence that Gahan and Duggins are somehow "one of them" -- be the ones to ask the occasional hard question?

Or must those queries, too, be approved in advance?

Our Housing-Voucher Program Is Broken, Michelle Chen (The Nation)

Landlords regularly refuse to rent to voucher holders, defeating the point of the program.

For many families in impoverished communities, their best hope for escaping poverty is to just move out of it. But often, the poverty follows them: They struggle to find a better neighborhood they can actually afford in crowded, expensive local housing markets. Today, with poverty and underfunded schools so intensely concentrated in isolated enclaves, the nationwide housing crisis is as much a crisis of segregation as a crisis of affordability.

The federal department of Housing and Urban Development has sought for years to help poor families relocate to lower-poverty areas through the Housing Choice program, which provides rental vouchers as a one-way ticket out to a healthier and stabler environment, resettling families in peaceful, integrated neighborhoods with more job and educational opportunities. Housing Choice vouchers are a major resource for cash-strapped public-housing authorities, currently supporting about 2.2 million households nationwide. Calculated according to income, the subsidies allow tenants generally to pay no more than 30 percent of income for rent. That could mean the difference between a roach-infested studio and a sunny single-family duplex with a $400 higher monthly rent. Those savings have a way of trickling down to the next generation, too: Research has linked a better home environment to healthier child development, less social distress, and greater economic stability. But as Congress weighs a modest expansion of the program, researchers have found that the Housing Choice recipients tend to face stiff barriers of stigma and implicit bias.

According to an extensive field study by the Urban Institute, many voucher holders are thwarted by landlords who simply won’t rent to them, regardless of the subsidy. Although some cities have laws that explicitly ban landlords from denying someone solely on the basis of being a voucher holder, researchers say subsurface biases still color first impressions and shape housing opportunity. It seems that people with vouchers are, ironically, perceived the same way landlords would view a bad credit check or a criminal record—a sign of a potentially troublesome tenant ...

City Hall's housing voucher fetish is disproved by HUD's own studies, which show show clear patterns of discrimination by landlords.

Mayor Jeff Gahan's hostile takeover of public housing in 2017 probably never was intended to be a center-of-the-plate campaign issue in 2019.

Shouldn't it be?

The putsch occurred when it did for various reasons, including former NAHA director Bob Lane's impending success at launching 1:1 unit replacements, but the general nationwide distraction and disruption of Donald Trump's presidency provided ideal camouflage to take control.

If local progressives exist at all, and I remain only partially convinced of this, they need to grasp that a lifelong goal of local Democratic Party elders (Gahan's and Warren Nash's generation, not the nouveau SoIndivisible campaigners and such) has been to effectively Norquist public housing: to starve it to a size capable of being drowned in a bathtub. 

Still, apart from these elders themselves, the notion of Democrats attacking public housing always was going to be risky, and too obvious a right-wing stratagem for youthful progressives to stomach. Reams of code language have been required, and the lofting of trial balloons has proceeded apace for the past 18 months, none quite as ballyhooed as "give 'em vouchers instead."

Unfortunately for Team Gahan, a striking amount of evidence from around the country illustrates the failure of vouchers to perform as billed. As the article below attests, no amount of lipstick can disguise the pig when it comes to the assumption that (a) voucher housing exists, and (b) landlords will accept them.

Next?

From a salesmanship point of view in New Albany, these irrefutable facts imply a shift not in core policy, but in how the public housing takeover is to be depicted in coming months, especially if a "blue wave" materializes, and a victorious Liz Watson airlifts ambitious not-so-young local operatives to party time in DC.

Their untested replacements will need talking points, and fast. My guess is this whitewashing (pun intended) will consist of offering the newly revised zoning ordinance as proof of noble intent when it comes to affordable housing in New Albany.

(As an aside, youthful Democrats mobilized in recent years may well be left in the lurch when it comes to opportunities post-Blue Wave; 30-something lifers might depart only to be replaced by the same old and tired Pere Nash cohort. Be wary, my friends.) 

Whether it does or does not result in action is irrelevant; seeing as Team Gahan already has embraced its own house-crafted comprehensive plan as tantamount to the Old Testament, the new zoning ordinance steps seamlessly into the role of "New Testament," to be consulted often though not necessarily enforced.

Are those Williams Plumbing trucks still blocking sight lines at 9th and Spring?

Which is to say, enforcement is our perennial problem, and none of the voucher/zoning reform rhetoric is to be interpreted as altering Gahan's initial, openly stated aim of cutting the number of public housing units in the city by half.

The recent approval of "affordable" housing units in the vicinity of West Street also changes nothing. These were planned by former NAHA director Bob Lane to be used as 1-to-1 replacement units, but now will reflect the comprehensive plan's minimum 8% bar, with the remainder being market rate rentals.

As we will see time and again as the 2019 municipal election draws near, it isn't about the gritty details of Gahan's two terms as mayor. Rather, it's whatever stylish imagery can be fit onto flash cards and hoisted before the eyes of the only minority group that ever really mattered to the ruling elite ... voters, or that rarest of all demographic sightings hereabouts.

Roughly a quarter of those eligible to cast a ballot bothered to do so in the 2015 mayoral race. Coincidentally, the percentage of residents existing below the poverty line in New Albany also hovers around 25%, and it's growing, even as the number of New Albanians who vote forever shrinks.

