VOLUME II COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, December 9, 1997 10:25 a.m. - - - RES. 970558 - Authorizing the Council's Committees of Licenses and Inspections and Law and Government to conduct an investigation into the Section 8 Housing Program. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Chair, Law & Government COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Chair, Licenses & Inspections COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN HAPPY FERNANDEZ - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center Plaza, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 412 VOLUME II I N D E X RES. 970558 John F. White, Jr., Former Executive Director, Philadelphia Housing Authority--- 438 Liz Hersh, Executive Director, Tenants' Action Group------------------------------- 521 Sabrina Casin, Chair, Dignity Housing Board--- 539 Habeebah Alli, Founder, Director, Raise of Hope Transitional Housing-------------------------- 543 Arthur Green, Advocate, Pennsylvania Coalition to Save Subsidized Housing----------------- 550 Charles Reeves, Director, Grays Ferry West---- 556 Harvey Portner, Admissions Representative, Professional Health Care Institute-------- 566 Betsy Bridges, Owner, Malton Parkside Apartment Building------------------------ 568 Catherine Chavis, Representative, Catharine Street Tenants Association---------------- 572 - - - 413 RESOLUTION 970558 CHAIRMAN COHEN: The recessed hearing of the Committees on Law and Government and Licenses and Inspections is now in session. The Chair calls on Councilman Ortiz for a few remarks.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During the last year, year and a half, this city, we have had an increasingly sore point growing across city neighborhoods. It has been an issue of misunderstanding, of misinformation that has grown into a very divisive, very dangerous issue among the city residents. It has torn neighborhoods, it has put neighborhoods into discussions that sometimes have become very hostile, very divisive, very demeaning at times. In this Council we decided that we were going to assume some leadership to begin channeling this debate towards a course that would bring us to resolution, that would begin to heal the process and begin to fix whatever problems there were in a program that most, the big majority, of 414 RESOLUTION 970558 people who are involved in the Section 8 issue believe is an important program for low-income and moderate-income people of this city. It is a program that is needed in order for this city to answer the need for affordable housing for its people and in order to prevent homelessness from growing to ever-increasing proportions. It is a program that is needed in order to give some dignity to people and some respect, so that they can begin to get their lives together and enter into the mainstream of our society here in Philadelphia. But it is also a program that people with bad intentions can use to divide and create friction and bring issues of race and class into a debate where they do not belong. It was a very difficult issue to take on. And many people said that this Council should not enter into the fray. But we were elected to assume leadership positions on hard issues, and begin to give direction and to channel the debate, as I said at the beginning, towards the positive side of the 415 RESOLUTION 970558 discussion, not the negative. That's why Councilman Kenney and I, together with David Cohen, began talking. Because we were afraid of the tearing apart that misunderstanding, misconceptions, the myths that are created about a program, the problems that those things can create. We want to be part of that solution. We want to be engaged in the debate, no matter how heated it gets. We wanted the Administration to be engaged in that debate. We wanted the Mayor to be engaged in that debate. We didn't want to hold a discussion with the Mayor on this issue through newspaper columns and newspaper comments. This body has acted responsibly throughout the last six years. I think it merits a greater degree of support and respect than what it has gotten. You cannot be afraid to discuss the issue. We cannot be like Henry Kissinger during the Vietnam War and say, "I have a plan to end the Vietnam War," and never coming forward with that 416 RESOLUTION 970558 plan. You cannot be trying to develop public policy behind closed doors. Public policy is developed in a republic, in a democracy, through open debate among its people, among the legislature, and the executive branch. And there is the right of the citizens to know what the leadership is thinking about the issues that concern them. Rather than angry, I am extremely disappointed at the attitude that has been taken by the Administration. It is calls that go unanswered, letters that do not get a response, issues that are not engaged. I don't believe that we can continue along that road. This issue, specifically this issue, because of the underlying passions that are involved in it, is much more important to the future of this city than the Kvaerner contract is. Because either we learn to live together, or we don't have a city. And this issue presents us with basically that question. Can we come forward with policies 417 RESOLUTION 970558 that bring us together, that breaks down the barriers that divide us and the misconceptions that formed many of our opinions. The Kvaerner deal is about billions of dollars, and people who are rich who will be getting richer and richer. This issue deals with the very fabric of our city, of our neighborhoods.
Can we, as political leaders help this process along, to come together and get our city back talking to each other, and not shouting at each other. We need the Mayor here. We need the Mayor in this debate openly; not talking about some plan that is somewhere in the future. We are talking about issues that are happening every day, every night, in different neighborhoods across the city. And this Council has always been the forum for the people of Philadelphia to come and air their grievances, their anger, and their hopes. And I think at this time we in Council are acting to fix and put that hope together, and bring our city to a place where we can move forward neighborhood and neighborhood arm in 418 RESOLUTION 970558 arm, not separate and divided. So although I am disappointed and angry that the Administration is not here, this Council will act and this Council will do what it has to do and act responsibly along those issues. And I know that the people who are here, the Councilpeople who are here, join me in this, on this. And I believe that we will come up with the right solution. Because the people who are involved in this Council on this issue believe that we have the ability to come together. Thank you, Mr. President. CHAIRMAN COHEN: Thank you. Councilman Kenney. CHAIRMAN KENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to add a few comments to what Councilman Ortiz has already said. However, I want it to approach it from another direction. And I believe that approaching it from this direction, along with Councilman Ortiz' direction, will bring us somewhere to a middle ground, a fair and equitable middle ground. 419 RESOLUTION 970558 Let me first say for the outset that people in this city and in this country have a right to live anywhere they choose. They have the right to have an opportunity to live anywhere they choose. And one of the problems or one -- I don't know if it is a problem -- but one of the circumstances that affect our city is that through history on other issues, our city is a city of neighborhoods. And often that means that neighborhoods are either all one color or all one ethnic group. And as time goes on and our society changes and we evolve as a society in this city, changes take place. And they are not always easy changes. People who have lived in neighborhoods for many, many generations, black and white, Hispanic, have certain attitudes and morays about where they live and the type of society and the type of neighborhood that they want. We need to find a way to allow people to move into those neighborhoods, to move into our society as a group together as Philadelphians. 420 RESOLUTION 970558 And I don't think that any reasonable person in this city or otherwise would begrudge or would not want to help people who are truly in need find adequate, decent housing in neighborhoods and in homes that they choose to occupy. I think we need to make sure that we protect people from ignorance and from hatred. That we move swiftly to remove those people who would use their prejudices and ugliness to make the neighborhood an ugly place, to make people feel uncomfortable and unwanted. But I also think it is important, when we are running a governmental program with tax dollars, that we have understandable rules and regulations and process for all the people in this city to follow, both the people who live in the neighborhoods who are homeowners, people who live in the neighborhoods who are renters, people who live in the neighborhood who occupy scattered site public housing units, public housing projects, public housing developments, and Section 8 tenants. We need to have an understanding that civility and decency is paramount to all of us getting along together in every neighborhood in this 421 RESOLUTION 970558 city.
I have said before at the last hearing -- and I will reiterate now -- the vast, vast majority of people who participate and live in Section 8 housing are decent, honest, hard-working people who contribute to our society in the best way that they can. And we need to move together to make them even more productive citizens, to allow them to, hopefully, one day own their homes. Which I think is something that we all should be moving forward in trying to assure, is home ownership opportunities for everyone in our city. But I think what happens is that when the rules are not understood, when there is not an understandable process for complaint about the small group of people, both tenants and landlords, who do not behave properly, who do not understand and respect the social morays of the community when it comes to simple things like the ability and knowledge that is needed to run a home, how to keep a home up, what to do with your trash, how to make sure you make your children behave, how we can 422 RESOLUTION 970558 interact with each other, all these issues need to be discussed. They are very important issues, and they become very sensitive because of the issue of race that often and sadly raises its head in a very ugly and insensitive way. I think the vast majority of the people who live in the city are decent people. We interact with each other every day. We come into Center City and the neighborhoods and work together side by side. We eat in restaurants together. We go to the sporting events and enjoy ourselves together. And we can learn to live together as long as people who participate in the program -- landlords who participate in the program and all of the community together as a whole -- move forward in a positive way to weed out those who are not behaving, who are not behaving appropriately, to weed out landlords who are not holding up their responsibility as landlords and property owners, and we need to weed out the bad eggs in the neighborhood who because of race and race hatred make it difficult for people to live where they want to 423 RESOLUTION 970558 live. And I think if we attack those issues on every level, we will be very successful in making our neighborhoods stable, decent places for everybody to live. One comment I have relative to the Administration's lack of participation in this proceeding is that I am too disappointed because the Mayor is such a strong and good leader, because he has the ability to articulate and to understand and to make people feel comfortable that we are moving forward in a positive way. His not being here today, or having someone responsible for speaking for him, I think, is very sad. Because the Mayor and his people offer so much to this kind of issue and this kind of discussion. And I think it is sad today that he is not here. I hope, hopefully, that as we move forward with this, he will have more to say in a positive way, which I know he will. And with that I would like to turn it back to Councilman Cohen and thank you all for being here today. 424 RESOLUTION 970558 CHAIRMAN COHEN: Thank you. Just a couple of observations. The two issues that have been talked about by Councilmembers Ortiz and Kenney are of great concern, the issue of Section 8 housing. We think that the debate has moved in a healthful direction. There was a lot of concern expressed when we first announced Council hearings that they were going to be wild, riotous sessions. Instead what occurred were meaningful sessions in which people voiced their honest views. They were different. There are disagreements, but we are on our way to the beginning of some constructive thoughts that we think will strengthen the Section 8 program. With respect to the second aspect, the Mayor's participation, I will speak a little bit as a senior. I have been in city government since the beginning of 1968, served under many mayors.
