[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SAFE & DECENT? EXAMINING THE
CURRENT STATE OF RESIDENTS'
HEALTH AND SAFETY IN HUD HOUSING
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
AND INSURANCE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 20, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services
Serial No. 116-68
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
42-476 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York PATRICK McHENRY, North Carolina,
NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York Ranking Member
BRAD SHERMAN, California ANN WAGNER, Missouri
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York PETER T. KING, New York
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia BILL POSEY, Florida
AL GREEN, Texas BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado STEVE STIVERS, Ohio
JIM A. HIMES, Connecticut ANDY BARR, Kentucky
BILL FOSTER, Illinois SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado
JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
DENNY HECK, Washington FRENCH HILL, Arkansas
JUAN VARGAS, California TOM EMMER, Minnesota
JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
AL LAWSON, Florida ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia
MICHAEL SAN NICOLAS, Guam WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan TED BUDD, North Carolina
KATIE PORTER, California DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee
CINDY AXNE, Iowa TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts JOHN ROSE, Tennessee
BEN McADAMS, Utah BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York LANCE GOODEN, Texas
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia DENVER RIGGLEMAN, Virginia
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina
TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
JESUS ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
Charla Ouertatani, Staff Director
Subcommittee on Housing, Community
Development, and Insurance
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri, Chairman
NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York STEVE STIVERS, Ohio, Ranking
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri Member
BRAD SHERMAN, California BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan
AL GREEN, Texas SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee
DENNY HECK, Washington ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
JUAN VARGAS, California JOHN ROSE, Tennessee
AL LAWSON, Florida BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin
RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan LANCE GOODEN, Texas, Vice Ranking
CINDY AXNE, Iowa Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
November 20, 2019............................................ 1
Appendix:
November 20, 2019............................................ 35
WITNESSES
Wednesday, November 20, 2019
Cabrera, Orlando, Partner, Arnall Golden Gregory LLP............. 12
Collins, Geraldine, President, National Alliance of HUD Tenants
(NAHT)......................................................... 9
Rivers, Shalonda, President, Cordoba Courts Tenants Association,
and Board of Directors, National Low Income Housing Coalition.. 11
Rollins, Susan, Executive Director, Housing Authority of St.
Louis County................................................... 4
Salazar, Margaret, Executive Director, Oregon Housing and
Community Services Department, and Secretary/Treasurer,
National Council of State Housing Agencies..................... 6
Thrope, Deborah, Deputy Director, the National Housing Law
Project........................................................ 7
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Cabrera, Orlando............................................. 36
Collins, Geraldine........................................... 42
Rivers, Shalonda............................................. 58
Rollins, Susan............................................... 77
Salazar, Margaret............................................ 83
Thrope, Deborah.............................................. 90
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy:
Written statement of GAO..................................... 99
Written statement of Health Justice Advocacy Clinic, Columbia
Law School................................................. 118
Additional information regarding Ms. Rivers' issues at
Cordoba Courts Apartments.................................. 131
Tlaib, Hon. Rashida:
``Under Ben Carson, more families live in HUD housing that
fails health and safety inspections''...................... 150
SAFE & DECENT? EXAMINING THE
CURRENT STATE OF RESIDENTS'
HEALTH AND SAFETY IN HUD HOUSING
----------
Wednesday, November 20, 2019
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Housing,
Community Development,
and Insurance,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in
room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Clay, Velazquez, Cleaver,
Beatty, Green, Vargas, Lawson, Tlaib, Axne; Stivers,
Luetkemeyer, Huizenga, Tipton, Zeldin, Kustoff, Gonzalez of
Ohio, Rose, Steil, and Gooden.
Ex officio present: Representative Waters.
Also present: Representative Pressley.
Chairman Clay. The Subcommittee on Housing, Community
Development, and Insurance will come to order. Without
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the
subcommittee at any time. Also, without objection, members of
the full Financial Services Committee who are not members of
this subcommittee are authorized to participate in today's
hearing.
Today's hearing is entitled, ``Safe & Decent? Examining the
Current State of Residents' Health and Safety in HUD Housing.''
I now recognize myself for 4 minutes to give an opening
statement.
For decades, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) has ensured that millions of Americans have a
safe, decent, and affordable place to call home. However,
today, many residents face ongoing issues with the physical
conditions of their homes due to chronic underfunding,
insufficient HUD oversight and enforcement, and lack of
compliance with HUD requirements by some landlords
participating in HUD programs.
While the majority of public and assisted housing is safe
for its residents, increasingly, these properties are aging and
require capital investments and improvements to ensure that
residents live in safe environments. Today's hearing will
examine what HUD has done, review some of the current problems,
and most importantly, look at ways we can come together to help
HUD better serve communities, like the one that I represent,
Wellston, Missouri, in St. Louis County; or Cordoba Courts in
Opa-Locka, Florida; and the over 100 public housing
developments in New York City.
I was encouraged to read the testimony of St. Louis' own
Susan Rollins, who spoke about the importance of housing on
health outcomes from the perspective of someone working in the
trenches every day to provide low-income families with safe and
decent housing.
However, Ms. Rollins' job gets harder by the year as
Congress continues to underfund the public housing program. As
a result, more families are now being forced to live in
conditions that no one should have to face. In fact, last year,
funding for public housing repairs had fallen 35 percent since
the year 2000, and more than 10,000 public housing homes are
lost each year due to disrepair. Increasingly, public housing
authorities are being pushed by HUD to get rid of their public
housing stock altogether, leaving some communities without a
critical resource to address their most pressing housing needs.
I am looking forward to hearing more from Ms. Rollins and
the rest of the panel as far as your efforts to ensure that
families in Wellston and throughout my district are taken care
of as a county, and how HUD will determine what to do with
public housing properties that require almost $14.5 million in
repairs.
I also look forward to hearing testimony from our
witnesses, who include not only policy experts and government
officials, but also HUD tenants, who have seen and
unfortunately had to live in deplorable living conditions. And
I am hopeful that we will learn from this conversation the ways
in which we can ensure that tenants receiving assistance from
HUD do not have to live in homes that harm their health and
make them sick.
I now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
Stivers, for his opening statement.
Mr. Stivers. Thank you, Chairman Clay. I want to thank you
for scheduling this hearing today. I think it is a really
important issue that needs examination. Today's hearing will
focus on the quality of HUD's housing stock, ranging from
properties operated by our public housing authorities, to units
rented through portable housing choice vouchers.
Ensuring Americans occupy homes that are decent, safe,
sanitary, and in good repair is not only a bipartisan goal
shared by members of this committee and the entire Congress, it
is the law, and it has been the law for decades.
This hearing today, I think, is important to demonstrate
the serious shortcomings in the quality of HUD housing, often
accompanied by failures of management and always resulting in
worse outcomes for residents' health, education, and job
prospects. In response, I expect some of my colleagues may
focus their attention on the unmet capital improvements that
are out there, and I think that is important.
I am the co-Chair of the Public Housing Caucus, and I am
not blind to the capital backlog, and I acknowledge that it
absolutely deserves examination, but it is probably an
oversimplification to argue that it is the only issue here. I
think there are a lot of issues. We need to look at the bigger
picture.
For example, in communities across this country, the supply
of housing and rental units is not keeping up with demand. In
Franklin County, which I represent in Ohio, that shortage is
50,000 units. As a result, many families are spending more of
their income on housing, and many relying on housing vouchers
may be priced entirely out by this competition or forced to
live in the kinds of poorly-maintained properties that we are
going to discuss today, and that is wrong.
We know that some potential solutions exist, and I want to
listen to any solutions that you may have. But increasing the
overall supply and enhancing the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC) is an important option that we absolutely need to look
at.
Encouraging inclusive zoning and building codes is also
important.
I think we need to look at what we should not do, and that
is things like harmful rent control policies that could
actually cause more harm than good.
I think we also need to give our public housing authorities
greater flexibility to meet the unique needs of their
communities and tenants and encourage creative solutions to the
problems they face in their local communities.
Our witnesses today will make it clear that the physical
characteristics of the housing stock they live in matters. But
we should be mindful that federally-assisted housing programs
should be about more than just putting a roof over somebody's
head. It should be about improving outcomes for the residents.
That is what I think we need to continue to examine. So, I look
forward to hearing from these witnesses.
We want to look for solutions. We are for bipartisan
solutions. We share the same goal, Mr. Chairman, and I really
appreciate you holding this hearing because HUD is an important
tool of our Federal Government. I think we need to make sure
that HUD is using its resources to help individuals not just
get a roof over their head, but climb out of poverty and go on
to live their own successful life. And that's what I think we
need to work together on, in addition to helping, again, the
unmet capital need.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Clay. I thank the ranking member for his
thoughtful opening remarks, and I look forward to working with
this entire subcommittee to come up with solutions on how we
provide decent, safe, affordable housing to all Americans who
are in public housing.
Mr. Stivers. Thanks.
Chairman Clay. Thank you.
Today, we welcome the testimony of Deborah Thrope, deputy
director, National Housing Law Project; Geraldine Collins,
board president, National Alliance of HUD Tenants; Shalonda
Rivers, president and resident, 22nd Avenue Apartment Tenants
Association; Orlando Cabrera, partner, Arnall Golden Gregory;
Susan Rollins, executive director, Housing Authority of St.
Louis County; and Margaret Salazar, executive director, Oregon
Housing and Community Services Department.
Witnesses are reminded that your oral testimony will be
limited to 5 minutes. And without objection, your written
statements will be made a part of the record.
Ms. Rollins, you are recognized for 5 minutes to give your
oral presentation.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN ROLLINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HOUSING
AUTHORITY OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY
Ms. Rollins. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member Stivers,
Chairwoman Waters, and Ranking Member McHenry, thank you for
this opportunity.
The cost of being poor in America is taxing. Often, low-
income individuals are shuffled into unsafe neighborhoods with
high crime rates, with dilapidated and vacant buildings, and
neighborhoods that may be havens for drugs, violence, and
crimes. Schools in these neighborhoods struggle with
overcrowding, behavioral issues, and accreditation. Many people
who live in these neighborhoods suffer from high rates of
diabetes, high blood pressure, and other life-threatening
diseases. It costs a lot to be poor in America.