Those in opposition to the status quo have little choice except immersing themselves in the genuine details to arrive at what it's really costing us financially and culturally to continue applying so much "luxury" lipstick to a city in need of fundamental reform.

In particular, those who've become involved these past two years as anti-Trump resisters must take a very hard look at the local practice of Democratic Party politics. If the Floyd County Democratic Party's leadership is saying one thing and doing another, next year's municipal slates present an opportunity for cleansing of a different variety.

As you're reading this essay at CityLab, ask yourself this simple question: if the party affiliations of the central figures in this public housing debate -- whether Jeff Gahan or Ben Carson -- were not known to you in advance, would you guess them from the policies being advocated?

And, would the inability to so please or displease you?

Keep your eyes on the ball, because local elections in 2019 are a referendum on national issues, locally interpreted.

Why Won’t Ben Carson Confront Discrimination? by Brentin Mock

HUD Secretary Ben Carson announced that he would be launching a “landlord engagement listening tour” later this month, but discrimination by many landlords can already be heard quite loudly.

Speaking at a gathering of public housing authority directors in Washington, D.C. earlier this week, HUD Secretary Ben Carson re-upped his argument that affirmatively furthering fair housing—which in principle means desegregating neighborhoods—actually just means building more housing. Said Carson at the gathering:

While the prior [AFFH] rule focuses on analytics to discover discrimination, I want to take a closer look at the archaic local and state regulatory barriers—such as zoning and land use restrictions—that are preventing the construction of new mixed-income multifamily developments, whether in poor or wealthier neighborhoods.

The prior rule Carson referenced included tools that local housing agencies could use to root out housing segregation. The purpose of those tools was also to find ways to distribute housing subsidies more fairly across a broader swath of neighborhoods instead of concentrating them in impoverished neighborhoods, as HUD has done historically. But as Carson noted, he’s not really all that concerned about discrimination, which is why he’s been nixing those prior rules. Rather, as he explained to the public housing directors, he wants to figure out how he can turn NIMBYs into YIMBYs, and also how to get more landlords to accept housing vouchers from low-income tenants. He announced that he’d be conducting a “landlord engagement listening tour” later this month to help him out with this.

“I’m not making any recommendations at this point, as I’m in a studying mode to get a better handle on the challenges,” said Carson at the gathering. “After all, we first need to understand why landlords say no to voucher holders, before we can persuade them to the point of saying yes.”

Except:

As it happens, HUD knows quite a bit about how much of it is prejudice because it has studied this topic considerably. HUD released three major studies this year that identify the various ways that black and Latino tenants face discrimination in the rental market, and why landlords refuse to accept tenants with vouchers. Carson acknowledged these studies at the public housing directors gathering, but only mentioned how landlords were frustrated with “paperwork,” inspections, and how local housing authorities manage tenant disputes. Meanwhile, the studies from his office reveal far more than that, granularly detailing exactly how landlords discriminate against people who use vouchers and why.

HUD sponsored a report prepared by Johns Hopkins University’s Poverty and Inequality Research Lab in May called “Urban Landlords and the Housing Voucher Program,” for which 127 landlords and property managers were interviewed in the cities of Baltimore, Dallas, and Cleveland. Excerpts from some of these interviews are included in the study and the language used nakedly illustrates prejudice. Instead of using standard forms to screen potential tenants such as credit reports and background checks, most of the landlords interviewed said they use “gut feelings” to decide if they’ll accept a tenant.

In short ...

Taken together, the discrimination that people of color and voucher-holding tenants face is well documented, particularly in Carson’s own wheelhouse. At the public housing directors gathering, Carson mentioned some of the policy recommendations from the “Urban Landlords” study that he thought could help improve voucher acceptance: insurance programs to help landlords pay for damages in rental units, and loans for landlords to renovate properties. And he also, again, said he wants to incentivize building more mixed-income multifamily housing complexes.

The conclusion:

Eradicating exclusionary zoning regulations will help, but it won’t totally resolve the problems of landlords racially profiling potential tenants, the concentration of racial minorities and voucher holders in segregated communities, or the extra “racial premium” African Americans end up paying for the same kind of housing as white tenants. At some point, Carson will have to address the discrimination.

Long read from Strong Towns: "What housing vouchers can and can't do."

Riffing on yesterday evening's post ...

It's déjà vu all over again as the NAHA and New Hope ask the BZA for variances to build housing units in three locations near West Street.

... here's a detailed examination of housing vouchers, upon which Team Gahan and David the Wonder Bureaucrat are pinning their affordable housing hopes, insofar as they have a plan at all. I'll highlight a few sections, but for the full impact, go to Strong Towns -- and while you're there, browse around.

Shouldn't every elected official in Floyd County be reading Strong Towns on a daily basis?