I can't ever remember a Mayor rejecting an invitation from a City Council committee to come and to discuss whatever issue it was. That was one of the things that made 425 RESOLUTION 970558 us feel that Philadelphia was a real flower of democracy. And that was actually the case, whether or not the Mayor was of the kind that we felt would really add to the discussion. Councilman Kenney has attributed much good to the Mayor. And I think all of us would agree. He is a great cheer leader. And we don't understand his withdrawal from the public. We think the Mayor's Office has much to contribute. We might agree with the Mayor; we might disagree. Some of us would agree, some of us would disagree, and then there could be a debate all throughout the city. But, instead, the Mayor has, for reasons unbenownst to us, chosen to be silent on this issue. And he is the one who is going to have to explain that sooner or later. We think the debate loses some vitality by the lack of participation by the Mayor. But, as Councilman Ortiz said, the problems exist, they have got to be dealt with. And City Council is the legislative body of the city, and we intend to go forward on this matter. 426 RESOLUTION 970558 Today we have as our first speaker a man who --
Just a few words. CHAIRMAN COHEN: Before I introduce -- I don't know whether to call you Councilman White or Commissioner White, or Representative White. Before that, Councilwoman Krajewski.
Thank you, Mr. Cohen. I don't know who I am addressing right now because I don't see anyone from the Administration. I do see John White over there. But right now I really -- CHAIRMAN COHEN: He is not from the Administration, so far as I know. At least not today; right?
Right. But I just want it on record that I feel that Section 8 is just completely out of control. When Section 8 was first formed, I understand it was a good program. It was to help 427 RESOLUTION 970558 our senior citizens, our handicapped, or whatever. This today, I believe, is an economic issue. We state, yes, we have a right to live wherever we chose. Yes, as long as we pay. That's my feeling. I speak for the people who feel this way. I believe in the American dream. When you live somewhere, you want to move up, you have to pay. I speak for the voices out there who feel that way, with the economics, the property values. I myself would love to live in Torresdale, or Chestnut Hill, but I cannot afford that. So no one can tell me I have a right to live there, because I don't have that right unless I am willing to pay and I can afford it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COHEN: All right. I think we are ready for the debate. And the first part of the debate this morning is going to be an educational lesson. Because John White comes to us with many years of experience in all phases of government, and particularly in housing. 428 RESOLUTION 970558 Councilman, we will address you as a colleague. We are delighted to have you present here today.
Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COHEN: And you are still going to have to give your name first for purposes of the record. MR. JOHN F. WHITE, JR.: Yes, sir. I am John F. White, Jr., a private citizen, former Executive Director of the Philadelphia Housing Authority. Mr. Chairman, I am really delighted to have been invited to participate in the discussion this morning. Let me say from the outset that my prepared comments were not ready for distribution. They will be mailed to you, as Chair of the committee. And you can distribute them to your fellow members and staff of the Council as you would see fit. CHAIRMAN COHEN: That will be done.
At the outset, let me say that I want to reserve the overwhelming majority of 429 RESOLUTION 970558 my time to try and respond to the questions that members of this committee may have regarding the Section 8 program as I would understand it. Now, that's dangerous. It is dangerous because I am the former Executive Director of the Housing Authority. And nothing that I say in response to any of the questions or any comments that I make should in any way be construed to be determined to be the current policy or attitude that the Housing Authority is taking on this particular issue. And it is very, very important. My colleagues at the -- my former colleagues at the Housing Authority are good, hard-working people. A lot of you know a lot of them who work there. And you know that they share the same concerns, both for neighborhoods and for the residents that they serve, whether that's in the public housing venue or in the Section 8 venue. They are just as concerned, and spend their professional lives and careers trying to be responsive to the issues, the concerns, the problems that are brought before them from various quarters, 430 RESOLUTION 970558 whether it is Councilmembers, civic leaders, individual tenants, landlords, everyone. It is a difficult job. Secondly, I want to indicate to you that when these hearings were first announced, I indicated publicly that then, as the Executive Director, that we welcomed the opportunity to further educate the public through this forum, those Councilmembers and staff who have a particular interest, into how the Section 8 program works. I know, certainly hope, that at some point the official staff of the Housing Authority, either independently or as a part of the Administration, will have the opportunity to present to you all of the technical aspects of this program and how it operates. Finally, I am encouraged by some of the things that I heard from members of this panel. Some of the things; not all. And I say that understanding that we represent this city. Whether it is at the district level or on an at-large basis, we are to be representatives of the people. And that's duly respected. 431 RESOLUTION 970558 I think you are right on target when you talk about the problems that families, some of the families -- and, Councilman, I want to say some of the families, as you indicated -- do have and that they bring with them. That's real, and I think that it has to be addressed. I might respectfully suggest that to simply focus on PHA and what PHA does really does miss the mark. And I will respond to any questions that folks have about that as we move forward. With respect to where people can live, people do have the right to live anywhere they choose. (Applause.)
What distinguishes where people live is their wherewithal. And the federal government decided, I believe in 1974, that the Section 8 program, through the federal subsidies, was to provide people with the wherewithal to exercise their right to live in any neighborhood, in any region, in any borough or township or county of their choosing. That brings with it problems. And all too often those problems are focused back on 432 RESOLUTION 970558 that local governmental agency or entity to resolve. As you continue this discussion -- and I really do hope that this committee will continue its discussion, and that this will not be the last time that you convene in public to address this issue -- unfortunately, you cannot ignore the issue of race, ethnicity, and class. People who complain about the Section 11 8 program, quote, unquote, are not all white. There are black folk, black communities across this city, who have the same concerns. But nor is the program all black. You are focusing on one program, the Section 8 program that is administered by the Philadelphia Housing Authority. I hope some of you realize that there are four Section 8 programs, not one. There is one program, the largest of which is administered by the federal government, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, that provides Section 8 support to families moving into another form of project-based assistance. That program has been used to assist 433 RESOLUTION 970558 immigrants to this country to find adequate housing in neighborhoods throughout this city. It has been used to upgrade living conditions in publicly owned and privately owned financed projects to provide housing for people in this city. No one talks about that. You have the TRAC program, the Transitional Assistance Program, that is administered by the City of Philadelphia through the Office of Emergency Services. It is a program that receives Section 8 certificates with no oversight by the Philadelphia Housing Authority. This is a program to assist people in making the transition from homelessness to either home ownership or rental occupancy. It is purely within the jurisdiction of the City Council of the City of Philadelphia and its city government to provide that oversight. PHA has absolutely nothing to do with it. You have the Project-Based Assistance Program, which is a partnership between the Philadelphia Housing Authority and the city, where selected profit and not-for-profit entities apply for Section 8 certificates in order to meet certain 434 RESOLUTION 970558 mandates provided by the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, make these deals go. The subsidy that these not-for-profit and for-profit entities receive relative to Project-Based Assistance are sometimes the determining factor as to whether or not a block, a project, a group of homes are in fact renovated and reoccupied in many of the blighted neighborhoods of this city. Then you have the Section 8 program that is administered by the Philadelphia Housing Authority, the most regulated program of the four. We are not only guided by the law with respect to fair housing and the establishment of the Section 8 program; but we are also guided by regulations that are established by the federal government, as well, that tell that agency what it can and cannot do with respect to occupancy and with respect to the way in which we interact with our landlords. You might be surprised to find out that public housing dollars used under the operating subsidy cannot be used for direct services. So that if a person needs mental 435 RESOLUTION 970558 health assistance, if they need drug or alcohol treatment, the Housing Authority cannot provide those services directly. They must refer to other agencies in our city, in our communities that provide those services. So they don't even have the wherewithal to meet that demand. Law enforcement, which I know is a big issue for many of the members on Council as you talk about the Section 8 program.