In the past, public housing has been considered a safety
net to help people who are at risk of becoming homeless. Public
housing was originally developed in 1937 to house low-income
families. But during the 1980s and 1990s, public housing
development began to decline, and has since ceased.
The decrease in capital funding has led to unaffordability
and systemic disrepair. In turn, many housing authorities have
begun to demolish and dispose of their public housing stock.
Unfortunately, the Housing Authority of St. Louis County
(HASLC) is no stranger to this.
Housing authorities apply for demolition disposition
applications and the units are demolished because they are
inadequate and obsolete. Tenants receive a tenant protection
voucher, and many are happy to leave. They move to different
neighborhoods, and put their children in better school
districts.
Lately, the Wellston Public Housing Authority has garnered
much attention. It has been recommended that the housing stock
be demolished and residents be given tenant protection
vouchers. Wellston is one of 92 municipalities in St. Louis
County. It has 201 units, representing approximately 500
individuals, which would require almost $14.5 million to
repair. Most of the residents in these units are negatively
impacted by the physical conditions and the surrounding
environment.
During a 2016 report, a former resident discussed her
living conditions with researchers, and she cited holes in the
walls from rodents and severe pest infestation. Her children
subsequently acquired asthma and breathing problems, and were
restricted from playing outside due to the constant gunfire and
violence.
Like many housing authorities, Wellston is situated in a
food desert. In 2016, Washington University researchers found
that high-poverty areas are more likely to have fast food
restaurants, convenience stores, and liquor stores, but few
supermarkets and banks.
Transportation is another issue. Approximately 20 miles
from downtown St. Louis, there was a public housing development
called Valley Park. Valley Park had become an oasis because of
highways that were built around it. An 18-year-old resident
walked down the median of a four-lane highway to her Burger
King job because there were no bus stops near her, and the
express buses did not run at the same time that she needed
them. She was terrified of the large trucks that went by her on
the highway, but she was determined to do what was best for her
family and for herself.
Unfortunately, local housing authorities were not brought
to the table to discuss transportation, to discuss the lack of
bus stops, or to discuss anything that had to do with getting
people from one place to another, so we leave out an entire
portion of our community when we are talking about how
transportation should be run.
Inadequate housing conditions are also found in the Housing
Choice Voucher Program. In 2018, TEH, a company, purchased
approximately 2,400 units in the St. Louis area and received
over $1 million in subsidy payments. In late 2018, the
Authority inspections noticed a decrease in maintenance. In
early 2019, the Authority terminated its landlord agreement for
any new vouchers. With a grant from the county, all TEH voucher
holders were relocated at no cost to them.
Since 2017, HASLC and the St. Louis City Housing Authority
have collaborated to offer a mobility program to housing choice
voucher tenants. The goal of the program is to help de-
concentrate poverty and provide tenants with access to better
neighborhoods. It has also shown that the mobility program has
a positive effect on health, as well.
So, what do we need? Obviously, more money would be
extremely helpful. But as I think Ranking Member Stivers
mentioned, we have to be more creative, as well.
There need to be dedicated community liaisons, joining
housing authorities to various governmental departments for a
holistic approach to problem solving.
HUD needs to be given more autonomy to force multi-
jurisdiction vouchers.
We need to continue to have demonstration programs, like
the Uniform Physical Conditions Standards for vouchers that is
looking at standardized HQS inspections at a higher level than
what is currently in place. In this area, HUD should have
autonomy over what might pass as acceptable by local
governments.
And finally, HUD offices must be staffed with personnel who
are proactive and willing to know the faces of the people that
we serve and to work with us hand in hand to make sure that we
do the best job that we can.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rollins can be found on page
77 of the appendix.]
Chairman Clay. Thank you, Ms. Rollins, for your testimony.
Ms. Salazar, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARGARET SALAZAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OREGON
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT, AND SECRETARY/
TREASURER, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF STATE HOUSING AGENCIES
Ms. Salazar. Good afternoon. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member
Stivers, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify on behalf of Oregon Housing and
Community Services (OHCS) and the National Council of State
Housing Agencies (NCSHA) on our shared priority to ensure that
federally-assisted housing is safe, decent, and affordable for
the tenants who rely on it.
My name is Margaret Salazar, and I am the executive
director of Oregon Housing and Community Services. That is
Oregon's State housing finance agency. I also have the
privilege of serving as the secretary/treasurer of NCSHA, a
non-profit, non-partisan organization created by the nation's
State housing finance agencies (HFAs) to coordinate and
leverage our Federal advocacy efforts for affordable housing.
State HFAs, such as OHCS, are mission-based, publically-
accountable entities created under State law to promote and
advance affordable housing in our States and communities. HFAs
have our fingers on the pulse of the properties in our multi-
family portfolios, including those with HUD financing, through
the stewardship compliance monitoring and asset management
functions that we perform.
Thirty-three HFAs, including OHCS, are also Section 8
performance-based contract administrators, known as PBCAs, for
HUD's Project-Based Rental Assistance portfolio, known as PBRA.
We provide direct oversight and monitoring of the regulatory
compliance and physical condition of Project-Based Section 8
properties.
As of October 2019, PBCAs administered more than 88 percent
of all those HUD PBRA contracts. HUD and Congress have time and
again recognized that PBCAs are key to HUD's efforts to
effectively and efficiently oversee and monitor HUD-assisted
properties by reducing improper payments, protecting tenants,
and ensuring that properties are well-maintained.
At the outset, it is important to state that most PBRA
properties are in good physical condition and provide tenants
with safe, healthy, and affordable homes. Less than 5 percent
of the more than 31,000 PBRA properties are ranked as high-risk
or troubled. But notwithstanding that, PBCAs are an important
touch point for tenants, responding to their concerns in a
timely manner, and acting as an early warning system for HUD
monitoring and enforcement.
PBCAs also take proactive approaches to reduce
noncompliance with program rules and to leverage our affordable
housing resources that we put out as State agencies to improve
and preserve the properties in our portfolios.
Despite these successes, PBCAs and our portfolios have been
impacted by years of program uncertainty as a result of bid
protests, funding constraints, inconsistent Federal oversight,
and HUD's long and complicated process for developing a
procurement framework for PBCAs.
For example, since 2011, HUD prohibited PBCAs in 42 States
from conducting annual management and occupancy reviews (MORs),
which are a critical tool for property oversight, while bid
protests took place. HUD finally reinstated MORs in 2016. Since
then, however, HUD budgetary constraints have limited PBCA
reviews to only 43 percent of the potential reviews each year.
The PBCA program now faces a critical juncture as HUD
prepares to release a new procurement solicitation that will
determine what entities are eligible to serve as PBCAs, where
they can serve, and the scope of their work.
We hope that HUD is considering the constructive feedback
that it received after its first attempt at procurement to
avoid repeating the shortcomings of that attempt. The
previously proposed plan failed to comply with statutory
requirements that HUD contracts with public housing agencies
for this important work.
HUD also sought to split the work done by PBCAs between
regional and national contractors, moving away from a
successful, comprehensive State-based approach. That plan would
have added undue risk to the Federal Government, negatively
impacted the health and safety of the 1.2 million tenants who
today rely on PBRA assistance, and endangered preservation
efforts throughout the country.
We urge Congress to protect and improve the PBRA portfolio
for those tenants and for future generations by ensuring that
HUD's new solicitation for PBCA contracts does not make the
same mistakes. This is why we urge the subcommittee to support
the discussion draft's clarification that HUD must contract
with public housing agencies for this work, and contract with
partners that have experience addressing tenant concerns and
preserving affordable housing.
We want to acknowledge that there are some differences in
opinion in the discussion draft and how it approaches this
concern. We believe that there is considerable common ground
here, and there is consensus available to emphasize the
importance of having mission-driven organizations do this PBCA
work across the country.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Salazar can be found on page
83 of the appendix:]
Chairman Clay. Thank you, Ms. Salazar.
I now recognize Ms. Thrope for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DEBORAH THROPE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THE NATIONAL
HOUSING LAW PROJECT
Ms. Thrope. Good afternoon, Chairman Clay, Ranking Member
Stivers, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
current state of residents' health and safety in federally-
assisted housing. I am here on behalf of the National Housing
Law Project, a non-profit organization that provides legal and
technical assistance to housing advocates, tenant leaders, and
public officials nationwide on the housing issues confronting
poor Americans.
Our nation faces an affordable housing crisis. Over 11
million families pay upwards of 50 percent of their income on
rent. HUD housing programs provide an essential source of
housing for severely cost-burdened families. In fact, in many
communities, HUD housing is the only source of affordable
housing for seniors, people with disabilities, and families
with children. HUD and Congress must do more to protect the
health and safety of these residents.
This afternoon, I will briefly discuss the current state of
HUD housing and how we got here, and then I will highlight five
key recommendations for Congress to improve the quality of life
for HUD residents.
First, to be clear, as Ms. Salazar stated in her testimony,
a vast majority of HUD-assisted housing is, in fact, in good
condition. According to HUD, 97 percent of HUD multi-family
properties, and 92 percent of public housing properties, have
physical inspection scores of 60 or higher, which is a passing
score.
However, inspection scores do not tell the whole story. The
fact is that many HUD tenants are still exposed to mold, lead-
based paint, poor air quality, and other health and safety
hazards. One reason for this is that HUD's physical inspection
protocol, REAC, does not accurately reflect property
conditions. REAC inspection standards are dated and have not
been modernized to test for common environmental toxins.
While we are optimistic that HUD is advising REAC in its
new NSPIRE demonstration, HUD has given us no reason to believe
it will address some of our key concerns, notably that
residents have been and continue to be denied a role in the
inspections process. These concerns were highlighted yesterday
in a letter from Chairwoman Waters to HUD Secretary Ben Carson.
Another reason we see substandard conditions in HUD housing
is because, even when HUD does identify deficiency, it rarely
holds housing authorities or Project-Based owners responsible.
In most cases, HUD has the tools to enforce physical
conditions, but often fails to use them.
Finally, in the case of public housing, decades of
underfunding by Congress has led to a huge capital need, and a
maintenance repair backlog close to $50 billion and growing.