WHAT HOUSING VOUCHERS CAN AND CAN'T DO, by Daniel Herriges (Strong Towns)

The headlines about (Your Place Name Here)'s housing affordability crisis are numbing these days. It doesn't seem to matter where you live: Nationwide, only 21 units affordable to extremely low-income renter households are available per 100 such households, and every county has a shortfall. Last year, eleven million low income households paid more than half their income in rent, a 20% increase since 2007.

snip

There's a common misconception that if developers would just settle for a little less profit, they could build working-class housing without subsidy. This is almost never true. The reality is that, much as lower-income people usually buy used cars, lower-income people usually do not live in newly-constructed homes. This was true in 1920, it was true in 1950, it was true in 1980, and it is true today. The primary source of affordable housing is older housing that has "filtered" down from a higher price point.

The difference today is that in much of America — especially wealthy coastal America — even the middle class can no longer afford a new market-rate home or apartment. Over at Shelterforce, Rick Jacobus extends the car analogy to make this point: the problem isn't that we're building new Lexus housing, it's that we no longer build very much Ford Focus or Toyota Camry housing at all.

The middle classes find ways to make it work. They sacrifice location or amenities or square footage, they double up with roommates, they live with their parents for longer in their twenties, but they make it work.

The poor aren't so lucky.

snip

1. Public housing directly owned and operated by government entities.

(A lot of the stigma that still follows public housing today, for the record, is based on outdated stereotypes, and there's evidence that most of it actually works quite well.)

2. Project-based housing subsidies, which entails paying a developer (often a nonprofit organization) to build housing and rent it out to income-screened tenants at a reduced rate. This is the premise of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program ...

3. Local rent regulation, including inclusionary zoning (requiring developers to include a share of affordable units in their projects) and rent control (capping allowable rents or rent increases). These are ultimately indirect subsidies, paid not out of a governmental budget, but out of the profit margins of land owners and developers and the rents of market-rate tenants ...

4. Housing vouchers — a direct subsidy which follows the tenant/household, rather than the housing unit itself.

Today I'll give an overview of housing voucher programs, their history in the United States, what they do well, and what they don't do well. This is not to say that the other options don't have their place in providing affordable housing, just that they'll have to be a topic for another essay and another day.

snip

Ultimately, (these affordable housing issues) have to do with the contradictory expectation that housing will be both broadly affordable and a good investment vehicle. Daniel Hertz nailed this paradox a couple years ago in The Atlantic:

These two ideas are almost entirely mutually exclusive. The first essentially says, “Use housing policy to keep home prices down”; the second says, “Use housing policy to keep home prices up.”

Until we address this root contradiction, treating housing unaffordability one tenant at a time, or one unit at a time, is always going to be inadequate.

Deaf Gahan says housing vouchers are the panacea. An NPR and PBS investigation bursts the mayor's bunker bubble.

Perhaps Adam Dickey believes that between them, Jeff Gahan, David Duggins and Dan Coffey can solve a nationwide voucher problem right here in Go Away (Poor People) City.

It's just another reason why New Albany's drooling class is unfit for command.

When Housing Assistance Fails, by Tanvi Misra (CityLab)

An NPR and PBS investigation puts two housing assistance programs under the microscope—and finds fraud, discrimination, and wasted taxpayer dollars.

Section 8 vouchers were created in 1974 to help poor residents move to neighborhoods with more jobs, better schools, and less crime. But only one in four households that need rental assistance, including Section 8, actually receives it. It’s not an entitlement as many would think, Urban Institute’s Erika C. Poethig explains—it’s a housing lottery.

But the lucky winners are often relegated to neighborhoods with concentrated poverty, thanks to the program’s design. Even if these vouchers cover the entire rent, landlords in high-opportunity areas will often refuse to take them. And even if they do, people who receive housing assistance face discrimination in their new neighborhoods. As Emily Badger explained in The Washington Post, “Section 8” has become “a racial slur” over time.

In #OurNA, we'll get serious about affordable housing -- after Breakwater is finished, of course.

Today on the DemoDisneyDixie channel, we're screening Pinocchio. In fact, Adam has front row seats, and TIF's buying the popcorn.

In entirely unrelated news, Team Gahan says that from this point forward, the city's going to get super-duper serious about affordable housing!

Any new private housing development that received local government support will be required to reserve a percentage of the units for low-income residents.

You'll notice that Wile E. Gahan's spine didn't stiffen until after Flaherty & Collins was buffed, polished and subsidized to build "luxury" apartments along Spring Street. The Break Wind Lofts at Duggins Flats has been about climate-controlled bidets, not workforce-rates.

Over in Louisville, Gahan's political idol is dealing with a "moving goalposts" situation. How Greg Fischer deals with it, or doesn't, might offer prime lessons for our own Dear Leader -- who seldom if ever listens.

Paying off the politicians to change the rules, by Aaron Yarmuth (LEO)

... It’s a great project for the city.

Now, however, the Georgia-based developer, Flournoy Development, says it can’t afford the project… because its deal with the city requires reduced rental rates on 18 apartments. Just 18 of 270…

The reduced-rate apartment requirement isn’t something new. The city didn’t suddenly surprise the developer with this news. Rather, the company seems to have waited until it had enough leverage to renegotiate (and squeeze every last dollar out of the deal) — or something else is afoot.

To keep the project going, the developer is offering the city $500,000, and in exchange it won’t have to offer 18 apartment units at a lower, “workforce” rate ...

Vouching for #OurNA: This item should make local Democrats feel even better about Gahan's public housing putsch.