The Philadelphia Housing Authority Police Department have absolutely no jurisdiction beyond public housing properties owned by the Philadelphia Housing Authority. A private landlord who rents to an eligible Section 8 tenant is not governed or overseen by the Philadelphia Housing Authority Police Department; it is the local police department that have that responsibility. So as you talk about how you can begin to address some of these issues and concerns and problems as have been brought to your attention and as you know them because of your interaction with your constituents, I beg you not to take the 436 RESOLUTION 970558 shortsighted, quick-fix approach to this. This is indeed a complex problem that has not been ignored for years, that has not been ignored simply until Council has moved forward, as you have, in introducing the resolution to conduct these public hearings. The Housing Authority has been focused on these issues for a very, very long time. And, quite frankly, I hope that at the conclusion of these deliberations what this body will decide, what this body will decide, is that those agencies within the jurisdiction of the City of Philadelphia and those agencies that are impacted directly by state and federal funding will work in a more cohesive and cooperative manner to not only protect, or not only to meet the needs of this city's poorest citizens, but also to protect the interests of people who live in the selected neighborhoods throughout our great city. Thank you very much. ) CHAIRMAN COHEN: Thank you very much, Mr. White. Councilman Kenney. 437 RESOLUTION 970558 CHAIRMAN KENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. White, for your attendance and for your thoughtful commentary and testimony. I want to give you an example of a problem, specific problem, without names and without addresses, that elected officials like myself encounter and explain to you my efforts in an effort to resolve the problem, and some of the obstacles I faced. I know a lot has to do with process, what happens in a neighborhood when and if there is a problem, and what opportunities people have to resolve that problem either through interaction with each other or through outside agencies or the police department or whatever. In South Philadelphia, not too far from where I live, on a small row-house street, there is a Section 8 tenant who is a young woman. And for purposes of discussion, it was not an interracial situation. It was two majority, a white woman and predominantly white neighbors. 438 RESOLUTION 970558 She is a young woman in her mid 20's, almost 30 years old, whose father owned the property. The father lives in Packer Park, in a very nice part of the city. And he converted that property to a Section 8, the fourth -- the number our -- Section 8, PHA No. 4, as you explained it, and was getting approximately maybe seven-something a month for the property where his daughter lives. The daughter had severe drug and alcohol problems. And not only was a disruption herself to the community, but was engaging in what we call a party house. So that the young men in the neighborhood would come and drink there during the evening and create a stir. And the Philadelphia Police, of course, would be called, and they would come. A disorderly house type of operation. This went on for approximately two years. And your staff was very helpful in trying to give us guidance on what it is we could do to both build a case to explain to the surrounding neighbors why this was happening, and also to make some explanation as to why a father, who wouldn't 439 RESOLUTION 970558 want this daughter living in his own house, had foisted this individual on the rest of the neighborhood. We were told at the time that the predominant problem or discussion should take place between the elected officials, the neighbors, and the landlord. That this was basically a violation of the lease, and the landlord was responsible for moving that particular tenant out.
But because of the fact that the daughter was the tenant, he was in no rush. Of course she wasn't living in Packer Park with him, so he was in no rush to end this relationship because he was getting the money and, secondly, because she didn't have to live with him. In that circumstance, what would be the appropriate method for the neighbors, the Civic Association, the elected officials to confront this problem, to remove what is obviously a disruption? Because I viewed, I sat outside with the police one evening, and listened to the noise and the foul language and the drinking. And she was in the middle of a block, 440 RESOLUTION 970558 so everything that happened involved every neighbor. And it wasn't just Fridays and Saturdays; it was Monday through Sunday. What would neighbors do in that case? CHAIRMAN COHEN: Mr. White, just before you begin, let me introduce the members of the committee that are here, Councilwoman Blackwell to my extreme right, Councilman Nutter, Councilman Kenney, I am Councilman Cohen. To my left, Councilman Ortiz, Councilman Rizzo, Councilwoman Krajewski, Councilwoman Fernandez. The moment another Councilmember comes here, we will have a quorum, and we can do what we want with the vote, we will have an absolute majority. CHAIRMAN KENNEY: We could approve the Kvaerner deal. CHAIRMAN COHEN: And we will solve all problems. Thank you very much. Excuse me for interfering.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I always, when I was here, enjoyed those meetings of 441 RESOLUTION 970558 the Council of the Whole. They were intriguing. Formally, probably you were told exactly what you could do. As you know, and I think as a part of that frustration, it is a contractual relationship; PHA with the landlord, the landlord then with the tenant. The unfortunate circumstance, before the actual Housing Authority could directly intervene, there would really have to be some violation of law. For example, if the individual were arrested for disorderly conduct, for drugs or for alcohol, then PHA, I believe, would have some sound grounds for moving to terminate that person from the program. And I emphasize terminating them from the program. PHA cannot terminate that lease. That private landlord could just as well decide that they are not going to accept the subsidy coming from the Section 8 program, leave that daughter in that house, and continue to receive rent directly from that daughter or eat the loss. 442 RESOLUTION 970558 But there is nothing that PHA could do formally to terminate that lease or the relationship between the tenant and the landlord, other than in the case of a conviction or mounting evidence, that the person has in fact violated the family responsibilities that are associated with the program, to terminate them from the program. CHAIRMAN KENNEY: Should there be?
I think that you have conflict resolution measures in various capacities throughout this city, whether it is through the Human Relations Commission, the police department. When folks can't get along, you know, generally speaking, through the police department and through the Human Relations Commission, there is a conflict resolution process or procedure. Something similar to that, working with the Housing Authority in the Section 8 program, I think, would deserve some merit. Be careful. Because, again, the Housing Authority cannot be perceived in any way, as you already know, of violating, quote, those rights. Understanding the rights of the neighbors, Councilman. I am trying to anticipate that. 443 RESOLUTION 970558 CHAIRMAN KENNEY: And that's why --
But the conflict resolution procedures that you currently have through the police department and through the Human Relations Commission should and could be used to bring about a resolution to that problem. And it has been rare that that process has been used on behalf of the Section 8 program. It has been used. It has also been used with respect to your scattered site program in public housing. But it has not been used broadly. CHAIRMAN KENNEY: Part of the difficulty that we face is, I look at this as a two -- well, every circumstance is different. And the Conflict Prevention Resolution Unit and the Human Relations Commission -- and actually the first agency I called, always, when any of this issue comes up, is the Human Relations Commission. I like and respect Kevin Vaughan very much and the members of that commission, and I always ask for their assessment. Would you please, folks, go out, do 444 RESOLUTION 970558 an assessment, and tell me what you really think about the circumstance. Because I know when it comes to CPR and other things, that they need to protect people who others are attempting to run out of the neighborhood because of the color of their skin, because of their class, because of those issues. This is not that circumstance that I give you. And this anecdote may be isolated. But what happens with the anecdote that I gave you is that the surrounding community -- and this is, again, not a racial situation -- the surrounding community begins to portray Section 8 as that woman who is feeding that beer to those teenagers Monday through Sunday; that father who is getting $700 a month for a property he probably couldn't rent for $500 a month. And that's what the program is stamped with, and it is unfair. And what happens is that people resist it, they resist, where Section 8 has become a negative word. And that's sad, because it really shouldn't be. My question is, if there is such a small group of people that are really causing this 445 RESOLUTION 970558 problem, why is it so difficult for us to remove them from the program and to let the next decent, well-deserving, good person move into that property?