Rather than managing and rehabilitating its properties, HUD has
often failed to address deficiencies and instead focused on
demolition. The loss of HUD properties is contributing to our
nation's affordable housing crisis.
I will now offer five key strategies to address the health
and safety of HUD residents.
First, Congress must increase funding for the public
housing program to address maintenance and repair needs of all
existing units. This will help slow the estimated loss of
10,000 public housing units we see each year. While the Rental
Assistance Demonstration, or RAD, has provided a path to
preserve and rehabilitate a large portion of the public housing
stock, RAD is not a viable solution for many housing
authorities, especially smaller ones that cannot access the
private financing available to meet RAD's bottom line. Bold
proposals like Chairwoman Waters' Housing is Infrastructure Act
will appropriate sufficient funds to support the development
and preservation of public housing.
Second, Congress must strengthen HUD's oversight of failing
properties. HUD's obligation to create remediation plans and
use penalties to bring properties into compliance has weakened
with time. Wellston, Missouri, provides an excellent example of
how stronger HUD oversight could have preserved HUD housing and
protected residents from demoralizing living conditions.
I want to highlight one fact that I do not think Ms.
Rollins mentioned in her testimony, which is that the Wellston
Housing Authority has been in HUD receivership for the past 20
years. During its receivership, HUD completely failed to take
steps to rehabilitate the properties. Instead, last year HUD
announced the demolition of 200 public housing units, and it
does not have to be this way.
The third strategy is to increase your oversight of HUD. We
recommend requiring HUD to submit quarterly reports on detailed
property-level information with respect to physical conditions.
HUD's current reporting obligations are inadequate to assess
the health and safety issues at individual properties.
The fourth strategy is to increase resident engagement in
the physical inspections process. You will hear from Shalonda
Rivers in a couple of minutes about how it took the residents
themselves to direct HUD's attention to toxic living conditions
in her home despite passing REAC scores.
Last, there are several bills up for discussion today that
incorporate these strategies. We strongly urge the committee to
support H.R. 3745, the HUD Inspection Oversight Act of 2019,
and the tenant empowerment legislative proposal that was
brought here by the National Alliance of HUD Tenants.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Thrope can be found on page
90 of the appendix.]
Chairman Clay. Thank you so much, Ms. Thrope.
Ms. Collins, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GERALDINE COLLINS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF
HUD TENANTS (NAHT)
Ms. Collins. Hello, and thank you, everyone, for having us
here this afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Clay and Ranking
Member Stivers, for inviting the National Alliance of HUD
Tenants (NAHT) to testify on behalf of the 1.7 million
households in privately-owned HUD housing.
We urge Congress to pass the tenant empowerment discussion
draft and to enact the HUD Inspection Oversight Act of 2019.
Together, these bills will provide tools to empower tenants to
ensure our homes are safe.
Most HUD and public housing provides decent, safe, and
affordable homes for millions of families, including Phelps
House, where I live in Manhattan.
It has long been apparent to NAHT's members that the HUD
Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) systematically
underreports health and safety problems. The disconnect between
REAC scores and substandard housing came to a head at several
Global Ministries properties in 2015 when tenants at Eureka
Gardens in Jacksonville, Florida, exposed deplorable, life-
threatening conditions. Most recently, coverage by NBC and
ProPublica has concluded that REAC is, ``pretty much a
failure.''
HUD has recently instituted the NSPIRE Demonstration and
Response, but given the urgency, HUD response has been too
little, too slow. It took the action of two deaths to happen in
South Carolina for HUD to realize that tenants were not
protected from carbon monoxide.
Since 1999, HUD was downsized, and that vision was to
organize tenants that could serve as unpaid ears and eyes to
save and improve our homes. Unfortunately, from the outset,
REAC has rejected this vision and prevented its inspectors from
engaging with residents when they visit a property. Management
staff can accompany inspectors, but not the people who live in
the buildings. If REAC visits during the summer, how will they
know that the heating system does not work in the winter,
unless they talk to the tenants?
The tenant empowerment bill would address this problem by
tapping into the experience and expertise of tenants at no cost
to taxpayers. Currently, HUD can take action to many owners and
have them bring buildings up to code, including partial
withholding of Section 8 subsidy buildings.
But too often, powerful owners at buildings like Forest
Cove in Atlanta are treated with kid gloves by HUD. I have
visited Forest Cove, and you will see some of the slides shown
here. Although Millennia has managed there for 2 years, tenants
are still exposed to deplorable conditions including rats,
water leaks, toxic mold, exposed wiring, and more. No one
should have to live like this.
We presented these slides to Millennia and HUD last March,
urging emergency relocation of 17 families until their units
were made habitable. Although the REAC score is 32, HUD has yet
to make Millennia take action, and families continue to suffer.
The tenant empowerment bill would enable tenants to put our
rent into escrow, thereby requiring HUD to withhold its portion
of the rent to pressure owners to fix these conditions. If HUD
will not move against entrenched, powerful owners, Congress
should give the tenants the power to make HUD do its job.
The bill would empower tenants of cities to petition HUD or
to re-inspect properties when REAC failed to detect hazardous
conditions. For example, St. Edmonds in Chicago, shown in these
slides, passed the REAC score in 2017 despite widespread water
leaks, mold, asbestos, and window leaks.
A maintenance worker was put in intensive care because of
mold that he found behind a child's bedroom. When life-
threatening conditions like these persist, and the owners and
HUD fail to act, the bill would give tenants the right to sue
and enforce contracts between HUD and the owner.
The bill would also give tenants access to key information,
such as who the building owners are, their repair plans, and
reserves overseen by HUD. Tenants can help make sure taxpayers'
funds are spent wisely and well. Only slumlords with something
to hide would object.
This bill would also require REAC to adopt simple, common-
sense steps to involve tenants as partners. Because of our
homes, tenants have the most at stake.
I urge you to pass the tenant empowerment bill so that
tenants can partner with HUD to stem the disgraceful blights of
substandard housing.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Collins can be found on page
42 of the appendix.]
Chairman Clay. Thank you, Ms. Collins.
Ms. Rivers, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SHALONDA RIVERS, PRESIDENT, CORDOBA COURTS TENANTS
ASSOCIATION, AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NATIONAL LOW INCOME
HOUSING COALITION
Ms. Rivers. Good day, everyone. Chairman Clay, Ranking
Member Stivers, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the invitation today.
I am a board member of the National Low Income Housing
Coalition and a member of the National Alliance of HUD Tenants.
I am a long-time resident at 22nd Avenue Apartments, Cordoba
Courts, for 15 years, and I currently serve as the president of
the tenants association.
The property is owned by Millennia Housing Management and
is subsidized by HUD Project-Based Section 8. The tenants
association started in 2013 due to the fact that many residents
had similar complaints about deplorable conditions and poor
management, and realizing many of these deplorable conditions
residents faced were not right.
We lived in homes with rats, termites, peeling paint, major
water leaks, toxic mold, improper security, and plumbing issues
that had resulted in raw sewage backing up into our apartments.
Some of these issues are documented in the photos that we
submitted to the committee today.
Deplorable conditions still remain today in spite of many
written communications directly to HUD for many years about
unsafe and unsanitary conditions.
As the president of the tenants association, I reached out
to HUD in 2015 about the health and safety concerns. HUD was
not happy about me contacting them on the behalf of other
residents in the community. Many residents in my community were
forced to pay out-of-pocket for mold tests due to HUD response
saying no, they cannot send a mold company to do testing. All
results showed positive and unsafe levels of mold.
In September of 2018, management moved several residents
and families, including me and my 4 children, out of these
toxic, poisonous apartments into hotels while they supposedly
made repairs. We spent several holidays in a hotel suite that
was not comparable to my three-bedroom, one-and-a-half bath
apartment. My family checked out of the hotel on Tuesday,
October 1, 2019, a year later.
Several residents were forced to move back into a different
unsafe and unsanitary apartment after living in the hotel for a
year. The health and safety of residents is still at risk,
forcing residents to face these same old substandard conditions
again when the apartments were supposed to be fixed. We are
forced to live in substandard conditions in spite of written
communication to Millennia Management and HUD.
I firmly believe not one person here today would want their
family to endure now, or in the future, such deplorable
conditions. All low-income families should be treated with
human dignity and fairness. I am a long-time advocate who has
been on the ground advocating for decent, safe, and sanitary
housing.
However, my family and other families were faced with
retaliation evictions from Millennia Housing Management.
Additional retaliation came when Millennia abruptly stopped
paying for the hotel, forcing low-income residents to pay the
hotel fees out-of-pocket or face homelessness.
As of today, one family with a son with a disability is
still living in the hotel, struggling to pay and cover the
fees, while management claims there is a legal issue. But this
is wrong. Families were displaced because of the failures of
management.
The PBCA does not work, and HUD failed throughout the years
to make sure all residents' homes are decent, safe, and
sanitary. One example, in May of 2018, in a REAC for my
community, HUD rounded off a final REAC score of 59.54 to 60,
which they have used as an excuse not to sanction the owner as
required by HUD Notice 2018-8.
If the tenant empowerment legislation proposed by NAHT is
passed, this will allow tenants to withhold the tenant's
portion of the rent in escrow for units found to be substandard
by HUD, and withhold HUD's larger portion of the rent. This
will increase pressure on the property owners and bring owners
and HUD to the table.
If HUD won't act on its own when buildings are substandard,
Congress should give residents the power to make them do so.
If a HUD REAC score does not reflect actual conditions,
this legislation would allow residents to trigger a new
inspection with a tenant petition.
If HUD takes action to enforce its own contracts with
owners, this bill will give residents the legal standing to sue
and force these contractors into Federal court.
This bill will give tenants the power to make owners and
HUD do their jobs and provide residents with the safe, decent,
and affordable housing that we deserve.
We ask you to pass this bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rivers can be found on page
58 of the appendix.]
Chairman Clay. Thank you, Ms. Rivers, for your testimony.
Ms. Rivers. Thank you.
Chairman Clay. Mr. Cabrera, it's so good to see you back on
Capitol Hill.
Mr. Cabrera. Likewise, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Clay. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ORLANDO CABRERA, PARTNER, ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY
LLP
Mr. Cabrera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Stivers, and members of the subcommittee for inviting me to
testify today. I am grateful for the opportunity.