More "encouragement" below for New Albany's most vulnerable -- but first, the Green Mouse has learned that the newly stuffed housing board has met ...

... and there'll be a new in-house voucher system to take the place of Section 8.

Meanwhile, Ben Carson's in charge; perhaps Carson and the mayor can do brunch and discuss their many similarities of viewpoint.

Tracking the Shadow of Public Housing Budget Cuts, by Kriston Capps (CityLab)

Anticipating billions in cuts to HUD's budget, public-housing authorities that allocate Section 8 housing vouchers are already starting to hold back.

In his first televised appearance as secretary for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Ben Carson did not address the looming $6.2 billion in cuts to housing assistance for vulnerable American families. Blame it on the friendly format: Armstrong Williams, Carson’s longtime friend and former aide, and comedian Steve Harvey lobbed him softballs.

Housing authorities aren’t banking on the limited assurances that Carson has otherwise offered. For example, he has said that the infrastructure bill on the horizon will make up for imminent budget cuts at HUD. Bracing instead for austerity, some public-housing authorities are making difficult decisions about their future financial plans.

As the Trump administration’s planned spending cuts come into greater relief, those authorities may lean into anxiety. Even before Congress takes up the question of cutting housing aid, belt-tightening by public-housing authorities could make Housing Choice Voucher program (or Section 8) vouchers harder to find.

“We see this regularly with the threat of budget cuts,” says Deborah Thrope, supervising attorney for the National Housing Law Project. “We’re in an interesting situation, because the budget hasn’t been cut yet, so we don’t know what is going to happen on a federal level. But housing authorities, in preparation for potential cuts, will often start cutting down their spending.”

Caesar prepares to Flick his Bic: "Section 8 housing doesn’t impact property values in high-income neighborhoods."

It's never a good idea to give Team Gahan the benefit of the doubt, but accepting that the usual functionaries will be vigorously touting Section 8 vouchers as the magic cure for the rampant homelessness to follow the realization of their cherished drive to demolish public housing (I know, I know -- they call themselves "Democrats"), this study is something they might be able to deploy when resettling economic refugees in Silver Hills.

Except that ranking "Democrat" and future mayoral hopeful Tiberius Severus Octavian Elagabalus Septimius Augustus Claudius Hadrian Caesar-- Protector of Fitting and Proper Scribnerian Values, Deliverer of all Downtown Datedness, Master of the Ex-Mercantile, and Guardian of the Gates -- isn't going to let that happen, is he?

Study: Section 8 housing doesn’t impact property values in high-income neighborhoods, by Caitlin Bowling (Insider Louisville)

Despite common thought, Section 8 housing does not negatively impact property values in well-off neighborhoods, according to a study by Paul Dries, a University of Louisville doctoral graduate.

People draw correlations between Section 8 housing, crime and a decline in property values. However, Dries said, that isn’t true.

Dries analyzed data from 178 census tracts in Louisville and found that property values declined in areas in which a high concentration of Section 8 housing already exists such as Newburg, West Louisville and southwest Louisville, but the introduction of Section 8 housing into higher-income neighborhoods in the East End had no effect, his study found ...

Time to learn facts, Democrats: Myths and misperceptions about public housing ... and lessons from Chicago's reform effort.

It doesn't come as any great surprise that Jeff Gahan would like to replace affordable housing in New Albany with various manifestations of "luxury."

Gahan's Grab: Yes, principled Democratic positions on public housing actually DO exist, and here's one of them. But first, some Kool Aid!

It's no more surprising that City Hall's forthcoming public housing putsch, as abetted by a Democratic Party gone entirely off the rails, is based on myth. I've given precious little "tease" to this article, because if you're genuinely interested in learning the facts, you'll click through and then follow up by expressing your outrage to the elected officials who are tolerating this classic instance of Gahanian and Dickeysian depravity.

Myths and misperceptions surrounding public housing and the people who live in it, by Pete Rodrigue (Greater Greater Washington)

A lot of Americans believe things about federally subsidized housing that simply aren’t true. You’ll sometimes hear things like, “most federal housing assistance just means people living in government-owned high rises,” or “people who get housing assistance don’t work.” Thankfully, we have data to investigate these beliefs. Let’s look at four of the biggest myths.

1. Myth: Most public housing means big projects
2. Myth: Most housing assistance recipients don’t have jobs, and they’re all black
3. Myth: Subsidized housing generally lowers surrounding property values and increases crime
4. Myth: Housing subsidies worsen recipients’ lives

Chicago and New Albany exist on vastly different scales, but certain of the lessons are transferable. The verdict: "We can accomplish only so much with better housing and slightly better circumstances. It was naïve to think that relocation was going to address all the problems families were having."

And Gahan is addressing these problems ... how?

Didn't think so. Those crickets never lie.

Hard Lessons From Chicago’s Public Housing Reform, by Susan Popkin (CityLab)

Two decades ago, the city embarked on an ambitious—and controversial—plan to transform its troubled public housing system, uprooting thousands of low-income residents. Today, researcher Susan Popkin reflects on what worked—and what failed.