Because of the strict rules that are imposed on the Housing Authority that prohibit the Housing Authority from, quote, regulating the behavior of the tenants who have no 10 contractual obligation to that agency, but one with the landlord. That's why I suggested the conflict resolution procedures that are imposed. It used to be the Crisis Intervention Program that I guess my dad was involved with, and Benny Swans to some extent was also involved in. And that's not race. CHAIRMAN KENNEY: I agree. Because I have dealt with them before. And what I find, the difficulty with CPR is that they usually get into the circumstance to resolve it, not to prevent it. And one of the things that I have asked, for example, when I have an interracial situation, where I may have three, two or three, ugly, you know, prejudiced white people who say 446 RESOLUTION 970558 nasty things to an African-American woman who moved into the street for the first time, what happens sometimes is that that tenant, for example, moved in with their landlord at o'clock at night on a 6 Wednesday. 7 Now, you have no control over that 8 process. But understand my problem. 9 My problem is, listen to my problem. 10 Here is my problem. I would like to have the 11 opportunity, in advance, as a decent person, to be 12 able to go into that street, to get the eight or ten decent neighbors, to have some prior interaction so that we can begin our process of preventing the ugliness before it happens.
There is a procedure already in place to do that. CHAIRMAN KENNEY: Well, not with some of the landlords, respectfully.
No, not respectfully with respect to me or my former capacity. The Human Relations Commission already does that. Both the local and the state Human Relations Commission are mandated and have as a part of their mantra to do just that. 447 RESOLUTION 970558 CHAIRMAN KENNEY: They tell me they suggest that kind of interaction to the landlords, that don't necessarily follow that.
Councilman, I will tell you that the Human Relations Commission, both at the local level and the state level, have been directly involved with the Section 8 program, the Housing Authority, and private landlords, and those tenants on that very issue. CHAIRMAN KENNEY: Is there a requirement for the landlords to follow some procedure, or to be involved with Human Relations or CPR or anything else?
Regulations are established by the federal government. CHAIRMAN KENNEY: Well, again, I am not looking for you to wave a wand and say all these problems are going to go away.
I did that for four years when I was at PHA. CHAIRMAN KENNEY: Touche. Touche. 448 RESOLUTION 970558 What I want to do is to get input from you so we know who to go to to try to make those changes both structurally and legislatively, so that we can have a process that people are comfortable with.
And I am suggesting to you you have the vehicle. What you don't have, I guess, is the law or the regulatory authority to mandate or to impose that on a private landlord. CHAIRMAN KENNEY: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COHEN: Councilman Nutter. And let the Chair introduce Councilman Mariano, who gives the body here a total majority. Councilman Nutter.
Good morning, Mr. White. Thank you for coming this morning to share information. I had planned to start with another question, but I wanted to follow up on the example that Councilman Kenney shared. One of the problems, I think, in all of this discussion, from prior to the first hearing, 449 RESOLUTION 970558 in the first hearing, and now in this hearing, is an apparent distinction that some people, I guess, make in their minds as to the appropriate application of laws and remedy as it relates to Section 8 tenants versus anyone else who is a renter, or in some cases a homeowner, in the City of Philadelphia. And it seems to me that there is one body of law in this city, there is generally one set of procedures that agencies follow, but without distinction made to whether someone is a Section 8 tenant or not. In the case that the Councilman shared with us, as he was relating the story, I began to wonder, well, what procedure do we follow for the non-Section-8 tenant who engages in the same behavior with their non-Section-8-participating landlord. They should be the same. If it is bad behavior, it is bad behavior, and we should have a process. The fact that the person happens to participate in the program, I assume that PHA and the appropriate agencies will take whatever action is necessary against the participating property 450 RESOLUTION 970558 owner. But that doesn't necessarily solve the problem between the property owner and the tenant because of their bad behavior. And I guess your general response was, even if the property owner was thrown out of the Section 8 program, decided to maintain a lease/rental relationship with, in this case, even the daughter, I assume that person will continue to engage in their bad behavior. Now they are completely out of the program. For me the bottom line of all of this has been, what do we do with people who break the law? In my office, in the neighborhoods that I represent, Wynnefield, Overbrook, Roxborough, Manayunk, East Falls, part of West Philadelphia, part of North Philly, and part of West Mt. Airy, I get complaints about similar incidents, some worse, some better, all generally bad. Virtually none of those complaints have anything to do with anyone who is involved in the Section 8 program. But people are still upset about the kids, the trash, barking dogs, and 451 RESOLUTION 970558 everything else that goes on. And if we can't solve those problems generally, I don't expect how we are going to solve them in the narrowest of cases involving 11,000 units of rental housing in a city that has over 200,000 units of rental housing. And we don't seem to have an answer for the other 200-some-odd thousand people throughout the city, notwithstanding whether they are Section 8 tenants or not.
May I, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, though that wasn't a question, I would like to make just one brief comment in response to that. What Councilman Kenney and I were talking about, and as you heard and understood, with respect to conflict resolution, the Conflict Resolution Units of the police department and the Human Relations Commission are engaged in trying to resolve those differences amongst neighbors, regardless of whether they are in the Section 8 program or not.
And I think maybe the 452 RESOLUTION 970558 question to be posed is whether or not the program is actually reaching the folks who it needs to reach, are people aware of it as a place where they can go to resolve differences of opinion amongst neighbors. And to the extent that folks become more aware of it, I think you may see and witness a heightened participation on the part of those member agencies in trying to resolve some of those differences. But the rules should be the same. And I did not mean to imply by my response to Councilman Kenney that there is a different standard or a different set of rules that ought to be applied when conflict exists between parties who may be involved in the Section 8 program versus neighbors who may be not.
No, I didn't take that to be your implication. Couple of questions. I am going to ask you a couple of questions based on the 24th Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 9. And I am reading from the May 1, 1996, Edition.
I really don't believe 453 RESOLUTION 970558 you are doing this to me this morning.
Well, I think that you will have some general -- I think you will be more than fine. In Section 982.202, it talks about how applicants are selected, and there are some general requirements. But in one of the sections it specifically discusses prohibited admission criteria. And the first is family suitability for tenancy. And that reads, "The owner selects the tenant. The owner decides whether the family is suitable for tenancy. The Housing Authority decision whether to admit an applicant to the program may not be based on an applicant's suitability for tenancy. "The Housing Authority may deny assistance to an applicant because of drug-related activity, criminal activity, or violent criminal activity by family members," and then you are directed to see Section 982.553. Mr. White, is it your recollection from your time at PHA that that section is still 454 RESOLUTION 970558 accurate and current?
And, so, what is PHA's role and responsibility in the Section 8 program as it relates to whether a tenant can participate in the program?
It is purely to determine their eligibility based on their income, no record of some specific items, for example, criminal activity, failure to pay rent in another residence, most often public housing. Having been evicted from a Public Housing Authority would also lead to you not being accepted in the program. But it is basically to determine the eligibility. PHA, through the Section 8 program that it administers, Mr. Chairman, is not permitted to screen applicants beyond determining their eligibility. The question of suitability is solely the responsibility of the landlord, and not the Authority itself.
In Points 2 and 3, same section, there are items entitled Before the 455 RESOLUTION 970558 Family Lives. And that reads, "Admission to the program may not be based on where the family lives before admission to the program. However, the Housing Authority may target assistance for families who live in public housing or other federally assisted housing." And the section is No. 3 that reads, "Where Family Will Live: Admission to the program may not be based on where the family will live with assistance under the program." Are those regulations still in effect?
A question has been raised about, or an allegation, a charge, has been raised with regard to the rents, that various --
Rents that various landlords charge. That they are, in some cases, excessive, that they are gouging people. And it is my understanding that there is something in the Definition section that talks 456 RESOLUTION 970558 about a fair market rent, and then there is an exception to fair market rent. But that HUD publishes, apparently, a guideline or a guide book on what the fair market rent is, I guess, for the areas that the particular Housing Authority has jurisdiction. How is it that any particular landlord can charge in excess of either whatever the fair market rent that's established or whatever the HUD guidelines are for fair market value? Is it possible?
There are four Section 8 programs. In the Section 8 program that is administered by the Philadelphia Housing Authority, fair market rent is determined by surveying, first, the rent levels by zip code and then on a block-by-block basis. It works against the Authority being in a position to grant or to contract for rents that are higher than the FMR, or the Fair Market Rent, of that particular neighborhood or that particular block. I am going to guess that when people 457 RESOLUTION 970558 make that allegation, they are not talking about the Section 8 program administered by the Philadelphia Housing Authority. Whenever PHA wants to pay a particular -- whenever PHA agrees to a particular rent, that must meet the rent reasonableness standard that is established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The local office of HUD reviews those rents to make sure that they are, in fact, within the FMR criteria. If an exception is being made, that's a different story. But I would suggest to you that on the PHA-administered program, exceptions are a rarity.