My immediate concern surrounds the newly released specific
discussion draft legislation--not all of it, just a particular
portion of it.
That discussion draft is entitled, the ``Ensuring
Performance-Based Contract Administrators Actually Perform
Act.'' That is unfortunately named. It seeks to amend the 1937
Act, and potentially harms the mission of providing safe and
decent housing.
The discussion draft legislation is not helpful because it
creates groundwork to impair competition between those entities
already federally-qualified to act as PBCAs. As Margaret noted,
PBCAs are very committed to undertaking their roles as
enthusiastically as they always have for 2 decades. This Act
simply makes that a lot harder and a lot more expensive.
PBCAs provide HUD services that help HUD's statutorily-
mandated mission to serve low-income Americans. Limiting
competitors under the 1937 Housing Act would cause competitors
to do less, not more. That would not serve HUD's mission.
The draft legislation is unhelpful for other reasons, as
well. One of the reasons is that it creates legal issues where
none currently exist. The draft creates visions that are
unsupported by law, policy, or decades-old practice. The
Housing Act of 1937 has done the heavy lifting of housing low-
income Americans for 82 years.
Contrary to popular notions, federally-assisted housing is
a remarkably narrow legal concept that touches millions of
lives. Operationally, the 1937 Housing Act's Section 8 program
is built upon the legal provision that empowers the Secretary
to contract with congressionally-determined entities called
public housing agencies.
The Housing Act of 1937 creates, and HUD regulates, public
housing agencies. Public housing agencies include States,
counties, cities, and other governmental entities that engage
or assist in the development or operation of public housing,
like public housing authorities.
Lots of entities engage or assist with the development or
operation of public housing. Let's start with public housing
agencies that are also public housing authorities. Those are
two different things.
In nearly all States, public housing authorities are
creatures of the State, not the Federal or local government.
They allocate Section 8, operate public housing, or both, as
those programs are specifically authorized under the 1937 Act.
In most States, over 40, State statute-governing public
housing authorities expressly permit them to enter into
contracts, nearly any contract, with the Federal Government.
And in most cases, those laws allow them to contract with HUD
specifically in every context.
The discussion draft legislation seems to focus its concern
on housing finance agencies. What are housing finance agencies?
As Margaret noted, housing finance agencies are also created as
a matter of State, not Federal, law. Many, like the one I led,
the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, as an example, are not
State agencies or attached directly to the State Government.
And unlike public housing authorities that HUD itself has
pronounced as capable of acting as PBCAs, HUD has made no
similar expressed determination that HFAs are necessarily
instrumentalities of their State.
Unlike public housing authorities, housing finance agencies
do not own or develop public housing. In fact, most neither own
public housing nor administer Section 8, which again is not
public housing.
In all other relevant respects, the concerns that the draft
legislation seeks to clarify seems to apply to any government
agency that is a public housing authority, housing finance
agency, or other governmental entity, like a county or city
housing department.
So, that begs the question, why does the draft legislation
only mention public housing agencies that are HFAs? I think it
is designed to do a couple of things. It is designed to address
a problem that is not fundamentally there, and I think it is
designed to make sure--I am not sure, as it is a discussion
draft--that somehow those things that have not been clear in
the past become clear now. But it has accomplished exactly the
opposite of that.
Now, just for the record, there are people out there who
think that HFAs are not public housing agencies. I am not one
of those people. I led an HFA. I have been on NCSHA's board.
So, I am not in that school.
I do think there is a better way to approach this. Margaret
rightly noted that HUD has had an uneven record with respect to
procurement, which I am happy to talk about as I was heavily
involved in all of that.
But it seems to me that the right way to proceed might be
to have an agreement that the Housing Act says certain things,
and one of the things it says is that public housing agencies
administer Project-Based Section 8. Maybe, we can begin there.
Thank you for your time. I am ready to answer all of your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cabrera can be found on page
36 of the appendix.]
Chairman Clay. Thank you, Mr. Cabrera, for your time. I now
recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
Ms. Rollins, recently, we had a situation in St. Louis
where a tenant had cockroaches in her apartment, which turned
out to be an infestation, despite the efforts of the St. Louis
City Housing Authority, and unfortunately, she had to live in
her car for a short period of time.
Can you talk about the cooperation that was necessary to
ensure that our fellow St. Louisan and her children had a safe
place to live?
Ms. Rollins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing up that
example.
The City Housing Authority has thousands of public housing
units. The St. Louis County Housing Authority, now that we have
absorbed Wellston, has about 501 public housing units. But
regardless, there should never be a situation where a family is
put in that type of situation. I think that Ms. Collins spoke
very eloquently to that.
There should never be a situation where a family is paying
for their relocation from being in a unit that is not up to
par. I was very sad to see the City Housing Authority take so
long to pay attention to this particular situation, and it took
many, including your office, to get them to pay attention to
this situation.
I would like to hope that all housing authority directors,
who are all people responsible for the people we serve, would
take an interest and get out into the field and find out what's
going on in those communities. I tend to be that type of
director. I am out of the office much more than I am in the
office, and I think it is important, even when I send my staff
into the trenches, that I go with them.
But not everybody feels that way, not everybody believes
that, so it is important for us to have some rules in place so
that we can be assured that everybody is getting--that we are
at the same level of looking at things and that we are at the
same level at dealing with situations. I would hope that if the
Wellston Housing Authority had been under our purview a long
time ago, this would not be where we are today.
So, those are some of the issues. I agree with the issues,
as well, about housing authorities, about HUD and the REAC
inspections and not feeling that they are strong enough.
Because when I go into a unit, I am looking at a unit in terms
of whether I would live there myself, or whether I would have
any of my family members live there.
Chairman Clay. Excuse me. Let me ask Ms. Salazar, not to
cut you off, but Ms. Salazar, a March 2019 report from the GAO
paints a picture of an overwhelmed and underresourced Real
Estate Assessment Center (REAC), the part of HUD responsible
for inspections of public and multi-family housing. We also
know that HUD lost almost 50 percent of its staff since 1991,
and almost 20 percent between 2008 and 2017, more than any
other Cabinet-level Department during this time.
If these levels of staff lost and resource depletion
continue at HUD, what would be the effect of the Department's
ability to ensure the availability of safe and decent housing
for lower-income Americans?
Ms. Salazar. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question.
I think we are definitely concerned about the overall
capacity of being able to ensure the oversight of the HUD-
assisted portfolio. Our role, as the performance-based contract
administrator, is that we engage on behalf of HUD with
providing the oversight for these properties. So, I think as
HUD's staffing levels have diminished and capacity has
diminished, it is even more important that we have mission-
driven agencies, such as public housing agencies, that are on
the ground working with these properties to be able to respond.
And I will give you one quick example of that. We have a
tenant hotline, and we responded to a tenant complaint that
they had no hot water in their unit. We raised that concern to
the owner. The owner did not correct the issue. We raised it to
HUD and we recommended that HUD abate the Section 8 payment for
that apartment. HUD followed our recommendation and abated the
Section 8 until the repair was able to be made. And it is only
because of the relationship that we have, that we were able to
do that. But without a robust PBCA program, that relationship
is in jeopardy.
Chairman Clay. Thank you.
Ms. Collins, tell me what you think the weaknesses are in
the HUD inspection program? What did you witness?
Ms. Collins. Thank you for that question.
The weakness there is that NAHT has given HUD many
recommendations on how to better help them do this. But I see
the situation. I understand the problem that they do not have
enough people to take care of the plans. But I think that, had
they done stuff in the beginning, it would not have gotten this
bad, and that is why we urge you today to pass the tenant
empowerment bill, to force HUD to do better, because they could
have and they didn't.
Chairman Clay. Thank you.
The gentleman from Ohio is recognized, Mr. Stivers.
Mr. Stivers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
again for holding this hearing. It is a very important topic
and we need to make sure that people are in safe and decent
housing. And I want to thank all of the witnesses for being
here.
Mr. Cabrera, welcome back to the committee. I think you
have a unique insight as somebody who has formerly worked at
HUD and is now a housing developer and provider.
In past testimony, you have talked about how HUD is
woefully inadequate, both in the technology at their disposal
and the data collection and data use they have to improve
conditions and to improve outcomes. Do you believe this
contributes to the quality of housing stock that is either
unsafe or not decent?
Mr. Cabrera. It does. I think that contributes in a couple
of ways. The first one is just with respect to REAC
inspections. Being the guy who principally was responsible for
REAC oversight at one point, the data that is being collected
is being collected using methodologies that are 30-years-old.
HUD, in some areas, still uses Excel spreadsheets to collect
data. That is a significant problem. It means that they cannot
relate--
Mr. Stivers. I did that in college in the 1990s.
Mr. Cabrera. --the bad circumstances, as my colleagues to
the right have recounted, to any kind of correlation.
Mr. Stivers. That's not very good follow-up there, and not
a very good tickler system and not a very good way to keep that
data--
Mr. Cabrera. In part, if I may, Mr. Ranking Member, that is
not entirely a HUD thing. That is going to be an institutional
decision, not HUD's institutional decision, but the body's
institutional decision to invest in data collection and invest
in the technology. And I'm not casting--
Mr. Stivers. If we were to do that, do you believe that
could be used to not only track the quality of housing stock,
but also track outcomes of residents and improve outcomes of
residents?
Mr. Cabrera. It would improve things soup to nuts. From
HUD's perspective, from each PBCA's perspective, and from the
residents' perspective, and the owners, by the way.
Mr. Stivers. Thank you. One more for you, Mr. Cabrera. We
hear a lot about the rising cost of rental units. I hear a lot
about that in my district. We have a shortage of supply, which
results in higher cost and more competition. Do you think that
is also making it harder for users of Choice vouchers to get
access to homes?
Mr. Cabrera. I think it depends upon where it is. In some
places where rent is far outpacing payment standards, it is
becoming a crisis. It is a crisis. In other places, it is less
so. It is not a uniform rule. I have two hometowns. I grew up
in Boston, Massachusetts and in Miami, Florida, and in both
places, it is in crisis mode at this point. So, it depends.
Mr. Stivers. Yes, and I understand that market conditions
matter. But in many areas, I think that is driving part of the
problem and something we need to look at as a broader policy
issue.