 ... It was the era of Clinton-style welfare reform and the beginning of efforts to shrink the federal role; that meant that private developers—both for-profit and nonprofit—would own and manage these new properties. Today, the effect on Chicago’s West and South Sides is evident: The forbidding high-rises are gone. Though the pace of new construction has been frustratingly slow, the area now has seven new safe and attractive communities (with three more in the works), as well as parks, stores, and other signs of economic renewal.

As many critics have noted, the Plan for Transformation meant involuntary displacement for many thousands of African-American residents, a process that was painful and stressful for most of them. Only a portion of the units in the new developments were meant for public-housing families, and relatively few original residents moved back. Most either took vouchers and rented private-market housing or moved to another refurbished public-housing community. Still, when contacted years later, nearly all the relocated CHA residents I studied said they were living in better housing in safer neighborhoods. The fact that no child is growing up in a place as bad as Robert Taylor Homes was when I first walked into it is a real and important victory.

But it is only a partial one. The majority of the families who moved still live in places that are poorer, more racially segregated, and more violent than the rest of the city. Such places will not fundamentally change children’s life trajectories.

"Education. Schools. Children. Vouchers. Which word doesn't fit?"

My pen pal D(NM), a native New Albanian now residing elsewhere, sent this note the other day. Shortly after reading it, I saw St. Daniels's self-serving account of vouchers, and it occurred to me that whenever I hear Mitch Daniels say the words "social justice", I reach for my Irony Sickness Bag.

The governor who famously (facetiously?) referred to a "truce" in the culture wars now spends his days signing legislation dedicated to social engineering on a scale seldom glimpsed since the halcyon days of 20th-century "isms", then sells the souvenir pens on Ebay to finance his White House run.

Like my friend D's reaction, it makes me sick. Waiter: One of those irony bags, please. Extra large if you've got it.

Well Roger, whatareyougoingtodoaboutthismess?

Sorry ‘bout that; words spoken in anger tend to rush out without sufficient pause between. Oops, I’m beginning to sound like Yoda.

How can those idiots face their constituents, how can they face their G-d, when they pull off a stunt like “School Vouchers”? Of course, they are fully aware of the damage they’re going to do to the Indiana Public School system. What can they be thinking? If thinking is what they pretend to do?

The unthinking cruelty of these clowns; it goes to prove time after time that they are amoral to the ‘nth degree. I’m done with Indiana. I’ll never return; however this decision of mine won’t amount to a hill of beans in the long run. But, it will give my anger a focus.

I have to ask, where in Indiana is the one person who’ll stand up and speak out to remind their fellow Hoosiers that this is wrong? This is nothing but a sop to the ugliest of the radical right’s ambitions, and that is to reverse the civil rights movement in this country. To take us back to that imagined time in this country when white was right and those who weren’t were outta sight.

When I was in the sixth grade, attending the State Street Elementary School , the principal was Lillian Emery (of hated memory). She had declared, early on when the subject of integration of New Albany’s schools was discussed, that the only way a black child would walk into State Street School was over her dead body. We all, or at least a lot of us, held our collective breath and hoped that soon a new student would appear and grant our most fervent wishes.

So, one day, during recess I spotted that one black child, alone, away from the other students, crying, afraid, scared to death. I think he was a second grader, one little kid; and at that point the cruelty of the New Albany power merchants was out there for all to see. Unfortunately Miss Emery remained, fully ensconced on her throne. They even named the school after her, for a while; at least until her ugly story became public knowledge.

I tried to befriend and reassure that kid, but he was so miserable and afraid, he was literally inconsolable. I don’t remember if he was at school the next day, I don’t remember seeing him again. The school year ended and I was on to New Albany Junior High, on Spring Street, where integration was a reality. Not that everything was peaches and cream, but it worked, for the most part.

Now, the moral descendants of Lillian Emery are out to reverse the wheels of progress. Indiana’s most welcome to them. You’ll need to keep a weather eye out; I hear that Carrie Nation is reforming the W.C.T.U. for a second go around.

Be very watchful!

HB1003 (voucher bill): Questions for Rep. Ed Clere.

(Courtesy of Vic’s Statehouse Notes #83 – April 25, 2011)

Dear Friends,

Thursday’s historic Senate vote on the voucher bill was not reported in the Indianapolis Star, Indiana’s largest newspaper.

An excellent letter to the editor by Susan Blackwell opposing vouchers was printed in Friday’s paper, but there was no report on the vote. More importantly, the public has not been informed that the first-ever “foot in the door” state tax benefit for home schools has been added to HB 1003, which already contained the monumental change to allow state funding for religious school tuition for the first time since the 1851 Constitution was written.

Apparently, the first step in the abandonment of public education in Indiana is not newsworthy to the editors of the Star.

Well, if you are not being kept informed by the paper, you still know all about HB 1003 if you are reading these notes. Please remember that the deal is not done. Since the voucher bill has not been finalized, I hope you are ready to contact your legislators today with these questions:

Questions for Members of the House of Representatives

1) Will you turn back the Senate’s decision to add tax breaks for home school parents by opposing HB 1003 when it comes back to the House for concurrence?

2) Since the tax deduction provision does not define “home school” or “eligible home school”, won’t the door be open to fraud?

3) After elaborate discussions to define “eligible students” and “eligible schools” in the voucher bill, how in good conscience can undefined “home schools” be added to the bill for their first tax break in Indiana history?