Let's talk about exceptions. When you talk about exceptions, are you talking about exceptions that are generally granted in the other three programs, or are we talking about a specific exception in the PHA-administered Section 8 program? And how would a person go about getting an exception? And could you give us some 458 RESOLUTION 970558 example of how rare exceptions are in the PHA-administered program?
I am getting on shaky ground, but I am going to go on my recollection. And certainly when the Housing Authority and representatives from the local HUD office have an opportunity to testify, they can feel free to correct me, as I am sure that they would. I used to receive requests from landlords who did not get an increase in their rent on an annual basis. And it was determined that in 9.999 times out of 10, after consultation both with the Section 8 staff and with the local HUD office, that rent increases, subsidy increases to those private landlords were not warranted. There are certain situations I believe, however, when they have been granted. And I believe that is when there is some extraordinary circumstance which leads to the increase or the need to increase a rent in a particular property or in a particular area of the city. But it is very, very rare. In a Project-Based Assistance 459 RESOLUTION 970558 Program, there are some -- I don't know how many -- rents that are in excess of 150 percent of the fair market rent. How that is determined, why that is determined, I am not in a position to say. There is a national debate in Washington, D.C., in Congress, on that very issue. But that issue focuses primarily on the HUD-administered Section 8 program, not Housing Authority Section 8 programs. Where the question has been raised over and over again, whether or not HUD, at the federal level, is in fact a little too lenient with respect to the granting of rental subsidies to private landlords participating in their programs, but not as it relates to Housing Authority programs.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COHEN: Thank you. Councilman Rizzo.
Mr. White, thank you for being here today. My comments are going to pick up on something that you said. In reference to trying to avoid conflicts, could you explain, many of the complaints that I hear from residents that live in the area of Section 8 housing is the problem with some of the behavioral problems. And when people come from, come into a single-family Section 8 property, you know, it is not easy to maintain and understand and operate a property. You know, just trying to figure out the recycling days from the trash days. And many of the things that I think aggravate some of the neighbors are sheer, in many cases, honest mistakes. They don't know to take a screen window out and put a storm window in, or you don't put the trash out the day before. From your experience, what do you do to try to educate people that for their first time in their lives have owned a home, or live in a home? From your experience, what did you do? And if you have any recommendations, 461 RESOLUTION 970558 especially in that area, for the future, I would like to hear.
If I could admit for the record, every now and then I forget when my recycling is supposed to go out, too. I check with my next-door neighbor; he is always on the schedule. (Applause.)
Councilman, I happen to live in the same neighborhood that Councilman Nutter lives in.
We can't figure out which Friday it is really going to be. We will work on that. There is an orientation that the Housing Authority conducts with all eligible and prospective Section 8 tenants. And it speaks to basic kinds of home housekeeping, values of neighborhoods and neighbors. But beyond that, very little happens. I want to go back, though. Because I think that at the point which you start in raising 462 RESOLUTION 970558 your question, it is already too late. And this is the sensitive area. And it is a sensitive area for every one of you, for this Administration and, quite frankly, for the taxpayers of this city. The policy was established in 1988 that in order to address the burgeoning problem of homelessness and people living in shelters, that the Section 8 program, along with the housing, Public Housing Program, would become the housing of last resort for those individuals who are entering the shelter system in the city. The arrangement was that city-certified shelters would be the only way that someone could gain access to public housing, from a shelter. Whether it is the Section 8 program or the regular Public Housing Program, it had to be a city-certified licensed shelter. Why? At that time the debate was around these issues. Since they are with us for, quote, 30 days, we are able to determine whether they are ready to live on their own or not. We can tell you whether they have 463 RESOLUTION 970558 engaged in drug and alcohol. We can tell you whether they have engaged in any criminal activity over the last 30 days. They are required to save a certain amount of money. We can tell you if they saved their money. We can tell you if they got up in the morning and made up their bed. And because we can tell you those things, we then think that those individuals that we are referring to you are, in fact, ready to live independently.
That's when we use the magic wand. Even though in many of the shelters people are receiving services, those services do not follow that family once they leave that shelter. So the kind of supervision that one may be under with respect to their substance abuse problem doesn't follow them once they come into the Section 8 program. The person who stands there and makes sure, in fact, that they are actually saving their 464 RESOLUTION 970558 money so that they can pay whatever to make a downpayment on their rental assistance is not there anymore. The person who needs guidance in raising their children, either through DHS or through other independent agencies, once that person leaves that shelter system and is accepted into the Section 8 program, those services don't follow them anymore. And it is important that we keep that in mind. You know the demographics of the homeless population. You know the needs and the issues and the problems that they face. But, somehow, after you spend 30 days in that shelter, all those problems have gone away. Well, it is not true. We didn't sit there and be quiet about that. In fact, early in 1994 there were meetings that were held between myself personally and Bill Parschal and John Kromer, where we talked about that issue. And we talked about the need to do a better job of making sure that the services that are needed and provided for those families while they 465 RESOLUTION 970558 are in shelter continue with them after they leave that shelter and enter one of the two programs that the Philadelphia Housing Authority was responsible for, Public Housing and Section 8. In a letter that I sent to Bill 7 Parschal in July of 1994, in support of their application for McKinney Act Funds, which is a flexible funding line for housing programs, for homeless assistance that the city applies for on an annual basis, and is a major part of your shelter system funding program, we indicated to them in Point No. 4 how delighted we were that we had reached agreement that they would be providing those services for those residents once they left that shelter and were entering the public housing programs. Everybody agreed it was necessary. Unfortunately, Councilman, it did not happen. And what I said, Mr. Chairman, earlier is, you go through this discussion and this dialogue, and you begin to see just what this fabric is, how it is actually knitted together. All of us will come to understand that PHA is not an island unto itself; that there is 466 RESOLUTION 970558 a cause and effect for everything that happens in this program. If we are taking people out of shelters and accepting them into the program, whose responsibility, then, is it to make sure that the supports that made that person, quote, ready to live independently are in fact in place to assure that they are living independently? That's a big question. And it is a serious dilemma that you, as Councilmembers, and that the Administration are going to have to address. You cannot, you cannot, establish neighborhood conditions as a priority, and then deprioritize the neediest citizens of this city. It can't happen. (Applause.)
At some point, at some point, at some point you are going to have -- you are going to face the music, just like this body has decided to face it today and through your previous hearings. It cannot continue. And you can debate whether it is right or wrong, and you can debate whether you want 467 RESOLUTION 970558 to invest the resources to make it happen. But the truth of the matter is, unless you do make it happen, you are going to be right back here a year from now, two years from now, three years from now, hearing the same kinds of complaints, the same kinds of concerns from people who simply cannot make it on their own without getting a little bit of help from those responsible agencies. And I can't leave here today without everybody understanding that, those who are here on behalf of this Council, and those who are not here on behalf of any other entity that is concerned about this issue. (Applause.)
Thank you, Mr. White, for those candid comments. And I would hope that the Administration's plan includes what you just said today.
Thank you, Councilman. CHAIRMAN COHEN: Councilwoman Fernandez.
Following up 468 RESOLUTION 970558 on that issue you alluded to -- and I know it has been a concern of many people -- the fact that the policy has been to give priority for Section 8 to people who are in shelters, do you feel that's a wise policy, or do you think that should be changed?
Because you can't afford the cost of increased shelter care. You can't afford to change it. The Housing Authority --
Can you tell me about, is there some evidence that people go into shelter in order to get into Section 8?
Why wouldn't 469 RESOLUTION 970558 you continue to do that?
Because the arrangement that has been worked out between the shelter system and the Housing Authority is that the Office of OES is responsible for making sure that that does not occur, that that's why they are certified as being homeless; that's why. And this is something that's been emphasized over and over again, at least in the tenure that I have been there. It was one of the primary reasons why we began to have that dialogue with OSHA at that time, now OES. I don't believe that that continues to be the case, I really don't. But you can't afford at this point, in my view, to change that policy, unless you are also willing -- and I am not talking about you as an individual, Councilwoman, as you know -- unless you are also willing to look at where the money is going to come from to expand your shelter system. PHA provides 400, 400 housing opportunities to people on an annual basis, on average, in this city. The overwhelming majority of 470 RESOLUTION 970558 them are coming out of your shelter system.
Well, do you have evidence that this is not happening anymore?