Ms. Rollins, thank you for being here. I really appreciated
your testimony. Can you tell me, do you feel like HUD gives
your PHA the flexibility you need to meet the unique challenges
in your community?
Ms. Rollins. I think ``flexibility'' is the wrong word,
really when we are talking about this. It is very difficult to
work with some of the HUD offices, and also to work with all of
the rules that are in place.
Mr. Stivers. Help me rephrase that, then. Are the rules
stifling your ability to serve your community? And is there a
way to make HUD be a better partner in serving the populations
you serve? How is that?
Ms. Rollins. That is much better.
Mr. Stivers. Thank you.
Ms. Rollins. And the answer is, yes. Every community is
different. You just heard that from Mr. Cabrera. Things are
different no matter where you are, and I think that we have to
take that into consideration. And local HUD offices have to
understand our communities that we are working in.
You also have State Governments that are working with us or
against us, and you have local governments that are working
with us or against us, as well. We have to understand all of
those pieces of the puzzle before we can really work at a
problem and get down to where we can solve something.
Mr. Stivers. I only have 35 seconds left. One last one for
you, Ms. Rollins. Moving to work, does that give you better
flexibility? Does that help you serve your community better?
Yes or no, and if you want to expand in 23 seconds, you can.
Ms. Rollins. It is not something that we have used in the
Housing Authority of St. Louis County. It has not been as
effective as what we would like for it to be there, but it can
be used in other communities, I think, very well. So,
demonstration programs are important, and we need to look at
all of the options for all of the communities.
Mr. Stivers. If you have any other ideas to help make them
a better partner, please follow up with us, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Ms. Rollins. Thank you.
Chairman Clay. I thank the gentleman. And I now recognize
the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Velazquez, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Thrope, public housing in our nation is in a state of
crisis, and you put a face to what is going on in the public
housing developments where you live, and Ms. Collins, and so
many others.
So, despite the deteriorating conditions of our public
housing system and the detrimental impact it is having on
residents' health, for the second year in a row, President
Trump and Secretary Carson requested zero dollars for HUD's
public housing capital fund for Fiscal Year 2020, which is the
main source of funding that public housing authorities rely on
to address necessary infrastructure upgrades such as roofs,
boilers, and piping.
Can you explain the impact zeroing out the capital fund
will have on the conditions in public housing?
Ms. Thrope. Thank you, Representative Velazquez. The
failure to fund public housing has had an incredible impact on
public housing residents around the country, and it has led to
deteriorating conditions for many families. Public housing
plays a critical role in many communities. It is often the only
form of deeply affordable housing for families because it is an
income-based rent. And, so, it is all the more important that
we put the resources in to preserve it.
I want to note that when we do not preserve public housing,
when we fail to fund public housing, HUD's response
historically has been to demolish it. When we demolish public
housing, what happens if you have--we do something called
voucher the tenants out, where we give families vouchers. And
many communities around this country cannot absorb the
vouchers, as we were just discussing when we voucher out these
public housing residents. And, so, that itself is contributing
to the affordable housing crisis, and there are examples all
over the country where the voucher markets just cannot absorb
the vouchers as a result of demolitions and families are
displaced.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. And as a result of that, I
introduced legislation, H.R. 4546, the Public Housing Emergency
Response Act, which will authorize $70 billion for the public
housing capital fund and address all the capital repair needs
of all public housing authorities around the country.
Are you supportive of a funding infusion of this kind? And
how would it improve the living conditions and health needs of
residents?
Ms. Thrope. We would support any increase in funding for
the public housing programs due to the severe capital needs at
many properties, as well as the maintenance repair backlog. So,
any infusion of funding could significantly, positively impact
the lives of public housing residents.
Ms. Velazquez. And it could happen--I don't know. I don't
think that it will happen this year, but if there is consensus
and bipartisan support, passing an infrastructure bill calling
for trillions of dollars of investment. And what I have been
advocating for is to treat public housing as part of our
national infrastructure, and I hope that you will all be
supportive of such an effort.
Ms. Thrope. Absolutely.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Clay. I thank the gentlewoman for her questions.
I now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Luetkemeyer, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In listening to the commentary and your testimony up to
now, a summary would be that there is a shortage of public
housing, and that existing housing stock is in definite need of
repair. And some of the other things that have been said, that
there is a shortage of money to be able to do all these things.
We have problems with HUD inspectors, and we have owner
problems, being able to get owners to live up to the agreements
to take care of their property. So, it is a multi-faceted
problem that we are talking about, and I appreciate all of your
commentary today. I think it is important we get the full
picture.
Let me start with Mr. Cabrera. As we have heard today,
public housing capital funds face a shortfall of up to $70
billion. HUD's Rental Assistance Demonstration project (RAD)
was created under the Obama Administration in 2011 to preserve
and maintain affordable housing. RAD gives public housing
authorities the ability to convert public housing into long-
term, Project-Based assistance while leveraging public and
private debt and equity.
Do you think RAD has been successful in meeting its goal of
preserving affordable housing?
Mr. Cabrera. I think RAD has been indispensible to
converting and preserving affordable housing. I think that the
idea that RAD somehow harms communities is something I just
have not experienced. I have seen housing authorities
transform, and I have seen tenants' lives transform through
RAD. RAD assures affordability for a period, generally for
decades, for between 35 and 50 years, depending upon what State
you are in.
I think that, candidly, RAD would move more effectively if
housing authorities did not have to incur a significant
financial hit when they undertake a RAD deal, because what is
happening is you are losing public housing stock, and you are
increasing either Project-Based vouchers or HAB contracts. But
it impacts their bottom line severely and they have to
transition operations. Many housing authorities struggle with
that, which is why they are not undertaking RAD. Just a couple
of great examples. I'm sorry, Congresswoman Velazquez. NYCHA
has had a really hard time with RAD just simply because of
scale and expense.
So, I guess I am beating this horse, but the answer is yes,
Congressman.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. I love that answer. That is a lot of
explanation there. Thank you for that.
In light of this massive shortfall of capital funds that we
have been talking about here, what other options are available
to help preserve our housing stock?
Mr. Cabrera. Is that for me, as well?
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Yes.
Mr. Cabrera. I am deeply concerned that the capital fund is
in constant crisis. I don't know that there is a $50 billion
shortfall in capital needs in public housing. Here is what I
can affirmatively say as a matter of firm metrics: It is above
$36 billion. We know that.
I do not have the expectation, just generally as a matter
of budget reality, that Congress would appropriate something on
the order of $36 billion or $50 billion for the purpose of
revisiting public housing.
I think trying to leverage those mechanisms that exist
currently to the fullest extent possible is a critical thing.
For example, currently, Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington,
and Senator Todd Young from Indiana, have a bill that expands
the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, and that would be a very
good thing for public housing authorities looking to revisit
their assets because public housing authorities, when they
compete within 9 percent cycles, a particular kind of Low-
Income Housing Tax Credit, they are competing with the entire
marketplace. And if you do not expand that pool, it is going to
be harder and harder for them to win very scarce resources. So,
I would encourage that kind of thinking.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. I know that we have talked about this many
times and there has always been a problem with a shortage of
units. One of the things is always the rules and regulations,
the local ordinances, and the costs that the contractor incurs.
Do you think if we had, with the Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit program--if you had some waivers attached to that for
some of the regulations, the local stuff that just adds cost
upon cost upon cost to these projects, it would be helpful? Or
find a way to put waivers on there? What would be your
suggestion? Because it is ridiculous that 25 percent of the
cost of one of our hearings one time was due to regulation.
Mr. Cabrera. Right. I was a developer for a company that
was based in southern California that developed in California
and other States, and soft costs, which is what you are
referring to, was an enormous carry in the context of all of
our deals.
How do you reduce that? That is probably as complex a
question as I can think of in places like California because
there are so many other laws, State laws and regulations that
come into play. It is hard to answer that question simply for
that reason. So, in California, can it be reduced? The answer
is yes, it can.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. It does come into play with regard--
Chairman Clay. The gentleman's time--
Mr. Luetkemeyer. --to getting housing to be affordable.
Mr. Cabrera. Yes, it does.
Chairman Clay. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Clay. I now recognize the chairwoman of the full
Financial Services Committee, Chairwoman Waters, from the State
of California.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you so much, Congressman Clay, for
holding this hearing. And I want to thank you for all of the
work that you are doing relative to your area, St. Louis,
Missouri, and your focus on Wellston and all that you are
attempting to accomplish to make sure that HUD is providing the
resources and doing what can be done for revitalization and
providing opportunities for tenants.
But more than that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you
because you have here before you today Ms. Geraldine Collins,
the board president of the National Alliance of HUD tenants. I
met with them a few months back to talk about how Congress and
HUD can help ensure that tenants are empowered to hold their
landlords and HUD accountable when it comes to conditions in
housing that no one should have to live in.
I cannot tell you how pleased I am about their advocacy
because oftentimes, we accuse tenants of not being involved,
not speaking up for themselves, and now we hear a real voice
and real advocacy and organizing. However, they are doing it
without the support of HUD, and HUD has, as I understand it,
$10 million that should be directed toward helping tenants to
organize.
So, the question becomes, and I guess I just want to get
this on the record for Ms. Collins, has HUD made any attempt to
talk about how they are going to release the resources that
should be available to tenants to help in this organizing
effort?
Ms. Collins. No, they haven't. Thank you for that question.
No, they haven't. We have met with them several times--not
several times, many times, month after month, year after year,
and they have never given us an answer.
Chairwoman Waters. They have not given you an answer about
resources, and you are out there working, using your own
resources to organize and to get people together and travel and
all of that? And at the same time, HUD is not, as I understand
it, living up to its responsibility for repair and for the
upkeep of the housing for which it has the oversight and
management, is that correct?
Ms. Collins. That is correct. They can bring down to $10
million a year, annually, and all they need to do is to put out
to different areas in the different States $1 million to help
tenant associations organize. If they put that money out there,
tenants would be able to be organized, whereas right now, we
had VISTAs; if we did not have the VISTA Program in the last 4
years, a lot of people would have lost their homes.
Chairwoman Waters. This NSPIRE Demonstration, what is that
all about? Is that about inspections? What is happening with
that?
