New HOPE VI Studies from Urban Institute-5 Cities/Projects Studied Did NOT Include Any Northwest HOPE VI Cities or Projects.

The Housing Authority of Portland [HAP] has done a very good job with the HOPE VI public housing redevelopment at New Columbia and is moving forward swiftly with their second HOPE VI development , Humboldt Gardens.

Unfortunately not all HOPE VI programs have been as well planned and executed as those two HAP projects. (For example, the project I grew up in Detroit has had a HOPE VI grant for more decade and to my knowledge reconstruction has yet to start).

The Urban Institute Metropolitan Housing & Communities Policy Center recently published a series of HOPE VI related reports/briefs that took a look impacts and issues from a national perspective. [This was likely the result of a HUD contract].

It is important to note that the reports DID NOT include HOPE VI projects in Portland (or anyplace in the NW for that matter). The report studied results for 887 families in just 5 cities and in these developments: Ida B. Wells/ Madden Park Homes in Chicago, Ill.; Easter Hill in Richmond, Calif.; Shore Park/Shore Terrace in Atlantic City, N.J.; Few Gardens in Durham, N.C.; and East Capitol Dwellings in Washington.

I have assembled HERE into one PDF document all seven reports, and an eighth report which summarizes the methodology used. This combined file is less than 1 MB in size and is 140 pages in length (bookmarks make it easy to navigate to these individual reports).

1. HOPE VI'd and On the Move.
2. Housing Choice Vouchers.
3. Moving On: Benefits and Challenges of HOPE VI for Children.
4. Poor Health: Adding Insult to Injury for HOPE VI Families.
5. Are HOPE VI Families at Greater Risk for Homelessness?
6. Relocation Is Not Enough.
7. Safety is the Most Important Thing: How HOPE VI Helped Families.
8. Estimating the Public Costs and Benefits.

Update: House Approval of HUD Appropriations Bill—Finally Yes, After 12 Hour Debate.

The House took up consideration of the HUD/Transportation bill around 8:20 A.M. Pacific Time on Tuesday July 24th. The debate on the bill, including consideration of 42 amendments, continued for another 12 hours before the bill was finally approved.

The full THOMAS information on the bill, including all amendments is here)

In addition to the two HUD related amendments discussed in yesterdays article (here) there were a number of additional HUD related amendments that were defeated or withdrawn. These included an increase in Public Housing operating subsidies by $20 million; elimination of funding for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program; an increase in Brownfields funding by $1 million; an increase in funding for Fair Housing by $5.82 million; an increase of Lead Hazard Control funding by $10 million; elimination of earmark projects in Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin, California, Alabama, and Texas; prohibition of the use of funds to implement or enforce the requirement under section 12(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937[this was a public housing community service exemption provision]; reduction in funding by $3.2 billion, by $507.67 million, and by $253.69 million; prohibition of the use of FHA funds for a housing trust fund; prohibition of the use of funds to implement Davis Bacon provisions.

HUD related amendments that were approved included an increase of HOME funding by $6.76 million; prohibition from the use of funds to implement proposed rules published on Friday, May 11, 2007, relating to FHA standards for mortgagor's investment in mortgaged property; prohibition of the use of funds to provide homeownership assistance for applicants, or to employ workers as described in 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)).