4) Since the tax deductions also apply to expenses for private schools, shouldn’t eligible private schools be defined? Are all private schools eligible, even those unaccredited, or are only private schools that are eligible for the voucher program also to be eligible for the new income tax break?

5) How can $3 million be made available for this new, unvetted income tax deduction for home school and private school expenses when the line item of $5 million in the 2009 budget for professional development has been zeroed out?

6) Why should home school parents get a tax deduction for textbook fees when public school parents don’t?

7) Does the Senate’s action to remove the requirement that to be eligible for vouchers, the school must verify compliance with the Americans for Disabilities Act, fire safety requirements, and health standards under federal law change your vote?

8) Does the Senate’s action to delete the provision that schools eligible for vouchers must adhere to “state teacher evaluation requirements” change your mind about supporting the bill?

Many members of the House signed on to voting for the voucher bill reluctantly in the midst of stiff opposition from public school parents and educators back home. Adding a “first ever, foot-in-the-door” income tax deduction for home schools might give them pause before concurring with this plan, but only if they know you are watching and asking these questions.

HB1003 (voucher bill): Questions for Sen. Ron Grooms.

(Courtesy of Vic’s Statehouse Notes #83 – April 25, 2011)

---

Dear Friends,

Thursday’s historic Senate vote on the voucher bill was not reported in the Indianapolis Star, Indiana’s largest newspaper.

An excellent letter to the editor by Susan Blackwell opposing vouchers was printed in Friday’s paper, but there was no report on the vote. More importantly, the public has not been informed that the first-ever “foot in the door” state tax benefit for home schools has been added to HB 1003, which already contained the monumental change to allow state funding for religious school tuition for the first time since the 1851 Constitution was written.

Apparently, the first step in the abandonment of public education in Indiana is not newsworthy to the editors of the Star.

Well, if you are not being kept informed by the paper, you still know all about HB 1003 if you are reading these notes. Please remember that the deal is not done. Since the voucher bill has not been finalized, I hope you are ready to contact your legislators today with these questions:

Questions for Members of the Senate -- Ron Grooms

If the House leaders decide to change the Senate version, the bill must go to a conference committee in the few days remaining in the session. Then the questions come back to the four Senators that made the difference in the close 28-22 vote last Thursday:

1) If the House removes Sen. Steele’s amendment requiring private schools to adhere to several laws regarding citizenship and patriotism and to submit to annual visits by the IDOE, will you change your support of the bill?

2) If the House removes Sen. Miller’s amendment to give a $3 million tax break to home school and private school parents, will you change your support of the bill?

House and Senate leaders have only a few days to settle these questions.

I urge you to keep asking your questions in support of public education in the waning days of this session. Don’t leave these final maneuvers to the “insiders” acting in vacuum. Many things could still change on the final version of the voucher bill. Let your voice be heard with e-mails, phone calls, and letters to the editor as the final version of the most important education bill of our generation is finalized.

Gutting of public education proceeds apace; Indiana's conservative architects of douchbaggery now rendering us a world laughingstock.

Thanks for the forward. The vote comes today. Contact Ron Grooms and register your voice for posterity, even if his consumption of Kool-Aid probably precludes any possibility of independent thought.
---

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #80 – April 19, 2011, 10:30pm

Dear Friends,

Unbelievably, an amendment was added to the voucher bill today which would give an income tax deduction to home school parents.

Yes, you read this correctly.

Home school parents, a group that had never even been discussed related to HB 1003 since the bill was introduced in January, would get the first tax break for home school expenses in Indiana history. Sen. Miller, the author of the amendment, said the tax break would have a fiscal cost to the state of $3 million.

This was already an historic bill in breaking the 160 year vision set by the 1851 Constitution that public money should go to public school students and not to religious or private schools. Now, add another “first”: The first state funding for home school parents. This gives you one more reason to contact your Senator or other Senators tonight or first thing in the morning to oppose the bill.

After nearly four months of debate, the historic vote on vouchers will come tomorrow, Wednesday, April 20th. According to their website, the Senate will convene at 1:30pm. Assure Senators that you contact that their votes will be remembered forever, either way. This is not just another vote. This is the “2011 Voucher Battle” vote. This one will determine the future direction of public education in Indiana.

Will the direction be to privatize schools or to support public education?

Details of the Voucher Bill Amendments

Three amendments were added to HB 1003 today on second reading. Let me begin with the details of the income tax deduction cited above:

1) Amendment 17, offered by Sen. Miller, would give a $1000 deduction “against the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income” multiplied by the number of dependents “for whom the taxpayer made educational expenditures in the taxable year.” Expenditures are defined as “tuition, fees, computer software, textbooks, workbooks, curricula, school supplies (other than personal computers), and other written materials used primarily for academic instruction or for academic tutoring, or both.” The deduction is for unreimbursed expenses “in a private elementary or high school education program” which is defined as “(A) home schooling; or (B) attendance at a private school.”

Do public school parents get to take a deduction for public school textbooks or fees? No.

This is a small savings for home school and private school parents, but it is a “foot in the door” to bigger deductions after the precedent is set. If $1000 is deducted from income, the savings per child is $34 dollars for the parent, based on the state income tax of 3.4%.