Ms. Collins. It is another gimmick that HUD just comes up
with. And I say that to say this because the new NSPIRE model
gives the owner the opportunity to self-inspect. We are against
the self-inspection because there is no number, there is no--it
is not counted, when they self-inspect. Now, they are
inspecting units from 30 percent to 50 percent.
We do not understand the logistics of what they are trying
to do. It is like, of all the recommendations that NAHT has
given them over the years, they have only honored one, and that
was the civil monetary penalty, which they still have not
honored. They gave a property and Tridge Rotary in Texas, they
gave them a civil monetary penalty, but then they took it back.
Chairwoman Waters. Well, let me just tell you, that I have
met with Ms. Pressley and I have met with Ms. Tlaib, and we
know that you are contemplating possible legislation.
Ms. Collins. Yes.
Chairwoman Waters. And if this legislation is introduced
and we work on it, it would be tough, it will deal with the
issue, and so we are going to meet again.
Ms. Collins. Yes.
Chairwoman Waters. We have a meeting that is being planned
in December where we will meet with the nonprofits who have
Section 8 housing or HUD housing or what have you. And, so, Ms.
Tlaib and Ms. Pressley and I are focused on this and we are
with you.
Ms. Collins. Thank you for that.
Chairwoman Waters. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Collins. Thank you.
Chairman Clay. I thank the chairwoman for her questions,
and for pointing out that tenants do have rights. I appreciate
that.
At this time, we recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Tipton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate all
of the panel taking the time to be here.
Obviously, housing in all of our areas, for all residents,
is something that is critically important. I would like to be
able to maybe expand a little bit of the conversation, because
the focus seems to be an awful lot in urban areas, which I do
not discount in the least. But I happen to represent rural
America, where we do have housing issues, as well, in terms of
being able to be addressed.
In response to the chairwoman's question in regards to the
NSPIRE program, I wanted to follow up on that a little bit with
you, Mr. Cabrera. In regards to the program, it has been
updated with the intent of being able to improve inspections,
to know where maintenance issues arise. As a former secretary
for public housing, what reforms should the inspection process
take into account, especially when it applies to rural America?
Mr. Cabrera. I think NSPIRE needs some meat on the bones. I
think one of the problems that both HUD and the stakeholder
community has, including my colleagues to the right, is that it
seems a little bit rudderless right now. It would help to have
a rudder. It would help rural America as much as it would urban
America.
I remind people all the time that Section 8 and public
housing are indispensible to rural America. They are not just
urban products. It is really amazing, but the two States with
the largest number of counties are Texas and Georgia, and those
counties all have public housing authorities, and they are
generally small. There are generally fewer than 15 or 20 units.
And it is important that they get some guidance with respect to
how this will all work.
I think the other thing is they just have to figure out a
way for people to have a remedy in the event that there is an
adverse decision. So, if someone disagrees, they have to have a
place to go.
Mr. Tipton. We have had testimony in regards to having
tenant participation. In terms of developing that rudder, that
outreach, who else should HUD reach out to?
Mr. Cabrera. That is a very big group, Congressman. Owners
are an indispensible part of that conversation. I read the
legislation, the draft discussion legislation. Congressman
Lawson's bill has a lot in it that is very worthwhile to
discuss, and then there is a lot that I can tell you
affirmatively, stakeholders will have significant commentary
upon. So, given that it is the first step in the process, it is
a hard question to answer.
Mr. Tipton. And we had had the comments in terms of self-
inspection. I wanted to be able to maybe get your sense a
little bit. Given the territory that I represent, we have
54,000 square miles of Colorado. For the most part, there is no
easy way to be able to get from here to there without going
over three mountain passes to get into those areas.
Are there some benefits to self-inspection that we might be
able to employ, particularly in the rural areas?
Mr. Cabrera. The self-inspection is used in other facets of
ownership that do not have to do with affordable housing, but
they always come up with some other mechanism to ensure the
accuracy of the inspection. That would be helpful.
The other thing to keep in mind is it is not always just
self-inspection. Generally, there is a planning and zoning or
building department involved for some jurisdictions. A county,
a city, if it is in fact an incorporated city, and having
coordination with those codes is important, as well.
Most Federal inspection criteria depends heavily upon what
either local codes say or State codes say. It is not entirely,
or even mostly, a Federal question. And, so, so much of that
has to do with how you articulate that and what we mean by
self-inspection.
I can easily see the other side of that coin. But just to
say if I were a tenant and it would be entirely ownership that
is inspecting, that would cause me incredible stress. But I do
not think that is what anybody has in mind.
Mr. Tipton. Okay. I really appreciated my colleague, Mr.
Luetkemeyer, kind of encapsulating the variety of challenges,
again, that you just alluded to in terms of some of the costs
that are associated with developing affordable housing. In a
lot of our resort communities, particularly, based off tourism,
they had not even really planned, had any kind of a plan, to be
able to develop it.
Could some of the maintenance issues actually maybe help
some of that dilemma that we face in those areas?
Mr. Cabrera. Yes, I think they are suffering from the same
challenges as public housing authorities with a capital need
generally. And when it comes to a lot of those housing units in
your area of Colorado, which I am tacitly familiar with, I will
say that some of those units are Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
units and they work under a different regimen.
Mr. Tipton. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Clay. You are welcome.
And I am now going to recognize the gentleman from
Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, who is also the Chair of our
Subcommittee on National Security, International Development
and Monetary Policy, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to direct this to you, Ms. Rollins. About 10
years ago, I was with a group in London, and while there, we
decided to try to meet with what would be comparable to the
Housing Department of London, mainly in what is called Old
London. One of the places we received a lot of information on
was a 24-story tower called Grenfell Tower.
And, so, here in Washington, in my little apartment across
the street in June of 2017, I was looking at the news and all
of a sudden, they show this fire at the Grenfell Towers. And if
you have not seen it, you ought to pull it up. You would wonder
how anybody got out of it alive. And to be sure, 70 people died
in that fire. Even today, there are arguments over what caused
it. Somebody said, cyanide something, and somebody else said,
electrical fire with a freezer, and all kinds of things.
But even while I was back here, I got angry about it,
because I used to live in public housing. I am just thinking, I
wonder if there were ongoing inspections, and maybe more
significantly, when I bring it home, I wonder, are there
standardized inspections, and wouldn't we be better off if we--
I lived in public housing, self-inspection, all that, so I am
talking experientially. No sociology book. I am talking about
living there.
Do you think we need to have standardized inspections?
Ms. Rollins. We have to have some standard in inspections.
In St. Louis, I mentioned we have 92 municipalities. So, you
have unincorporated St. Louis County doing inspections, you
have other communities doing inspections, and no one is doing
it the same way.
In the City of Wellston, there was so much confusion,
collusion, whatever we would like to call it. An inspection was
done, but it was never done, but it was paid for by the housing
authority. And that is a crime. We have to have standardized
inspections that make sense and that everybody can be on the
same page with.
We also have opportunities for ordinances that say if a
private owner develops a building as, for instance, TEH, and
they are condemned--TEH buildings were condemned--that company
should pay for the relocation of those individuals. So, I think
there are ways to work through these issues with standardized
inspections, with ordinances that put the responsibility back
on the owner.
And I would just like to make a comment in regard to the
cost of doing housing. I also think that some of the
astronomical developer fees that are being taken in today's
environment are also very negative, as well. But I would say we
definitely need a standard that makes sense for inspections.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back.
I would encourage anybody, particularly my colleagues, if
you get a chance tonight, to look up that fire online. It will
remind you of 9/11, the way that building is just completely
destroyed. I keep wondering, can it happen here, and the sense
I get is a resounding yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Clay. Thank you, and I thank the gentleman.
Now, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Kustoff, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kustoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
convening today's hearing, and thanks to the witnesses for
appearing this afternoon.
Mr. Cabrera, with your experience at HUD, can you talk to
us about the Rental Assistance Demonstration, the effectiveness
over the last 6 or 7 years since its creation? I guess, in
essence, do you think it has met its goal of preserving
affordable housing?
Mr. Cabrera. I think it has met its goal of preserving
affordable housing, and I think it has met its goal of creating
units that better serve its communities and its residents.
Mr. Kustoff. Are there other ways that Congress could be
looking at more ways to include private sector funding for
public housing?
Mr. Cabrera. For one, the Cantwell-Young bill in the Senate
would--a corollary in the House would be terrific.
The tools that we now use to develop affordable housing do
not necessarily emanate from HUD. They emanate from the
Internal Revenue Code, specifically Section 42 and Section
142--143. And, so, at the end of the day, leveraging those
mechanisms which really invite private investment is important.
RAD works, mostly because it allows a housing authority
that applies for a version of something called a disposition, a
conversion from Section 9, which is public housing, to some
form of Section 8. So, it is either going to be Project-Based
vouchers for a term of 20 years, or it is going to be a HAB
contract, and that makes it financially supportable to do the
deals.
So much of affordable housing has to do with whether a
particular, discrete transaction pencils out whether it makes
financial sense not in one year, but over the entire life of
the development. RAD makes that possible for purposes of all of
these conversions.
Mr. Kustoff. In the questioning from Ranking Member
Stivers, you talked about technology and the technology being
outdated. You talked specifically about still using Excel. That
is one issue.
Is employee turnover also an issue? And if so, to what
effect? And I mean turnover at HUD.
Mr. Cabrera. It is not just an issue. It is an Enterprise-
wide, Federal crisis, but it's particularly acute at HUD.
When I was at HUD, as I recall, we had a total of 8,800
employees. Approximately 40 percent of those folks worked in my
world. And that went up to 9,300 employees between 2008 and
2016.
For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the
aging of the Federal workforce, we are down to 7,800, perhaps
7,700 employees at HUD. And as I commonly say when this comes
up in the conference setting, when I was in office--it has been
fully 12 years since I resigned, come January--60 percent of
HUD was qualified to retire. And that number has only gone up.
So, part of the issue here with HUD is it is suffering
through the weight of a lack of physical capacity within its
personnel pool.
Mr. Kustoff. Thank you. If I could, one last area, and that
is as it relates to lead hazards in housing. Can you talk about
the progress that HUD has made maybe since your time at HUD to
now, what progress has been made and what you have seen?