What's the evidence? What's the evidence that it is? There is nothing to refute, other than to say that the city's responsibility is to make that determination.
Well, I guess I am not following. If the word gets around that the best way to get Section 8 housing is to be in a shelter, why wouldn't that be an incentive?
With all due respect, people want to get out of shelters. VOICE: Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.)
I know that. People also want to get Section 8 certificates.
To some people, a Section 8 certificate is a way to be able 471 RESOLUTION 970558 to afford a place to live.
Maybe my experience is not similar to yours. But as I visited shelters and talked to people, more importantly, when people have called my office to find out why they haven't moved up on the Section 8 waiting list or why they haven't moved up on the Public Housing waiting list, and they are told that they don't meet any of the four preferences that the Authority recognizes -- government displacement, fire, domestic violence, homeless -- the one thing that people don't want to do is to go into a shelter for 30 days so that they can move into the housing of last resort in this city. Now, can you find an example of an individual who made that choice? Probably. But I think for every example that you find of someone who made that decision, there are probably thousands of others who decided that it would be better for them to stay with family or move from house to house than to move into one of the shelters that are currently operated in the City of Philadelphia.
I agree with 472 RESOLUTION 970558 you. And I also certainly support neighborhood-based homelessness prevention programs. So I share that concern. But I think the message that needs to get clearly out, that there are other ways to get Section 8 housing certificates, other than to have to go into a shelter first. That's good. I am glad the public record, then, is clear. If you have no evidence that that's happening, I will take your authority. You are certainly closer to it than I am.
I think what these hearings are about is to break some of the mythologies, some of the false perceptions that are out there. And that is one of the false perceptions that are out there. And I am glad that Councilman White is putting the kabash on that.
So it is not 473 RESOLUTION 970558 happening, and I don't think there is proof that that is happening. And unless we can substantiate an allegation of that sort, then all we do is to promote and keep on promoting this rumor and this myth that poor people go into shelter in order to get Section 8 housing. It is not happening.
That's good news, and I am glad to stand corrected. My second question -- CHAIRMAN COHEN: Do you agree with that, Mr. White?
I have no evidence of that happening. CHAIRMAN COHEN: You agree with what Councilman Ortiz said?
Except he spoke of it in a very definitive not happening. CHAIRMAN COHEN: Yes.
I have been around government long enough to know, I don't have any 474 RESOLUTION 970558 evidence that it's happening. CHAIRMAN COHEN: Very good. (Applause.)
The second issue -- and, again, I would like your view and numbers on this -- with some of the conversation going on in previous hearings, someone could be led to assume that all of Section 8 housing is a problem. And I think some of the data brought up in some of the other hearings was, sometimes people thought a neighbor who was a problem neighbor was a Section 8 resident, and, in fact, they were not. So if there are approximately 8500 families living in Section 8 housing -- is that your best estimate at the number?
Okay. Of those, do you have any records, or does the Human Relations Committee have any records, of how many complaints there are about actual Section 8 residents? 475 RESOLUTION 970558 What I'm trying to get at is, you know, if it is 100, and it is in your neighborhood, it is still a problem. But I wanted to get your best estimate of the numbers or percentage of reported problem tenants who are actually Section 8.
The specific number would better be offered by the Housing Authority representatives themselves, and I wouldn't dare try to guess at what that is. But they will know, and they will be able to respond to the specifics of that question. What the public --
That's when they come. I thought maybe you would be able to share your best understanding.
I am here today to do that. With what is of public record, I believe that between July of 1996 and May of 1997, there may have been 800 residents, tenants, who were terminated from the Section 8 program. That does not mean that that happened because there were complaints from neighbors. That 476 RESOLUTION 970558 could have happened as a result of inspections to their property and things of that nature, convictions, things of that nature. But more than 800 people were terminated from the program over that 12-month period.
And my last question was, in terms of training or supports, you alluded to the supports you think would be needed to help people make a positive transition if someone had not been a tenant before, maybe been just in a family, a younger person. What is your understanding of what PHA did do, even with the constraints of its budget, to assist any Section 8 housing tenants?
Beyond the orientation that is provided, the Housing Authority operates something that is referred to as the Family Self-Sufficiency Program, where Section 8 residents are invited to participate in job skill, job experience programs that hopefully lead to full-time 477 RESOLUTION 970558 employment. We adopt -- our belief was that the best way to really inspire independence was with a job. And to the extent that we could contribute by providing work experience at PHA sites and in PHA offices and in the private sector, we thought that we were making a leap forward in helping that person to achieve independence and self-sufficiency. In addition to that, the sessions that are held with those residents, prospective tenants, before they are issued the Section 8 packet, allows the Authority to make sure that those prospective tenants understand the rules that the Housing Authority is to be guided by and how those rules impact on them. The same thing is held for landlords, where landlords are invited in. Not only the new landlords, but invitations are extended to current landlords, so that they can be fully made aware and reminded of the various rules, the regulations, the guidelines that PHA is imposing on them in this particular jurisdiction. 478 RESOLUTION 970558 CHAIRMAN COHEN: Councilwoman Fernandez --
Just one last minute. If you say they are invited in, are they required, or just invited to come if you want? CHAIRMAN COHEN: Very briefly.
They are not required. In either case, they are not required. CHAIRMAN COHEN: Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly am delighted to have Mr. White here. And we thank you for your courage and for all the facts, the information that you have brought to, quote, unquote, set the record straight on the whole Section 8 issue. I am concerned because -- and it was when my colleagues scheduled the hearing -- because public perception would indicate that we have a bigger problem than we do. Let me ask you, do you agree that we 479 RESOLUTION 970558 have buildings, major buildings, in even Center City where this program is used, irrespective of PHA and other entities, where it is used, it is used well, it is used for senior citizens and other people? I mean buildings on Walnut and Chestnut and Market Street, where this operates well. Would you not agree?
And wouldn't you also agree that we have a minority of problems, a small number, relative to the entire Section 8 program, where there are problems?
I think that that is generally agreed to not only by myself as an individual, but by the majority of the members of this Council, as well.
Thank you. We are concerned. I just received a copy of an ugly letter that was sent to Mr. Reeves, with all kind of threats about bombing houses of elected officials and other people with regard to anybody moving people into Section 8 programs. And I think this is the dangerous trash that the law enforcement authorities need to 480 RESOLUTION 970558 deal with, to put people on record that we continue to support this program. I am glad the whole issue of certificates issued to PHA people, that issue arose. Certainly we have been fighting for years for people to have a right to housing and 9 to respect the fact that because people have low 10 incomes or no income does not mean that they don't 11 have a right to the same Tree of Life as everyone 12 else in this city and in this country. 13 (Applause.) 14
And 15 certainly we applaud all that you did while at PHA 16 to bring it forward and to bring it into the modern 17 age. 18 And now we have a record. Now we 19 know where we are, we know where we can stress other 20 programs. 21 And I think it is especially 22 important that you mentioned that we have programs 23 on paper. Maybe we can expand them. But we don't 24 throw out the baby with the bath water. 25 Because we do need Section 8. We 481 RESOLUTION 970558 need Section 8 for everybody who wants it, for those in shelter, for those low income, for senior citizens, and all members of the community who might need the extra subsidy. Thank you, Mr. White. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COHEN: Thank you. Councilwoman Krajewski.
Thank you very much for coming in. And I also appreciate the fact that you are here. At least we have someone to ask questions to.