The fiscal cost cited by Sen. Miller for this new benefit is $3 million. It seems strange that the Senate could endorse $3 million for this new benefit for home school parents and private school parents in this tight budget. Compared to the 2009 school budget, a $1 million cut has been proposed in the much needed fund for ESL students and $5 million of state funding for professional development was zeroed out.

Members of the public must stay alert to items added with little discussion at the end of a session.

2) Amendment 18, offered by Sen. Steele, passed on a 48-0 vote. It would require private and parochial schools eligible for vouchers to follow mandates that apply now to public schools regarding citizenship instruction, patriotic practices, and detailed curriculum requirements taking three full pages to enumerate. Included in the requirements is a flag displayed in every classroom and teaching music, art, health education and “the effects of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, and other substances.” It says “An eligible school, charter school, or public school shall not teach the violent overthrow of the government of the United States.”

Then at the end, it reads “The department shall, at a minimum, annually visit each eligible school and charter school to verify that the eligible school or charter school complies with the provisions of IC 20-51-4, the Constitutions of the state of Indiana and the United States.”

At first reading, this supervisory function of IDOE, approved unanimously today by the Senate would seem to contradict another part of the bill inserted by Sen. Schneider in a committee amendment. Sen. Schneider’s language reads as if the state may have no supervisory authority over private schools that accept vouchers:

“A nonpublic eligible school is not an agent of the state or federal government, and therefore: (1) the department or any other state agency may not in any way regulate the educational program of a nonpublic eligible school that accepts a choice scholarship under this chapter, including the regulation of curriculum content, religious instruction or activities, classroom teaching, teacher and staff hiring requirements, and other activities carried out by the eligible school; (2) the creation of the choice scholarship program does not expand the regulatory authority of the state, the state’s officers, or a school corporation to impose additional regulation of nonpublic schools beyond those necessary to enforce the requirements of the choice scholarship program in place on July 1, 2011; and (3) a nonpublic eligible school shall be given the freedom to provide for the educational needs of the students without governmental control.”

Juxtaposing this language with Sen. Steele’s amendment regarding citizenship mandates requires an amazing level of mental gymnastics. Both of these sections are in the same bill. It’s enough for someone to say, “Enough! Send this bill to a summer study committee for further review!”

3) The third amendment adopted today, offered by Sen. Yoder, removed two restrictions on Scholarship Granting Organizations, making it easier for them to operate.

That is what happened today. I hope you will get involved in what happens tomorrow. Contact your Senator one more time tonight or early on Wednesday.

Is this the generation of leaders that will privatize Indiana’s public education system?

Will Indiana become the nation’s biggest state for private school vouchers?

We’ll find out tomorrow. It could be a very close vote. This is your last chance to let your Senator and other Senators know how you feel about vouchers.

HB 1003: "It would shatter the separation of state funding and religious schools established by our Constitution 160 years ago."

While I've no clue as to Senator Brent Steele's overall ideological grounding, other than the generally justifiable presumption that as an Indiana Republican, his politics probably fall somewhere in the territory of a Franco or Peron, but I am struck by the tone of his thoughts in this letter, as passed along to me with last week's edition of Vic's Statehouse Notes.

St. Daniels is rushing toward an ideologue's abyss with the drooling, worshipful assistance of eager young operatives like our own state representative (Ed as smart, ambitious and conniving) and far older political has-beens like our state senator (Ron, who apparently never read a book about any human topic not directly connected to the practice and profit of pharmacy).

It looks gloomy now, but history and pendulums have a way of swinging back. It will be a laborious process, but in future years, we'll be able to gather the pieces of a fair, civil society currently being strewn around the Romper Room like plastic toys by petulant, privileged and primarily white male children, place them back into the framework of reason, and begin anew toward achieving a recognition of human life as something more than the quantification of dollars, and beyond the GOP's only genuine raison d'etre: Keeping the majority of the country's wealth in the hands of a minority of the country's inhabitants.

In the context of educational reform, St. Daniels' roughshod disregard for the principes of church-state separation is contemptible, if trendy among those who are not at all unwashed and illiterate, but sufficiently well versed to know better, and to leverage their cynicism in pursuit of political power. Whatever the fate of legislation discussed below, I nonetheless feel vindicated in my life's work of opposing the imposition of top-down Christian theocracy in America, where Godly fascism runs counter to the founders' intent -- whether or not modern day Republicans care, or are able, to grasp it.
---

Vic’s Statehouse Notes #78 – April 15, 2011

Dear Friends,

The Senate Education Committee passed the voucher bill (HB 1003) on a party line vote on April 13th. The Charter Bill (HB 1002) passed the Senate on a 29-20 vote on Tuesday. April 12th. Here are the details:

Senate Education Committee

The stage is now set for Senate floor action and the historic vote on the voucher bill. This one is for history. Following the lead of Caleb Mills and the I851 Constitution, Indiana has not given public money for private school tuition vouchers in the 160 years since the Constitution was written. The 50 members of the Indiana Senate will decide this historic issue early next week.

The Senate Education Committee amended the bill as follows:

1) Amendment #19, which passed 7-3 on a party line vote, removed the requirement that to be eligible for vouchers, the school must verify compliance with the Americans for Disabilities Act, fire safety requirements, and health standards under federal law. It also removed the requirement that eligible private schools must adhere to “state teacher evaluation requirements”, such as those in Senate Bill 1.