Mr. Cabrera. One of the unwritten success stories, however
uneven the successes have been, has been Federal efforts in
lead-based paint remediation. That history begins in 1973 and
it progresses in 1978. And what it actually caused was in a
single-family home setting and in a multi-family home setting,
assuring that either you receive notice that there is a lead-
based paint problem; or if it is acute enough and it is a
property prior to January 1, 1978, you remedy it. It succeeded
particularly well with public housing because most public
housing units were constructed between 1937 and 1984.
The only asterisk, the Roger Maris asterisk, to that answer
is, as we have recently learned in the last 18 months, with
public housing authorities--authorities plural--is that there
have been incidences here and there, spot incidences, where
certain authorities have misrepresented their compliance with
lead-based paint remediation. That is a problem. It is a
significant problem. I do not put that on the HUD pile; I put
that on the public housing authority pile, and I do not include
Ms. Rollins.
Mr. Kustoff. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Clay. Thank you.
And we now go to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lawson,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lawson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to
welcome you all to the committee. I really appreciate the work
that you all do out there.
My father-in-law was involved in a government housing
facility along with another university professor, and they used
to spend an inordinate amount of time taking care of the
facilities and providing activities and so forth for the youth.
And I, myself, from being a college coach and playing a little
bit of professional ball, I used to go into the facilities
during the summer months and set up programs just for kids to
have something to do on the playgrounds and so forth, and so I
know the work.
But what has really bothered me in recent years is, because
I spent a lot of time in these facilities, is it is really
incomprehensible the way that HUD has responded to these
organizations that have taken over most of these housing
complexes. For instance, and I will just tell you that one of
the residential facilities, Eureka Garden, Valencia Way in
Jacksonville, has suffered immensely for several years due to
mismanagement and unsafe living conditions, including mold,
sewage, and all of the other things that go along with them.
Recently, because of a gas outage, many of them had to have
food brought in because they were unable to cook in their own
facilities. And then at the same time, which was very alarming,
in order for them have to have hot showers, and a bath for
their kids, they had to go into the parking lot, with trailers
and stuff there, which I really thought was very inhumane for
them to have to do that, especially women and children, early
in the morning before they get ready to go to work or school.
And, so, I have sponsored H.R. 3745, the HUD Inspection
Oversight Act, that would strengthen the HUD inspection
process, providing more oversight and transparency. It almost
seemed like there was a wall going on between HUD and these
housing facilities. I have had the Secretary down in the
Jacksonville area to review some of the conditions and so forth
that has taken place. They will say that they are working on
them, and this has been 3\1/2\ years, and they are still
working on them.
It is unfortunate that you would even see a Secretary
propose cutting millions of dollars from oversight for these
facilities, looking at what exists. And you actually wonder,
who are they working for? Are they really trying to help people
really in these facilities have a quality of life that all of
them should have? Because the government is not broke, and the
government has--it is as if they do not pay any attention to
what we send them from Congress.
But what they do is they are trying to save money on the
very poor people who are struggling to keep a roof over their
heads and provide for their families. A lot of these
individuals that they are dealing with are women with kids,
single heads of households, who are working, and doing the very
best that they can. And I know it sounds more like a
dissertation for most of you because you all see what happened
in these inner cities and so forth.
My question is, in your relationship--I don't have much
time, so I will start out with Ms. Rollins, and I might not get
any further--with HUD and bringing these dilapidated conditions
before them, what takes them in another direction instead of
trying to help people in need?
Ms. Rollins. I do not think that HUD sometimes has the
mindset to really focus on what needs to happen. We are in the
trenches by ourselves. As you say, it has taken 3\1/2\ years to
really accomplish nothing. And since I have been at the Housing
Authority for 11 years, I face the same situation. I am not
sure why. I think it is very easy to not be involved and to not
care when you are not there. And it is easy to put all of this
responsibility on the backs, as you say, and that is so
correctly put, of our tenants.
So, there has to be a way for Congress to make HUD step up
to the table and step up to the plate and do what they need to
do for the residents that we are involved with. You should not
have to live the way we are living with these clients
currently. It is abysmal, what we are going through. There
should not be a Wellston. There should not be any of the
localities that we have been talking about so far. So, we
really have to put the onus on HUD to make a difference.
Chairman Clay. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Rose, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairman Clay and Ranking Member
Stivers, for holding this hearing.
I may be going out on a limb here, but I think we can all
agree that when it comes to HUD-assisted housing, we want
residents to live in housing that is safe, decent, and
sanitary. But just to be safe, I would like to start off by
asking for a show of hands from the witnesses here today, who
here believes that every resident in HUD-assisted properties
should live in housing that is safe, decent, and sanitary? Show
of hands, please?
Great. We are off to a good start.
When it comes to taxpayer dollars, we have a responsibility
to ensure that every dollar spent by the Federal Government is
used wisely, efficiently, and for its intended purpose. Too
often, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that
the answer to mismanaged Federal programs is providing more
funding, more inputs.
Yesterday, the Washington Post reported on a Federal
program, the HUBZone program, that actually funneled hundreds
of millions of taxpayer dollars into Washington, D.C.'s richest
neighborhoods at the expense of poorer areas because the
program was using unadjusted and outdated data for years.
Throwing more money at a problem does not solve the
underlying problem. If there is a problem with the program's
outcome, maybe, just maybe, it is because we, in Congress, have
neglected our oversight responsibilities as they relate to the
funds we have already appropriated.
The answer is also not a total government takeover of local
problems. Just yesterday, the House voted on and passed another
continuing resolution instead of a full funding bill for Fiscal
Year 2020 because Congress cannot agree to get that job done in
a timely manner. We have not even passed a bill to fully fund
our military for Fiscal Year 2020, one of the most basic
constitutional responsibilities of the Congress.
Yet, there are some who make the case that the Federal
Government needs more on its plate. I disagree. There are
bipartisan programs that have provided affordable housing to
millions of Americans, and we should look at what can be done
to strengthen and possibly expand these programs. For instance,
between 1986, when the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit was first
enacted, and 2013, more than 13.3 million people lived in homes
financed by the LIHTC housing credit.
I know that in Tennessee, the Tennessee Housing Development
Agency has benefitted from and supports this program. The LIHTC
overall has helped build or rehabilitate more than 3.2 million
affordable housing units, leveraging more than $190 billion in
private investment to do so.
Mr. Cabrera, should policymakers change their thinking
about how assisted housing in America works? Should we do more
to encourage private investment in the production and
preservation of affordable housing?
Mr. Cabrera. If markets do the work they can do with a
private-public partnership, it works best. And if that is the
case, that would include RAD conversions. That would include
LIHTC. That would include private activity bonds with a version
of LIHTC called the 4 percent LIHTC. And that would include,
candidly, the HUD budget. So much more can be done if you let
folks do it.
We always will get the bad story. The answer is to always
work towards solving the bad story, but remembering there are a
lot of good stories. And you just mentioned a huge one, which
is roughly 13 million residents live in LIHTC units now after
33--well, actually it is technically 31 years.
So, at the end of the day, yes, they do it quicker, they do
it better, and they do it less expensively. That is not to say
that public housing does not have a place in some places.
Public housing is the only recourse. It has to be preserved.
Twenty-five percent of public housing residents right now
are elderly people. Another 18 percent, as I recall, I might be
a bit off, are disabled. That is an important thing to
remember. A good many public housing residents have single-
parent households that rely on public housing. It is very
difficult for me to conceive of a world without some form of
public housing.
Mr. Rose. Thank you. And I just hope that as we look at
this issue, we don't just seek to measure inputs, but that we
search for ways to measure outcomes.
Mr. Cabrera. I agree.
Mr. Rose. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Clay. Thank you, and just to point out to my
friend from Tennessee, the article that you cited today was on
a program administered by the Small Business Administration
called HUBZones, which relied on faulty data from HUD.
At this time, I recognize the gentlewoman from Michigan,
Ms. Tlaib, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all
so much for being here and for your incredible advocacy to
protect a lot of my neighbors at home who are renters and
depend on quality housing.
There are a number of changes that have been made, I think
currently with HUD. One that I am very concerned about, and I
just want to put it in the record is changing and removing
disparate impact as a way to show housing discrimination within
HUD. I know I have submitted comments, and I am very concerned
about Dr. Carson and this Administration's move to try to make
it impossible for people to prove housing discrimination.
The other is HUD's move away from their current mission
statement. They are removing words like, ``pushing to meet the
need for quality, affordable rental homes.'' They want to
remove that from the mission statement.
They also want to remove from the mission statement,
``utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of
life.'' Again, I'm very concerned in that move.
I also, Mr. Chairman, would like to submit for the record
an article that is entitled, ``Under Ben Carson, More Families
Live in HUD Housing That Fails Health and Safety Inspections.''
Chairman Clay. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you. Since 2016, we have seen a 30 percent
increase in HUD properties failing inspections, and that is
more than 1,000 properties not only missing smoke detectors,
but other life-threatening issues regarding the inspection.
I want to talk a little bit about my district. Right now,
we are working with a constituent whose building has been
infested with bedbugs 9 times. The building is operated by HUD.
Bedbugs have developed a resistance that makes them almost
impossible to kill, very difficult to kill, and very expensive.
Recently, Detroit was actually named the fifth most active
city for bedbug activity, noting that bedbugs have been popping
up with regular kinds of patterns in public housing. It is very
alarming that HUD's current physical inspection protocol has
not evolved since its adoption 21 years ago.
Ms. Rivers, what flaws do you see currently in HUD's Real
Estate Assessment Center (REAC), especially when it comes to
bedbug infestation, as I previously described?
Ms. Rivers. One of the flaws that I see for myself as a
president for the tenant association is not allowing the
tenants to participate in the REAC inspections. If they allowed
the tenants to participate, such as for my community, where I
know we have a lot of toxic mold, a lot of rats, and an
infestation of roaches, we would be able to point these things
out. So, that is a major flaw that I see in reference to the
REAC.
Ms. Tlaib. You talked a little bit about having the
residents involved. I know I am going to be working with
Chairwoman Waters, as well as my colleague from Massachusetts,
Representative Pressley, about having more support and capacity
support for our tenants' associations that really help us hold
a lot of folks accountable, including HUD and other folks who
are involved in making sure there is quality.