It is good. I am a landlord. Now, can you give me step by step what I would do in order to apply for Section 8? I guess my question is two-fold. And is there any limit to any homes that I have that I can apply for? 482 RESOLUTION 970558
A limit as a landlord. Like I know there are some who have maybe 10, homes that they own that they have for 6 Section 8, that they rent for Section 8. 7
Sure. Mr. Chairman, if 8 you would, there is a statistical breakdown on the 9 number of assisted units versus total number of 10 landlords that may be helpful in response to the 11 Councilwoman's question. 12 And if you will allow me to just read 13 that, I would appreciate it very briefly. 14 The number of landlords who own 15 between and 5 properties that are within the 16 Section 8 program, 3,142. 17 The number of landlords which own 18 between 5 and 10 properties that are in the Section 19 8 program, 158. 20 The number of landlords which own in 21 excess of 10 properties that are enrolled in the 22 Section 8 program is 176. 23 The overwhelming majority of Section 24 8 landlords in this city are folks you and I know, 25 they are just like you and I, they are mom-and-pop 483 1 RESOLUTION 970558 operations. The situation that you described, though unfortunate, it is a lot of cases. Where parents decide owning that home and maintaining that home is no longer a viable option, they move on to a rental property. I don't know how he got his daughter on the Section 8 waiting list. But they apply for the Section 8 program as a means of supplementing both either mortgage payments and income. But the overwhelming majority of them are not, quote, the big guy. It is the little person that you and I deal with on a daily basis. With respect to what you have to do. First of all, you have to own the property. Second of all, you have to obtain a rental license from the City of Philadelphia. Thirdly, you have to make appropriate application. The property that you own must be inspected and it must pass, quote, housing quality standard threshold that's established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Once you have done that, submitted all of the forms and the like, PHA provides owners 484 RESOLUTION 970558 with the opportunity to attend monthly briefing sessions for owners, and owners only, during which the program operations, particularly with respect to any regulatory changes that may have taken place prior to the application, are reviewed. The owner begins to participate in the program once that unit has been inspected by the agency and then selected by an eligible family. But, in essence, that is the long and short of it. A lot of forms. But, for the most part, it is ownership, meeting certain housing quality standards, and complying with any other applicable federal regulation regarding the program.
Well, there has been talk, I don't know how true -- who is the appraiser? How do they come up with the figure of what rent --
PHA does the survey on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, zip code by zip code, then they further break it down on a 485 RESOLUTION 970558 block-by-block basis to determine the fair market rent.
Well, what about the inspectors; how often do the inspectors go out?
The inspector's job is to inspect properties that are in the program for housing quality standards. They inspect every unit on an annual basis. And the Housing Authority, I believe, is in 100 -- or was in 100 percent compliance with respect to inspections of Section 8 properties.
Well, would it still be up to that landlord, if we have a problem in that particular house, to take care of that problem, or would it be PHA?
Thank you. CHAIRMAN COHEN: Thank you. Councilman Ortiz. 486 RESOLUTION 970558
Following up on Councilwoman Krajewski's question, do you think the number of inspectors, given the number of properties that are currently in Section 8, is sufficient?
Inspectors? Yes. I don't think that the inspector staffing ratio is a problem. Someone -- and I hesitate on that, only because I don't remember exactly how many inspectors that there are specifically, Mr. Chairman. But the criteria that I would use to offer that statement is the full compliance on the part of the Housing Authority, with the inspection of properties that are in the program. If the Housing Authority was falling short in inspecting those programs on an annual basis, then there may be some cause for concern. But, as far as I know, the Housing Authority is in 100 percent compliance with the mandate that each unit be inspected on an annual basis.
There are currently 11 inspectors. Has there always been 11 487 RESOLUTION 970558 inspectors, or did you have fewer and add during the last year or so?
I think over the course of the last three or four years, that probably represents some increase in the number of inspectors in the program.
And the requirement is only for an annual inspection, and that's the regular mandate of the federal government?
I am glad you resigned as head of PHA, because then you could be with us. Now, he knew I was going to say that. Thank you. I learned something here today, that's why I am glad you came. Four different kinds 488 RESOLUTION 970558 of Section 8 in the city. The one that PHA runs. What's the other three?
One is the Transitional Assistance Program that is operated by the city. The other is the Project-Based Assistance Program, which really is a partnership between PHA and the city. And by a partnership what I mean is, the two bodies. Usually it is the Office of Housing and Community Development and the Housing Authority, both review RFPs, proposals that are submitted, profit and nonprofit entities, to participate in the Project Based-Assistance Program. And then there is a Section 8 program that is administered by the federal government itself, by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
I thought you were going to follow up with a question that I had? 489 RESOLUTION 970558
With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, this is a pro bono appearance by me this morning.
I understand. Councilman, I want to follow up. So you currently believe that 11 inspectors is sufficient to cover the properties that are under the mandate of PHA in the Section 8 program?
Okay. I have another question for you. The issue of clusterization of people, of Section 8 tenants, is currently a debate, and I think is the focus of all of the questions that have come up. And it has been put forward as a solution to the problems, quote, unquote, problems 490 RESOLUTION 970558 that Section 8 has created in neighborhoods. I would like your opinion on clusterization of the poor. I read a quote in the Inquirer a month ago, or something like that, quite strong opinion that you had, and I would like it for the record. How do you look at that? How do you see it? Is it good public policy? And, if it isn't, why not?
I obviously don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that clustering of Section 8, or the poor, is a good idea. I think, as I said in the newspaper, I think it is stupid. I think it is a knee-jerk reaction that really does not pose a solution to any of the issues or problems that are being debated or discussed today, within or without the Section 8 program. The whole thrust on the part of the federal government is to disperse poverty, to spread it out, to not have it concentrated in specific given areas. We call that choice, for people to be able to decide to live where they want to live. All 491 RESOLUTION 970558 the evidence points to that. If you look at the public housing policy, HUD is saying to housing authorities now that if you have a public housing development that has more than 300 units in it, and the occupancy rate is less than 90 percent, you are to do an assessment to determine whether it is cheaper to maintain that as public housing, or whether you should, quote, voucher it out, give everybody a Section 8 certificate, and tear it down, and let people go where they want to go. The whole emphasis on mixed income within public housing goes against the notion of clustering. Now, I personally believe that the Mayor misspoke. And if you would allow me -- no, I am not going to do that. I am simply going to say that currently a Housing Authority can allocate up to 15 percent of its available Section 8 certificates for project-based use. Not clustering, but for project-based use. That is a standard that is set by the federal government through guidelines. 492 RESOLUTION 970558
"Project based" would be assisted subsidies that are provided for nonprofit and for-profit entities that are engaged in providing housing for low-income persons. And they apply for these dollars by way of a proposal, jointly submitted to the city Office of Housing and Community Development, and the Philadelphia Housing Authority itself. But there is a cap of percent that can be allocated. 13 Is it worth looking at whether or not 14 more of that 15 -- whether that 15 percent threshold 15 can be raised? Probably so. But, right now, 15 percent is the standard. And I am sure there is discussion all the time as to whether or not 15 percent is the adequate number. Should it be 17, 18? I couldn't tell you. But clustering, bad idea. CHAIRMAN COHEN: Councilman Kenney. CHAIRMAN KENNEY: On two issues of clustering. I seem like I say this a lot, but one of the most admirable housing developments that I 493 RESOLUTION 970558 have seen in Philadelphia for helping homeless, formerly homeless, people, who may have had mental health problems or alcohol or drug abuse problems, is Project Home at 1515 Fairmount. In those circumstances, where people seem to do better in permanent housing, when they have the support mechanism there available for them, because if you have been there -- I am sure you have been over there -- that's not transition. Project Home is not transitional; it is permanent housing.
It is permanent based. CHAIRMAN KENNEY: The opportunities to -- clustering is a bad word. But to have people together who can support each other in their special needs, through employment and other types of operations, in seems in those circumstances to be successful. Would you agree, or no?
Oh, absolutely. But you will remember when we started this discussion, or at some point during this discussion, I talked about the failure on the part of services following those families once they leave the shelter system. 494 RESOLUTION 970558 In the case of Project Home and other Project-Based Assistance Programs targeting the drug addicted or the formerly addicted and the like, those services are there, and they are on-site, and people take full advantage of them. But there is a difference between expanding on Project-Based Assistance in that regard, than in making the blanket statement relative to clustering Section 8 in only certain neighborhoods. CHAIRMAN KENNEY: And I agree. What I wanted to do was make sure the record was clear that potentially you would be supportive of expanding the project-based percentage if it went into projects that assisted people into permanent housing circumstances, where they used the support of the community in their project-based development to help each other do better?
In truth, Councilman, purely my opinion, it ought to lead to something other than government-supported housing. CHAIRMAN KENNEY: But in some circumstances people are going to be in need. People with mental health problems maybe need that 495 RESOLUTION 970558 help forever.