2) Amendment #21, which passed on a unanimous 10-0 vote, inserted “An eligible school may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin.” A similar amendment (#22) which added language implying religion could be added to this list was not considered by the committee.

3) Amendment #23, which passed 8-2, added a section “to honor the autonomy of nonpublic schools that choose to become eligible schools under this chapter.” It would be worth your time to read the rest of the amendment verbatim to fully grasp what your tax dollars would be supporting:

“A nonpublic eligible school is not an agent of the state or federal government, and therefore: (1) the department or any other state agency may not in any way regulate the educational program of a nonpublic eligible school that accepts a choice scholarship under this chapter, including the regulation of curriculum content, religious instruction or activities, classroom teaching, teacher and staff hiring requirements, and other activities carried out by the eligible school; (2) the creation of the choice scholarship program does not expand the regulatory authority of the state, the state’s officers, or a school corporation to impose additional regulation of nonpublic schools beyond those necessary to enforce the requirements of the choice scholarship program in place on July 1, 2011; and (3) a nonpublic eligible school shall be given the freedom to provide for the educational needs of the students without governmental control.”

Sen. Schneider brought this amendment, saying the language came from a Texas law to say that the “state can’t change the curriculum away from a faith-based approach.” Sen. Skinner asked if he thought religious schools should be held accountable in terms of the percentage of teachers with teaching licenses. Sen. Schneider said the amendment only speaks to private school authority.

[Editorial note: This amendment is clearly a declaration of independence for nonpublic schools. They are trying to avoid the strings that are inevitably attached to money that supports the schools. It leaves the question for Senators: Should private and parochial schools receiving public money have this kind of independence?]

4) Amendment #24, which passed 9-1, changed the tax credit portion of the bill in a significant way. Sen. Kenley brought the amendment, saying it would keep the bill from needing to be recommitted to Senate Appropriations to vote on the “enormous fiscal” related to the tax credits. He described the amendment as keeping the current (2009) tax credit “as is” but raising the state dollars available for tax credits from $2.5 million to $5 million.

With that brief explanation from Sen. Kenley, the vote was taken. Sen. Yoder described this as “a tough vote” for him after he worked with Sen. Kenley on the amendment, and then he voted yes.

After the meeting, proponents of the bill were clearly not pleased with the trim given to the tax credit side of the bill.

Equally interesting is what the amendment deleted that was not discussed in the meeting. A section was deleted giving a supplemental distribution to school corporations and charter schools from the state savings due to transferring students from public schools to cheaper private school using vouchers. It is not clear why this section was taken out or why.

When all the amendments were completed, the roll was called: 7 Republicans in favor and 3 Democrats opposed. The bill will now go to the floor for second reading amendments and a vote early next week.

Now is the time to contact Senators to vote NO on the voucher bill. Much has been said, but to me, these are the key points of opposition:

It would shatter the separation of state funding and religious schools established by our Constitution 160 years ago.

It would transfer $58.5 million from public school students to private school students over the next two years.

There is no cap on private school vouchers after two years. Private school entrepreneurs will start building capacity with state support while public schools close.

The income eligibility rules leave 45% of all students eligible for a full voucher ($40,000 for a family of four) and approximately 20% more eligible for a partial voucher ($61,000 for a family of four), making roughly 650,000 Hoosier students (two-thirds) eligible for public tax money for their private school tuition.

Contact Senators on these and other points. The vote could come as early as Monday afternoon (April 18th). I have attached for your reference the letter of opposition sent to all legislators by Sen. Steele (R-Bedford).

Senate Action on the Charter School Expansion Bill – HB 1002

The final Senate vote on HB 1002 came Tuesday, April 12, passing by a margin of 29-20. Surprisingly, seven Republican senators opposed one of the Governor’s priority bills. Joining all 13 Democrats in oppositions were: Sen. Becker, Sen. Head, Sen. Landske, Sen. Paul, Sen. Steele, Sen. Tomes and Sen. Waterman.

These and all other senators should be approached about opposing the voucher bill as well.

The Senate made several significant changes in the charter bill compared to the House version. Whether the House members will accept the Senate changes or will ask for a conference committee to try to restore some of the House provisions remains to be seen.

I and others in the Indiana Coalition for Public Education had tried to remove private colleges as charter school authorizers, arguing that private entities not subject to the open door law and transparency laws like private colleges should not be given powers to commit public tax money to create public charter schools. Our opposing arguments failed. Thirty private colleges are listed by name in the bill as potential authorizers. Ironically, the 30th and final private college listed is Wabash College, founded in 1834 by none other than Caleb Mills, who had no problem with sectarian colleges but convinced his generation and many to follow, until our generation, that common school education should be non-partisan and non-sectarian.
Good luck in contacting Senators to oppose vouchers in the historic vote coming as early as Monday.

Join the Indiana Coalition for Public Education

Again I urge you to join us or ask your public school friends to join us using the form below. We need every public school advocate in our membership. Your $20, $50, $100, or $250 or other donation is vitally important to continue this legislative battle! Thanks!

Best wishes,

Vic Smith