But what would that look like to actually have tenants be
involved in shaping what the Real Estate Assessment Center
would do?
Ms. Rivers. It would allow the tenants to do a petition to
trigger an inspection. So, it is organizing, it is working
together in the community, it is doing petitions. That is one
way.
Ms. Tlaib. So, it's basically a way to inform the Federal
Government that there is a problem here?
Ms. Rivers. Correct, and it would trigger an inspection, a
REAC inspection.
Ms. Tlaib. So the complaint system online does not work?
Ms. Rivers. It does not work. I have been doing it for year
after year after month after month. The PBCAs are a waste of
residents' time. The protocol that HUD wants the residents to
go through is a waste of time.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
Ms. Rivers. It is a waste of time. It just does not work.
Ms. Tlaib. And there is a lack of urgency when folks
submit, yes?
Ms. Rivers. Yes.
Ms. Tlaib. This question is for Ms. Collins--and thank you
so much for being here--I know there was a tenant survey that
happened and kind of a sample like Real Estate Assessment
Center-inspected properties. What were you trying to address
there? What was included in the survey, and what was effective
in addressing some of the concerns of the residents that you
heard?
Ms. Collins. We were trying to bring back the tenants'
survey for the simple reason of some of the issues that
Shalonda just mentioned. The tenant association would be able
to come along with the REAC inspector and inspect the
apartment, along with the person who was inspecting. Because
the tenants are the ones who live there, they know exactly what
is going on in the building--instead of doing different things
that HUD wants us to do.
And another thing, the survey would also keep the owners
accountable and not let them get away with saying, we did this
and we did that. Whereas, the tenants themselves live there,
and they are the ones who know what is going on in that
building.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Ms. Collins. I agree with you.
Chairman Clay. Thank you.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Steil, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Steil. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking
Member Stivers. I appreciate you holding today's hearing. I
think what we are discussing is a really important topic.
I have a question for you, Mr. Cabrera. We have had a lot
of discussion in this committee, and in particular over the
course of this year, about the importance of funding and how
that is going to make improvements.
I want to step back and also discuss what other meaningful
actions we can take to solve the public housing, and particular
focus on some of the local housing authorities that seem to
cause significant failures to their residents. For example, the
New York City Housing Authority, the largest housing system in
the country, has been criticized for lead paint hazards, mold,
heating failures, and in particular, chronic mismanagement. It
seems the New York City Housing Authority has failed its
400,000 residents for years, endangering their health and
safety. The Authority is now working through an agreement with
HUD to painstakingly address some of its long-standing
problems.
Could you highlight a few of the steps that we should take
to ensure that local housing authorities, like the New York
City Housing Authority, properly maintain their public housing
units and how we could prevent similar failures from happening
across the United States?
Mr. Cabrera. NYCHA is in a class by itself. I cannot
ascribe NYCHA's issues, and have them, on everyone else, and I
will explain why.
NYCHA has 185,000 public housing units. NYCHA has 17,000
units called Mitchell-Lama units. They are State units. NYCHA
has another 90,000 Section 8 vouchers.
One out of every 12 New Yorkers lives in a NYCHA property.
And, on top of that, there are 5 boroughs, and they have
housing, as a general rule, that dates back to the Roosevelt
Administration. That is how that housing began.
Now, up until the 1980s, or actually the 1990s, NYCHA, as a
general rule, was a pretty well-performing property manager.
And even during my time at HUD, it was still well-performing,
just not as well-performing as it had been in prior decades.
I do not know what has happened since then. I think NYCHA's
biggest--NYCHA has a bunch of--I have to put the problem into
pots. NYCHA has 11,000 employees. I want to say that again:
NYCHA has 11,000 employees. That is fully one-third more than
HUD. That is an issue.
NYCHA has a difficult time getting work done because there
are competing trades that want the work, so there are 12
different collective bargaining agreements at NYCHA. That is a
very difficult thing for management to juggle.
NYCHA has a political setting, unlike nearly any other city
in the country, other than possibly San Francisco. And what I
mean by that is there is a--the city council is--and forgive
me--
Mr. Steil. I am going to reclaim a little time here,
because I only get 5 minutes.
Mr. Cabrera. Sorry about that.
Mr. Steil. No, no, no. I think what you are describing is
some of the bureaucratic morass--
Mr. Cabrera. Yes, I am. Thanks.
Mr. Steil. --that we are seeing there. I am going to pause
there.
Mr. Cabrera. Most public housing authorities do not have
that.
Mr. Steil. I am going to pause there. I think you
identified a great thing that we can work on. I want to shift
gears and ask you a question on lead.
Mr. Cabrera. Sure.
Mr. Steil. This is an issue that impacts both public
housing and non-public housing across the United States. I want
to focus in on public housing in particular.
I held a roundtable recently in Wisconsin with the EPA
Administrator and local leaders, discussing lead hazards for
children. Can you comment, since your time at HUD, how we have
done on making progress on lead hazards, paint, and in water in
particular, as it relates to public housing?
Mr. Cabrera. Overall, on housing, with respect to issues
having to do with friable services, services that are cracked,
HUD has for the most part done a terrific job.
Now, has it done a perfect job? Absolutely not. What does
that mean? It is very difficult for HUD to react well when they
do not get good data, and very often, they accept bad data.
That is part of the problem.
I am not including, by the way, anything that is lead-based
and is not dealing with paint, so I am talking about surfaces
within living units that are covered by the one Act that has
been amended 3 times.
So, my short answer, if that is a short answer, is they
have done a pretty good job with oversight. They have done a
pretty good job in posting notices in most circumstances.
Everything can be improved. But on the paint side, they have
done well.
Mr. Steil. I see my time has expired. I appreciate your
time, and I yield back.
Ms. Tlaib. [presiding]. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Gooden, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gooden. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. We have heard a
lot today, and I really appreciate you all for being here.
I wanted to kind of continue with Mr. Cabrera, and then I
have a quick question for Ms. Collins.
Do you think that the resources that HUD has are
sufficient, or do you think that we face just a problem with
implementation in how they utilize those resources, or is it
both?
Mr. Cabrera. It is both.
Mr. Gooden. Feel free to elaborate.
Mr. Cabrera. It is both. HUD has been underfunded for the
better part of 25 years in one way, shape, or form. There are a
lot of reasons for that. I don't want to go into them, mostly
because they are so varied, not because I don't want to talk
about them. It would take us several hours, and you definitely
do not want to hear me on that.
Here is the problem. Regardless, there are housing
authorities that own units. For the record, HUD does not own
units. HUD owns very few units. Housing authorities own units.
They own the real estate. They own the product. That is who
owns the units. Owners own units. HUD provides or allocates the
resources you all provide them. So, at the end of the day, when
you tell a housing authority that has a capital need your
budget is being cut, or in fact done away with, which is a
concern, a deep concern of mine, you are basically telling a
resident they are going to have to either not get something
solved, like bedbugs, or they are going to have to wait. That
is a bit of a problem.
On the operational side, HUD has huge room for improvement.
But part of their problem is what we alluded to earlier today,
which is that they have a capacity problem because of
retirements and departures. And every time someone departs,
then someone is doing three jobs. That means that nothing can
really get done well. Everybody becomes a jack of all trades
and a master of none.
Mr. Gooden. Thank you.
And Ms. Collins--thank you for being here, by the way--I
would like to hear more regarding whether you believe there is
appropriate recourse or an avenue for tenants to report and
inform HUD about housing requirement urgent maintenance or
repair, meaning--obviously, I have heard there are issues with
it, but do you think that what we have on the books is
appropriate, or is it just not being utilized like it needs to
be?
Ms. Collins. Thank you for that question. I just don't
think that it is being utilized properly. And, as I said
earlier, if they had tenant participation in these buildings,
you won't have that many problems. Because, first of all, like
I said earlier, and I continue to say this, tenants are the
ones who live there, so who better to ask these questions but
the tenants? Involve the tenants somewhere in this aspect of
planning or whatever, as we have been asking of HUD for many of
years, to continue to respond and listen to the tenants. You
don't have to take everything the tenants say, but let's just
give you--
NAHT has given recommendations time and time again that
make a lot of sense, but to HUD, it is not making any sense to
them. And where do we go from there? We see these deplorable
conditions and we still not hold them accountable. Someone has
to be accountable.
You are looking at children living in mold. And as some of
the pictures showed, there is a child who was there, and
because of the mold, the back of his head was almost like
embedded with whatever it was. But whose fault is that? We see
mold. We see asbestos. We see all of this stuff.
And REAC, they have to do a better job and they are not
doing it. Because when they go to inspect, if you had tenant
involvement and that 514 money was in there for the tenant
association and organization to organize, you wouldn't have
that problem. So, we need that 514 money. We need tenants to
organize and do a better job and help HUD. We are not working
against HUD. We want to work with you.
Mr. Gooden. Thank you.
Ms. Collins. Thank you.
Mr. Gooden. Thank you all for being here, and I yield back.
Ms. Thrope. Representative Tlaib, if I may address a
question related to lead that was addressed to Mr. Cabrera
earlier, thank you very much.
I just want to make sure just to address the--there is a
gaping hole right now with respect to lead paint inspections
among the federally-assisted housing stock, and that is that
voucher units, all voucher units across the country, and units
that receive less than $5,000 in Project-Based Section 8
funding, are actually--there is no requirement. There is no
risk assessment for lead prior to a family moving into a unit,
which means right now it takes a child exposed to lead paint,
and a child who gets poisoned, before an inspector comes in and
does a lead assessment, and this is impacting hundreds of
thousands of voucher and Project-Based Section 8 families
around the country.
The Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act could easily address
some of these issues by actually standardizing lead-based paint
assessments among all of the Federal housing programs.
Thank you.
Ms. Tlaib. I just wanted folks to know that many of my
colleagues have a caucus vote. That is why they are not here.
It is not because they don't want to listen to you all, and
they do have copies of your testimony.
But I would like to thank all of our witnesses for their
testimony today.
The Chair notes that some Members may have additional
questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in
writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open
for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions
to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record.
Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in
the record.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
November 20, 2019
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]