No question. There is not going to be any debate about that. But when you start talking about Project-Based Assistance, and you are making the kind of investment where landlords are getting more than the fair market rent, it would seem to me that there really ought to be something at the end of that rainbow, that there ought to be services in place that help people not just transition from, quote, subsidized housing, but to unsubsidized housing, through private rental or, God forbid, home ownership, where people have an opportunity to own their own homes. CHAIRMAN KENNEY: If it were up to me, all these subsidized programs would be funneled into opportunities for people to buy and pay for and own their homes. And the perfect example is the situation in Whitman Park, which was just a horrendous, difficult situation for everyone involved. But because of the home ownership aspect of that program, it is a successful, integrated neighborhood. It works well. 496 RESOLUTION 970558 The other question I have on clustering, do you view multiple properties on a particular street, 8, 10, 12, Section 8 5 properties on a particular street, to be a form of 6 clustering that's not driven by the government, but 7 driven by the investor or the landlord or the 8 property owner? 9 Is that concentrating poor people in 10 a specific area? 11
Yes, it is. 12 CHAIRMAN KENNEY: And is there any 13 limit on the number of properties on a particular 14 street? 15
No, there is not. CHAIRMAN KENNEY: And is that a form of clustering that the landlords do as investment strategies?
As an investment strategy? No doubt. But it is not mandated by your government. CHAIRMAN KENNEY: Right. But should we be looking at keeping that from happening, or should we allow the market to do what it will?
You may be running 497 RESOLUTION 970558 directly into a conflict with federal law. One of the things that I came across in preparation for today -- and I can't put my hands on it -- CHAIRMAN KENNEY: I guess the question is --
Here it is. I found it. PHA may not prohibit an owner from submitting an otherwise approvable unit because of its proximity to other assisted units. CHAIRMAN KENNEY: I guess the concern that I would have is that if clustering is bad for the government to be doing -- and I agree with you -- I am wondering whether it is equally as bad for landlords and private investors to be doing.
I think you are going to be in direct conflict with federal law in that regard. CHAIRMAN KENNEY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COHEN: Councilman Mariano, and then Councilman Nutter. And that would conclude the questioning.
Mr. White, we 498 RESOLUTION 970558 know you have to leave. I want to make this quick. Before Councilman Ortiz interrupted me to ask you about -- he likes that -- to ask you about the four different kinds of Section 8 -- I think I understand that now -- any ballpark figure altogether how many Section 8's are in the city? Or has somebody asked you that already? I was running in and out.
I was looking over my shoulder because I was trying to ask -- I had asked someone earlier how many Section 8 certificate and voucher programs are under the HUD-administered program, and they don't know.
But HUD controls the whole thing. PHA only has a little bit; am I correct in saying that?
I am going to guess that the HUD Section 8 program dwarfs the Philadelphia Housing Authority Section 8 program.
When we got into that 11 inspectors with Councilman Ortiz, that would just be the 11 PHA inspectors?
There could be 499 RESOLUTION 970558 hundreds of them at the other level that we don't know. And maybe we could ask them if they ever show up.
Again, I would like to thank you for coming. And I know it took some intestinal fortitude. Good luck in your future endeavors.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the answer to Councilman Mariano's question is, there are 8,454 Section 8 certificates in the city, there are 1,650 Section 8 vouchers, and there are 896 units of Section 8 project-based facilities in the city. They total 11,000.
Right. Those are just the PHA administered. 500 RESOLUTION 970558
Okay. I know we are in the section on clustering. I assume, Mr. White -- and I certainly know of your feelings about that particular proposed policy -- in light of those feelings, do you have any suggestions on whether any changes may need to be made to the distribution of the certificates or vouchers, or how people go about locating units, or is it really more a matter of better monitoring of the actual program, figuring out the legitimate gripes or complaints about what those problems may be, and ultimately how do we deal with kind of going back to the initial round of questioning? How do we deal with issues of tenant behavior, landlord maintenance and upkeep of the properties, in general PHA oversight?
I have to disagree with those who would suggest that what is needed is greater oversight of the operation of this program. And I realize, knowing the activism amongst the members of this Council, that that kind of goes against the grain a little bit. 501 RESOLUTION 970558 But you are talking about a program that is recognized across the country as one of the best run and administered Section 8 programs, that has not been the subject of any investigations relative to mismanagement, misappropriation of funds, or failure to meet any of the federal law or regulatory obligations.
I really think, I really think, that this is borne out of an emotional reaction from people in various neighborhoods -- I would dare say all neighborhoods, but in various neighborhoods -- throughout this city to seeing people now move into their neighborhood, who were not there before, who may not look like them. (Applause.)
Who may not have -- excuse me. Who may not be of the same economic standard as them, and people who at the same time are in need of continued support from the governmental agencies which have provided it to them and made it possible for them to move into those particular neighborhoods. 502 RESOLUTION 970558 I can't -- I can't -- you cannot overemphasize the need for the services that are provided to those families while they are in shelter, continuing to follow those families into that Section 8 program, into the public housing program, for some period of time after they come out of that shelter. You can't just cut people loose after 30 days and think that everything is okay. (Applause.)
Well, why do those services not follow those individuals? And are we now talking about some lack of coordination between PHA and the City of Philadelphia that, I assume, provides most of these services?
It is not a lack of coordination; the city just doesn't provide it. It is not a matter of coordination; it is about providing the service. The Office of Emergency Services processes the application for Section 8. 503 RESOLUTION 970558
Okay. So you are making a distinction -- I mean, a lack of coordination, that would give one the impression that there are systems in place to do certain things, and the various agencies aren't necessarily communicating about how to coordinate their activities, that's on the one hand.
Your statement seems to be that there is no program or policy for there to even be a lack of coordination about; it just doesn't exist.
That is exactly right. You would be hard-pressed to find any staff person in the Office of Emergency Services, the Philadelphia Housing Authority, or any other entity that's involved in this situation that would not decry the fact that the services that are needed to follow these families out of shelter, into some assisted housing program just do not exist, and they need to exist.
Is the 504 RESOLUTION 970558 explanation a lack of funding?
I don't know what their budget is. I am not going to say it is a lack of funding. And the reason I won't say that it is a lack of funding is because, as I indicated earlier, when the city made application as early as July of 1994 for McKinney Act funds, one of the requirements, one of the things that they put in writing to them in support of their application, was the recognition that at that time OSHA was going to begin to enrich the services provided to those families making the transition from shelter to the Section 8 program, and it didn't happen. They got the money. They received the McKinney Act funds. But the services that we had talked about, the services that --
-- didn't materialize. I don't think it is a lack of funding. What it is, is a lack of commitment. And that needs to be revisited. And I think this is the body of people to revisit that commitment. 505 RESOLUTION 970558 (Applause.)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COHEN: Thank you. Councilwoman Krajewski.
Thank you. Mr. White, following our comments about landlords, what do I or the residents do when they have a problem and they cannot get in touch with that landlord? Maybe the landlord lives out of town or whatever it may be. What do they do? Since PHA is paying them, don't they have a responsibility to the neighbors?
We do. I mean, certainly we have the responsibility to communicate with landlords relative to the problems and issues that are brought to our attention. And we do, Councilwoman. We do. We have been in situations, personally, where we have invited landlords, predominant landlords, in a certain section of this city to meet with representatives of that particular civic association, to talk through their problems, 506 RESOLUTION 970558 face to face, in the board room at 2012 Chestnut Street. And let me tell you what happened at the meeting. I think you would be interested in this. And I apologize for being so long on this. It was old home week. They weren't strangers; they grew up together. Their mothers and fathers bought their homes from these people. They rented their properties from these people. They had already been talking. "Yes, well, I talked to you about this house, and you did fix it. But now it is a problem again." It was a matter of communicating, communication on their part. But it was PHA that facilitated that meeting between that, quote, private landlord and that civic group. PHA does that. They have a list of those landlords. They can tell you who the predominant landlords are on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis participating in that program. We have invited civic representatives to attend briefings with owners, so that they can understand the issues and the concerns that 507 RESOLUTION 970558 neighbors have raised relative to this program. We have done that. The breakdown, the real breakdown, I honestly believe, consists of confusion around the different Section 8 programs -- because you can do that to PHA. But who do you call about TRAC? Who do you call about the HUD Project-Based Assistance Program? You call me when it is PHA. Well, you did. Who do you call there? You are real good at figuring that out, Councilwoman. (Applause.)
But I don't know. I don't know that you would get any objection from Manuela Costa or Cally Karris or Fred Purnell, who is now the Interim Executive Director, if you wanted to have an organized, rational discussion with the predominant landlords in your community. And not with that whole community. Because you are not going to get anything done with 300 people in a room; you know it and I do. But if there is a representative number from an executive board or an executive 508 RESOLUTION 970558 committee, certainly that meeting can be convened, and certainly that dialogue can take place. That's your call.
Absolutely. The American dream, and it just seems like it is destroyed. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COHEN: One second for Councilman Rizzo.